Washington County elections officials defend vote‑by‑mail, outline turnout and security steps

Washington County elections leaders summarized the November 5, 2024, general election for the Washington County Board of Commissioners, saying the election was conducted “accurately and in accordance with all applicable state and federal elections laws” and that official results were certified to the Oregon Secretary of State and participating districts, Elections Division Manager Dan Forrester said.

The presentation laid out how the county runs a vote‑by‑mail election from candidate filing and ballot design through printing, mailing, signature verification, ballot opening and tabulation, and post‑election adjudication; it also reviewed turnout, costs and community outreach, and addressed repeated concerns about vote‑by‑mail security and observation access.

Forrester opened the presentation by describing the work flow and scale: staff proof multiple ballot styles (171 in the November general), run extensive logic‑and‑accuracy tests (roughly 9,000 test ballots in the tabulation deck for this election), and operate bipartisan teams to open, verify and adjudicate ballots. “The November 5, 2024 general election was a successful election conducted accurately and in accordance with all applicable state and federal elections laws,” Forrester said.

Why this matters: Washington County uses vote‑by‑mail for statewide compliance, and the county’s handling of ballots and access for observers has been the focus of sustained public comment. County staff described current procedures, legal constraints and possible, resource‑dependent options to expand observation without compromising security.

Key operational figures and outreach - Ballots processed: elections staff reported accepting and processing 301,105 ballots. Registered voters in the county were reported at roughly 400,000, yielding a turnout of 75.27% for November 2024. - Ballot styles: staff said the office produced 171 ballot styles for the general election (the number of styles can be far higher in primary elections because of party‑specific ballots and district combinations). - Staffing and workload: the office employed more than 150 temporary staff for the election and ran bipartisan teams at more than 70 positions in the ballot opening area. The office received 8,660 phone calls during the cycle and 903 on election day. - Cost metrics: the office reported a cost per registered voter of about $0.89 and a cost per ballot cast of $2.51; staff noted personnel and printing/paper costs as drivers of increases. - Voter services and access: county staff reported boosting Ballot Tracks (a messaging service notifying voters when ballots are mailed and received) by 34,832 users during the cycle to a total of about 58,770 users, roughly 15% of registered voters. Of approximately 27,100 UOCAVA (uniformed and overseas) voters, 870 used the VOTES platform to mark and return ballots electronically. The voter assistance team performed 171 in‑person assistance interactions; the office has four bilingual Spanish staff and access to telephone translation for other languages.

Security, law and litigation cited by county counsel Deputy County Counsel Jason Busch told the board that the county follows state statutes and state‑approved security plans for vote‑by‑mail. He cited two Oregon statutes by number—ORS 254.470 (procedures for elections by mail) and ORS 254.074 (state requirement that counties implement state‑approved security plans)—and said the county’s plan was approved by the state.

Busch also summarized litigation that has challenged vote‑by‑mail and machine tabulation in Washington County. He said a federal case (Thielman v. Secretary of State, joined by multiple counties) rejected the plaintiffs’ claim as too speculative and affirmed vote‑by‑mail and machine tabulation as permissible methods. Busch said a subsequent local case (Morrissey and Viscounta v. Washington County) was dismissed by a county circuit court judge, who reiterated that the county’s use of vote‑by‑mail and machine tabulation was permitted. “We have clear direction from the state, which preempts meaning expressly directs or limits the county’s ability to act in a certain way,” Busch said, summarizing the legal constraints staff must follow.

Observation and transparency questions Commissioners and staff discussed requests from members of the public for “meaningful observation” of secure areas and ballot processing. Forrester described current observation options, including a surveillance feed and the ability to stream work in signature verification and adjudication to observers; he warned that expanding physical access or changing the office footprint would carry staff and financial costs.

Busch and elections staff repeatedly emphasized the balance between transparency and security. “We have to be careful to balance ballot security and security of our equipment and not do anything that would interfere with the orderly operation of our office,” Forrester said. Commissioners asked staff to provide more public documentation of answers that had been given to questions raised earlier; the board directed that a written interdepartmental memo referenced in the discussion be posted to the meeting packet.

Voter registration and “chain of custody” topics Staff described year‑round work to keep voter rolls current, including using updates from voters, state partners, ERIC and mortality lists. Forrester noted the office processed large volumes of registration updates during 2024 (staff cited nearly 120,000 updates for the calendar year and more than 21,000 inactivations). On the question of whether the office can verify citizenship when a registrant incorrectly marks a field, staff said Oregon is an attestation state and elections offices do not have a database that independently verifies a paper registrant’s citizenship status.

Several commissioners raised questions about the printing, mailing and delivery chain. Forrester described coordination with a printing vendor and a mailing bureau, and said partners generally print to fulfill the order; the office monitors delivery through voter feedback and postal coordination. Staff described intentional processes that separate ballot envelopes from voted ballots during opening to protect voter privacy and explained that if an envelope arrives with no ballot or with a ballot from a different election it will be set aside and not counted.

Next steps and board directions The board asked staff to add the elections office memo referenced in the discussion to the public packet. Commissioners also asked staff to examine low‑cost transparency enhancements (for example, expanded live camera streaming of secure areas) and to return with cost estimates and potential impacts on staff time and security. No formal action or vote was taken during the work session on these matters.

Quotes in this report come from Washington County elections officials during the work session: Marnie Kyle, assistant county administrator; Dan Forrester, elections division manager; Jason Busch, deputy county counsel assigned to elections; and Joe Nelson, director of assessment, taxation and elections.