Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Election Adjudication Workflow topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Elections staff propose written adjudication policy, two-database workflow and staffing changes to speed up election-night counts
Summary
Summit County elections staff outlined a plan to decentralize some ballot-adjudication tasks to IT staff under board-approved written guidelines, create two databases for unofficial reporting, remake certain UOCAVA ballots on paper, and expand upload capacity to reduce bottlenecks on election night.
Summit County elections staff presented a series of proposed changes to ballot adjudication and election-night workflows designed to reduce bottlenecks, shorten recount and audit workload and speed unofficial results reporting.
Staff proposed three main changes: (1) a written adjudication policy, modeled on Cuyahoga County’s manual, that would give staff a board-approved “recipe” for routine adjudication decisions; (2) delegating day-to-day adjudication tasks to IT and absentee staff teams (including bipartisan reviewers) under that written policy while reserving high-stakes voter-intent questions for the board; and (3) using two databases during the pre-certification period — an “unofficial canvas” database with full, white-glove adjudication, and a “last call” database to collect late or Monday/Tuesday batches that would be merged into the unofficial count later.
“We would like to execute the adjudication from the IT department,” elections staff said, describing a model where IT-based teams — including partisan reviewers — would review overvotes, undervotes and other routine adjudication items to speed processing while following board direction written into policy. Staff said such a policy would standardize decisions, reduce the workload on the director and deputy director and provide a clear escalation path for unusual cases.
Staff also recommended returning to a physical paper “remake” of certain UOCAVA (Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act) ballots rather than relying solely on scanned or mixed-format images. Staff said remaking those ballots once, on a precinct-by-precinct sequence, avoids repeated reprocessing during recounts and audits and makes the audit sampling process more reliable.
To reduce upload delays, staff discussed increasing the number of image-upload workstations, noting that Clear Ballot’s current guidance supported more simultaneous upload stations than currently deployed. Testing cited by staff suggested image uploads added roughly 30–60 seconds per USB stick; staff argued that with more stations the office could upload images on election night rather than delaying image uploads until after the unofficial results deadline.
Other operational proposals included daily sequencing of walk-in and early-vote folders by precinct (rather than by ballot can) to make finding specific ballots easier during certification and recounts, and keeping a small in-house team available on election day (rather than sending every troubleshooting team into the field) to support uploads and adjudication.
Board members asked for written guidance and clear escalation rules before decentralizing adjudication. Several members said they supported a written standard similar to Cuyahoga’s, and some stressed that voter-intent determinations directed by the Secretary of State should still come to the board.
Staff said they would return with a draft adjudication manual — an index, glossary and scenario-based guidance — and a proposal that outlines who would be authorized to adjudicate under the policy (e.g., IT staff, full-time absentee staff, and designated part-timers). Staff also proposed pilot changes in the next election cycle, with timing contingent on finalizing the policy and staffing plan.
No formal board action was taken at the meeting; board members asked staff to produce a draft policy and to provide details about staffing, workstation capacity and the logistics of merging databases for the next meeting.
