Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Election Audit Hand Count topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee debates hand-count sample for post-election audits; amendment adopted and bill advanced
Summary
Committee members split over requiring hand counts as part of post-election audits. Some senators argued for a fixed sample (250 or 100 ballots) for reassurance; others cited studies showing hand-count inaccuracy and cautioned against micromanaging counties. The committee adopted an amendment and advanced the bill 6-0.
Senators debated whether to require hand-count sampling as part of post-election audits during a committee hearing that produced an amendment and a favorable committee vote.
Senator Castaneda argued for adding a small manual hand-count — he suggested 250 ballots — to provide public reassurance and spot-check machine accuracy. "Even if it's something as small as 250 ballots, that I think would help a lot of people," he said.
Other members raised concerns. Senator Brownberger cited research he said the Brennan Center and other organizations had compiled finding human hand-counts can produce inaccuracies because counters become fatigued. "Hand counting is only going to lead to less trust in our system," he said, recommending against a mandatory hand-count requirement.
Several senators sought a compromise: allow counties discretion in how much manual checking they perform or set a smaller sample (for example, 100 ballots). Senator Wallin suggested keeping hand counting as part of audit practice but leaving the size at local discretion to avoid micromanaging county processes.
The committee adopted the amendment that included the audit language (recorded in the clerk's roll) and later voted the bill out of committee 6-0. Committee members discussed operational concerns for small counties and the tradeoff between reassurance and added burdens on election staff.
