Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections Ballot Security topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate adopts ballot security measure over cost and access objections from some members
Summary
Lawmakers approved a bill requiring secure ballot paper features after debate about per-ballot cost and accessibility risks; opponents warned of high costs and potential machine-read problems, while supporters called the technology necessary to protect ballots.
Get email alerts on the Elections Ballot Security topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Senate voted to advance a bill that would introduce enhanced security features for election ballots. During floor debate, senators raised concerns about cost, ballot readability and voter privacy.
Opponents cited a vendor's estimate presented during debate: Authentix (identified during floor remarks) quoted an estimated cost of $2.75 per ballot in a referenced RFP. Senator Tom (last name given in transcript as objecting) warned that at the 2024 turnout level the additional per-ballot cost could total millions: "If you estimated 3,400,000 ballots cast in '24 that amounts to over $10,000,000."
Other objections included potential incompatibility with existing county tabulation equipment because features such as holographic foil could be reflective and cause scanning problems; another raised the risk that barcodes or QR codes could create a route to compromising ballot secrecy by making ballots individually identifiable.
Senator Wendy Rogers and other supporters described the floor amendment as technical and said the change included conforming edits; Senator Mark Finchem and others argued for the security benefits. Rogers' floor amendment was adopted and the bill was reported with a "do pass" recommendation. The chamber then approved it on the floor and transmitted it to the House.
Ending: The measure passed despite repeated floor warnings about cost and operational impacts on counties. The transcript records members asking for further information; opponents urged a no vote on cost and secrecy grounds.
