Georgia committee debates bill to require hand-marked paper ballots and ballot-on-demand printers

A Senate committee heard extended debate and public comment on a proposal that would require hand-marked paper ballots statewide and shift vote tabulation to optical scanners fed by ballot-on-demand printers.

Senator Barnes, the bill's author, told the committee that SB 214 (LC 473679S) would “require that all votes are cast on a hand marked paper ballot, and that that paper ballot is then optically scanned and tabulated.” He said the measure would standardize optical-scan tabulation, authorize pilot programs by the Secretary of State, and keep an electronic option for voters who need accommodations.

The bill, as discussed, has three principal elements: make hand-marked paper ballots the standard in-person voting method; require ballot-on-demand printing so each voter receives a ballot tailored to their ballot style; and use optical scanners to tabulate votes and produce an image record for post‑election review. Barnes said the state would provide a uniform optical scanning and ballot-on-demand printing system, though the committee did not have a fiscal note on the plan at the hearing.

Why it matters: supporters said the change would make votes auditable and boost voter confidence by producing a physical ballot voters can inspect. Opponents and some election officials warned the measure could impose large upfront costs, operational burdens and accessibility challenges if not planned and funded.

Supporters at the hearing included party officials and voting‑systems critics who argued for a simpler, auditable record. Brad Carver, representing the Georgia Republican Party and chair of its Sixth Congressional District, called paper ballots “an authoritative physical record” and recommended Georgia adopt hand‑marked ballots used by many democracies. Marcy McCarthy, chair of the DeKalb GOP, said SB 214 “ensures our systems are truly transparent, secure, and auditable.”

Several local election officials and professional groups urged caution and recommended more study. Joseph Kirk, elections supervisor for Bartow County and president‑elect of the Georgia Association of Voter Registration and Election Officials (GAVRIO), said a print‑on‑demand/optical‑scan approach “is a viable option,” but emphasized that a change of this magnitude would require time for procurement, training and testing.

Cost and procurement concerns surfaced repeatedly. Senator Jackson and other committee members asked for a fiscal note; an exchange at the hearing confirmed there was no fiscal note available at that time. Committee members and witnesses cited a range of cost estimates presented in committee: Barnes said ballot‑on‑demand printers have been estimated “as low as a thousand to upwards of $7,000 per unit.” Public commenters pointed to higher figures: one witness cited examples in other jurisdictions where higher‑end printers cost roughly $7,000 and lower‑end units failed, while another warned of $22,000 printers and a multi‑million‑dollar statewide tabulation upgrade. The committee did not adopt any funding plan or appropriation at the hearing.

Accessibility and accommodations were a central point of discussion. The bill text discussed maintaining at least one electronic ballot marker at each polling place “that is accessible to individuals with disabilities.” Senator Jackson and others pressed for clarity on how voters with vision or other impairments would be served, whether braille or audio options were required, and how the law would avoid creating a two‑tiered system where voters with disabilities had different voting experiences.

Chain of custody, preprinted versus print‑on‑demand ballots, and operational logistics were debated. Proponents argued print‑on‑demand reduces stray and excess preprinted ballots and tightens chain of custody; critics said print‑on‑demand increases operational risk if printers fail, especially in rural precincts with long travel times for back‑up support.

Public comment was divided. Supporters included election‑integrity groups and a number of county residents and poll workers who said hand‑marked ballots are more auditable and easier for voters to verify. Opponents — including community groups and some poll workers — said Georgia’s current system has multiple safeguards and warned of fiscal and access impacts if procurement, certification and training are not fully developed.

No formal action was taken on SB 214 at the hearing. Multiple senators asked bill sponsors and staff to refine language on accommodations, penalties for ballot tampering, procurement timing and chain‑of‑custody protections. Committee leaders said they intended to continue work and invited stakeholders to submit suggested amendments.

The committee scheduled follow‑up work and public input; no vote or final decision was recorded at the session.