Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Winnebago County board approves $55,000 increase for mail-in ballot processing and tracking services
Summary
The Winnebago County Board voted Feb. 13, 2025, to award supplies and services for election expenses, increasing the mail-in ballot processing contract by $55,000 to add ballot-tracking features including a tear-off QR-code receipt and signature-processing support.
The Winnebago County Board approved a resolution Feb. 13, 2025, to increase funding for election supplies and services by $55,000 to expand mail-in ballot processing and add ballot-tracking features.
Operations Administrative Committee chair Ms. Hanser presented the item as a resolution to award supplies and services for election expense with an increase of $55,000 for processing mail-in ballots. The motion to approve was made by Ms. Hanser and seconded by Mr. Salgado; the board recorded unanimous yes votes from members present and adopted the resolution.
An elections staff member explained that requests for vote-by-mail ballots have increased substantially in recent elections and the vendor provides ballot printing and a new ballot-tracking service. According to the explanation in the meeting record, the new ballot will include a tear-off receipt with a QR code so voters can track their ballot through the U.S. Postal Service and then see when the county receives it. The staff member also described the county's chain-of-custody and signature-verification procedures: bipartisan precinct judges transport ballots to the county office at the close of polls; county officers secure the office; a Republican and a Democrat judge verify signatures, with a third judge engaged if they disagree; voters whose signatures do not match are notified and have up to two weeks after the election to cure their ballot.
Board members expressed differing views on mail-in voting during the discussion. Board member Mr. Booker said he was "opposed to mail in ballots" generally but would support the current measure for military, elderly and disabled voters and indicated he would vote yes on the resolution. Board member Mr. Webster voiced a similar preference for in-person voting for most voters but did not oppose the resolution. Public comment praising the county's procedures also appears in the meeting record.
The meeting transcript does not include the vendor name, the contract number, or an exact effective date for the increased spending; the $55,000 figure and the descriptions of the tracking and signature-verification procedures are recorded in the committee discussion.
