Carver County reviews absentee ballot process after vendor reporting error and strained staff workload

Carver County election officials summarized changes in absentee voting, a vendor programming error that affected precinct reporting, and staffing strains at a public work session where residents pressed for tighter chain-of-custody and clearer party-balance procedures.

The county’s election administrator, Kendra (Elections Administrator), told the board that turnout in recent general elections remains high and that absentee voting methods have shifted since 2018, in part because of changes to state law enabling “direct voting” — voters depositing absentee ballots directly into tabulators during an extended early period. "When we have a successful election in Carver County, it's not a Carver County election office success. It's a Carver County success," Kendra said, describing the county's testing and post‑election review processes.

The board heard that Election Day ballots totaled about 69,565 in the most recent general election and that ballots deposited into tabulators during the early/absentee period rose substantially (the presentation noted 15,351 for the most recent contest). County staff said the absentee-ballot board handled much larger volumes in 2020 because of COVID and has since seen those processing patterns change. Kendra and Dave Frishman (Director of Property & Finance) emphasized that statutory changes expanding the early direct‑voting window to 18 days shifted work away from Election Day but increased weekday and weekend processing at the county office.

Frishman told the board that election staff worked long stretches in 2024—"10 to 12 hours a day for 19 straight days" for multiple staff and temporaries—and that the legislature’s added days (including a Sunday) and extended deadlines contributed to that workload. He said county plans for 2026 include expanding physical space for phase‑2 processing and adding more experienced election judges from party lists to reduce bottlenecks.

Officials also described a programming error by the voting vendor ES&S (referred to in the meeting as “ES and S”) that allowed precinct reporting at the state level when only absentee counts were present for some precincts. Kendra said the vendor and state were informed; she quoted the county’s experience: "we were lucky that we reported as late as we did because the problem was there." The vendor committed to fixing the reporting logic and adding pretest capabilities so counties can confirm precinct reporting requires both absentee and polling‑place totals.

Public commenters raised separate but related issues. David Meissner (Chaska Ward 4, IT background) urged numbered, serialized seals and chain‑of‑custody logs for ballot boxes and envelopes, saying serialized seals are “essential to ensuring the security of protected ballots.” Patricia Williamson (chair, Carver County Republicans) and other speakers pressed the board to follow the statutory party‑balance requirements for absentee ballot boards and to share absentee‑board rosters sooner so parties can verify representation.

Kendra explained procedural protections for absentee voting: applicants are verified with identifying information that is entered into the statewide system before a ballot is issued; returned ballots carry identifying marks and a unique bar code; signature verification and ballot duplication are legally constrained tasks that must be handled by election judges when required. She also described why her office has not enabled cast‑vote‑record images: recent statutory changes limit the public availability of such images and randomization rules can yield incomplete datasets that could be misinterpreted.

Board members asked county attorneys to review statutes identified by speakers (including Minn. Stat. §§ 203B.121; 204.19; 204B.22; 204.21 and related language) and to follow up on procedural items. The board recorded no formal legislative action at the session; instead staff were directed to pursue technical fixes with the vendor, plan added space and public‑viewing for phase‑2 work, and continue recruiting election judges from party lists.

The meeting closed with residents and commissioners agreeing to continued review: officials pledged to check seal and chain‑of‑custody procedures, double‑check legal interpretations about party lists and absentee‑board composition, and provide clearer, earlier notice of who serves on absentee ballot boards so party organizers can help fill gaps ahead of 2026.