Bedford town clerk Tali Keller told the Town Council on June 25 that the elections team has reviewed demonstrations of two vendors to replace the town’s aging AccuVote scanners but cannot yet recommend one.

Keller said the team — herself, moderator Henry Bayou and assistant moderators — saw VotingWorks and LHS/Dominion ImageCast demonstrations and found the products “very, very similar” but with different strengths: VotingWorks’ end‑of‑night reconciliation tool is “intriguing,” while LHS (ImageCast) offers longstanding customer service experience. Keller said both vendors have offered mock‑election tests for Bedford to use as a hands‑on comparison.

Why it matters: Bedford’s AccuVote machines are increasingly unsupported, and the state offers a rebate of $3,500 per replaced machine through June 30, 2026. Keller said the town has seven machines and that replacing them would substantially reduce acquisition cost. Councilors pressed on timing, security and whether a digital image of ballots would alter recount practice.

Keller said LHS indicated it has machines available and that VotingWorks said it could supply machines by August “in time for March” but also would work with Bedford if that schedule slipped. She said there is “essentially really no cost difference” between the products and that the state rebate would cut the town’s price roughly in half.

On technical differences, Keller explained both systems digitize ballots and store results on removable media (USB or SD card). VotingWorks offers a reconciliation workflow that displays write‑in text for adjudication, which can speed and improve accuracy at end of night; ImageCast prints write‑in listings and LHS is testing an image‑based reconciliation tool with the State Ballot Law Commission. Keller said the ImageCast reconciliation tool had not yet been fully approved statewide.

Councilors asked about security, multi‑site reconciliation and how digitization affects recounts. Keller said towns that use multiple polling locations typically gather media/cards back to a single tabulation site for counting; she said Merrimack and Manchester examples show that process is feasible but that Bedford had not pursued detailed protocols yet. On recounts, Keller said New Hampshire traditionally performs paper recounts at archives and she was not aware of a case relying solely on digital images for an official recount in the state.

Next steps: Keller recommended performing two separate mock‑election tests, one per vendor, to measure scan speed, the adjudication workflow, and end‑of‑night reconciliation. Several councilors urged urgency to preserve the state rebate, and Councilor Bill Carter suggested an August 31 decision deadline to ensure availability; Keller asked for time to arrange hands‑on tests and for the council to consider a target decision date before the state rebate expires (June 30, 2026). The council did not set a binding deadline but said it would rely on the elections team’s recommendation.

Keller said absentee and UOCAVA (overseas/military) ballots and severely damaged ballots will continue to require hand handling; she also noted some towns that have adopted the newer systems still perform parallel manual checks during pilots. Keller offered to circulate an apples‑to‑apples comparison spreadsheet and to invite councilors to mock‑election demonstrations when they are scheduled.

Asked whether the town must buy new machines or could continue with AccuVote, Keller said AccuVote parts are scarce and the machines are effectively obsolete, so replacement is the pragmatic path if the town wants to continue using tabulation equipment rather than a full hand‑count model.

Keller concluded that the elections team needs more hands‑on testing before making a recommendation and requested the council’s permission to proceed; the council granted the additional time and asked to be kept apprised of test dates and timing for a final decision.