Elections administrator answers county questions about 2020 cast-vote records; commissioners approve Hart Intercivic upgrade amid open-records dispute

Brazos County’s elections administrator addressed the court’s questions about cast-vote records for the November 2020 general election and explained why the records the court was shown do not indicate missing ballots, while the court separately approved an election-system upgrade from Hart Intercivic.

Trudy Hancock, the county’s elections administrator, said the county upgraded from an all-electronic voting system to a hybrid paper-based system in August 2021. She told the court that archived computer files Hart Intercivic returned to the county were created on systems that sometimes contained an incorrect computer date and that an incorrect run date printed on a CVR report was the result of the vendor’s computer system date, not missing data.

Hancock explained how cast-vote records (CVRs) reflect the physical page processed by the scanner and how write-in handling appears in the CVR versus the certified canvass. She said write-in entries appear in the CVR as the voter action but are reviewed and resolved by the tally team; rejected write-ins (for example, non-certified fictional names) are rejected during tally and reconciled in the official canvass, which can cause apparent differences between the CVR and the canvass totals. Hancock walked the court through sample CVR pages, explained how multi-sheet absentee ballots generate separate CVR entries per sheet, and said the county’s internal reconciliations on election night matched the final totals the court has on record (she cited totals including 85,598 ballots counted: 6,727 by mail, 65,805 early voting and 13,066 election-day ballots).

Public commenters earlier in the meeting had raised concerns about “missing pages” and about fees for cast-vote records; one commenter asked why the county charged substantial fees to view CVR or ballot images and another said he had submitted a 50-page report raising election-integrity questions. Hancock said those specific concerns were not presented to her office before they were presented to the court and that she and staff spent roughly 11–12 hours preparing the documentation and presentation for the court to respond to the report.

The commissioners then considered item 14, a purchase selection for an equipment upgrade and supplies from Hart Intercivic in the amount of $25,690.04. The purchase authorization included a vendor quotation that, at the request of commissioners, specified up to eight days of on-site service and identified travel time and billing rules; commissioners discussed the change in language after tabling the item at a prior meeting to request clarification. The court approved the Hart Intercivic upgrade; the vote was recorded with one commissioner opposed.

Members of the court also discussed vendor confidentiality. Staff explained Hart labeled portions of the contract confidential and that under the county’s process an open-records request would be sent to the Texas Attorney General for a final determination before the county releases materials labeled confidential by the vendor.

Hancock reiterated voters’ ballots are auditable on paper under the county’s hybrid system and that the scanner-based CVR workflow is a separate step in the audit chain, including manual review of rejected write-ins. She said the county maintains the audit steps required to reconcile machine records to paper ballots and that her office responded publicly to the court’s questions in the meeting.

Ending: The court approved the Hart Intercivic upgrade quote and received a technical explanation of CVR handling and absentee ballot sheet processing; Hancock urged the public that the hybrid paper-based system provides an auditable paper trail.