Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Election Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Debate over releasing cast vote records (CVRs) resurfaces; Secretary of State and counties voice privacy, cost concerns
Summary
Senate Bill 104 would provide grants to counties to produce and publish cast vote records and ballot images; proponents said CVRs are essential for auditing while the Secretary of State and some county officials warned about privacy, cost and misuse risks.
Senator Tom Pischke presented Senate Bill 104, proposing one‑time funding (roughly $516,000) for grants to assist county auditors in deploying election‑management software that produces cast vote records (CVRs) and ballot images following primary and general elections. Supporters said CVRs are the accepted audit trail and promote public confidence; proponents urged the state to help counties purchase the hardened laptops and software needed to decrypt and publish CVRs and ballot images.
Minnehaha County Auditor Leah Anderson, Jessica Paloma and other county election officials testified in favor, saying CVRs with ballot images are a complete election record used in post‑election audits and routine testing; Anderson said Minnehaha turned on ballot images during elections and used the tools internally for audits. Proponents argued many other states publish CVRs and ballot images for transparency and that the release aids independent audits and troubleshooting (for example, detecting calibration issues or pen‑color readability problems).
Opponents included county auditors and the Secretary of State's Office. Hughes County Auditor Thomas Oliver and Secretary of State election director Rachel Solik warned that published CVRs and images can—especially in small precincts or unique voting scenarios—risk voter privacy and may allow observers to infer how individual voters cast ballots. Solik also questioned the appropriation as ongoing cost disguised as one‑time funding, warned the state's HAVA funds are already committed to core election operations and staff, and cited other states' experiences where publication raised security and privacy issues. BFM also opposed the appropriation on the basis that it creates ongoing costs and uncertain county adoption.
Committee members asked whether CVR and image files identify voters, how counties obtain the software, and what grant/admin costs would be; proponents said the election equipment vendor and standards testing demonstrate CVRs do not identify voters when managed correctly, and that only counties with the hardened election‑management laptop can decrypt and view the CVRs. The committee deferred final action to allow further review of costs, privacy mitigations and federal funding options.
