Board to revisit ROV proposal for prototype election center and camera transparency; no appropriation approved

The board on Aug. 19 did not approve a requested $125,000 budget amendment to immediately fund a prototype elections center and camera streaming setup. Instead the board voted to bring the proposal back after staff and the Registrar of Voters provide detailed specifications and evidence the prototype can be implemented in time for the coming election.

Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis presented a plan to lease a temporary facility, add tabulators, and install cameras the public could view as a transparency measure. Curtis said a modest initial appropriation would let his office demonstrate a proof‑of‑concept for quicker tabulation and public observation.

Key facts and concerns - Request and scope: Curtis requested a $125,000 appropriation to lease space, test tabulators and set up camera observation; he said 35 cameras had been offered as a donation and that vendors were being approached for tabulators and streaming hardware. Curtis characterized the project as a proof‑of‑concept, not a final system purchase. - Timing and feasibility: Supervisors and staff cautioned that implementing a secure, recorded camera feed plus the additional tabulators and a leased processing center requires technical specifications, Secretary of State review where camera placement intersects with ballot privacy rules, and vendor quotes; several board members advised that the November election calendar leaves limited time to implement and test a new configuration. - Technical issues: Public commenters and supervisors raised bandwidth and storage concerns for live streaming multiple high‑definition cameras and noted wireless streaming at scale would likely require significant wired infrastructure and storage for recorded footage.

Board action - The board did not transfer funds at the meeting. Instead, by roll call the board voted 4–1 to ask staff and the Registrar to return with a documented plan that includes: vendor quotes for cameras and tabulators, a floor plan/diagram showing camera placement and observation areas, and a letter of intent or feasibility statement for any proposed leased site. The vote to bring the item back was recorded as 4–1 (Supervisor Long opposed). The board did not authorize expenditure at this meeting.

Public comment and transparency concerns - Supporters told the board a modest, accelerated prototype would increase public confidence. Several public commenters urged the board to approve the scaled proposal immediately. Opponents and several supervisors urged caution, citing laws about where cameras may be placed, chain‑of‑custody requirements, potential volunteer reliability concerns, and the need to avoid last‑minute changes that could risk ballot processing integrity.

Next steps Staff and the ROV will return to the board with a vendor estimate, floor plan, and feasibility timetable for implementation; if the board approves at a later meeting, the ROV would seek lease authority and an appropriation then.

Ending note: The board emphasized that elections must remain secure and lawful; supervisors said they support greater transparency if the plan meets technical, legal and timing requirements.