Washington County canvass updates precinct totals, flags duplicate numbers and procedural incidents

The Washington County Board of Canvassers on April 8 reviewed and certified precinct-level returns for the April election, made a handful of vote corrections, and recorded several procedural incidents that county election staff said they would audit or investigate further.

Board members focused first on final vote tallies for statewide races and a county referendum. Elections staff reported totals for the county’s precincts and central counts and told the canvassers they had added a small number of votes after verifying documentation. “Again, we are meeting for the Washington County Board of Canvas for the April,” the elections clerk said at the start of the session.

The clerk told the board about specific tally corrections. In City of West Bend wards grouped as District 8, staff added one vote to Jill Underly’s total for state superintendent and one vote to Susan Crawford in a Supreme Court race after reviewing a valid voter receipt and ballot. Staff also recorded a separate +1 adjustment for Underly in the Town of Hartford after canvass staff reconciled a ballot the voter presented with a valid receipt.

Why it matters: canvass meetings formally reconcile ballots, precinct records and machine tapes before results are certified. Small administrative corrections are routine, but the meeting also documented procedural anomalies that could affect trust in results or require follow-up.

Elections staff logged multiple categories of issues. The most common: mismatches between poll books, machine tapes and physical ballot counts, often caused by duplicate or skipped voter numbers. One precinct’s duplicate-count issue appeared as 32 duplicate ballots on the machine but 31 documented on the inspector’s statement; staff said the precinct likely failed to record one duplicate in its poll book. “They waited too long…they had 32 actual duplicates, and 31 was what they documented,” the clerk said when describing the discrepancy.

Staff also flagged other operational problems: a precinct that ran out of ballots and later restarted a voting machine (the clerk said the machine was swapped and restarted with 13,62 ballots already processed), multiple rejected absentee envelopes missing voter or witness signatures, and at least one instance where an absentee voter reportedly received the wrong ballot style (the clerk described an absentee ballot issued in the wrong color/style and documented as a clerk error). In some precincts staff separated “duplicate” ballots and noted them in the bag for later review.

The board discussed an instance where a precinct’s electronic poll book (referred to in the meeting as the “Badger book”) produced fewer reconciliation issues than paper books but still required staff attention when voter numbers were skipped or duplicated. Staff explained that while the electronic poll books synchronize across stations, paper pullbooks do not, so clerks must take different steps to reconcile totals.

The canvassers also considered reports of apparent electioneering or off-site solicitation near a polling location: staff said a person was collecting signatures and offering compensation information to voters outside a polling place; the clerk said staff contacted law enforcement but the incident was not fully documented in the precinct paperwork and would be followed up. The clerk characterized the event as concerning and said it was not a widespread problem across the county.

Board directions and follow-up: canvass staff proposed — and the board accepted as routine canvass business — to audit or further investigate several discrepant precincts before final certification actions (the board did not defer certification of countywide results because staff said the discrepancies were traceable). Staff told the board they would (a) audit the precinct with the documented duplicate vs. tally mismatch, (b) retain duplicate and separated ballots for the county audit, and (c) follow up on provisional ballots and rejected absentee envelopes where signatures or witness information were missing. “We can choose to audit that one if you'd like when we audit it,” the clerk told the board when discussing the duplicate-count precinct.

Votes at a glance: the canvass recorded administrative corrections, not formal policy votes. Documented tally corrections included: - Town of Hartford: +1 added to Jill Underly (state superintendent contest) after a voter presented documentation; recorded by elections staff. - City of West Bend (Wards 20–26 grouping): +1 added to Underly and +1 added to Susan Crawford in the Supreme Court contest after staff verified a valid receipt and ballot.

Staff noted dozens of precinct-level totals for statewide races and the county referendum during the meeting; those totals were entered into the county’s canvass records and are available in the county’s official canvass report.

What’s next: elections staff will audit selected precincts and document findings before the county proceeds to any further certifications tied to those precincts. The board kept separated ballots and the inspector statements with flagged issues for the audit. Staff said they would also follow up with clerks where training or procedural clarifications (for example, handling of replaced machines, ballot-style verification, and logging duplicate voter numbers) are needed.

The canvass session closed after staff and board members verified the day’s corrections and noted outstanding audit items. The county’s updated precinct totals and the audit schedule will be reflected in the official canvass minutes and the county’s certified returns if follow-up work does not change the countywide totals.