Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge review of provisional ballots, missing ballot-image pages and voter-roll maintenance
Summary
Several residents used the Jan. 14 public-comment period to press Brazos County officials for clarification and investigation into provisional ballot handling, a reported supplier database discrepancy that left ballot-image pages missing, and long-standing voter-roll maintenance issues.
Multiple residents raised election-administration concerns during the Jan. 14 Brazos County Commissioners Court public comment period, asking the court to investigate provisional ballot records, missing ballot-image pages and voter-roll maintenance.
Karen Simpson of South College Station said she requested the ballot-board summary for the November 2024 election and reviewed 46 pages of provisional-voter lists. She told the court that several precinct pages lacked signatures by presiding precinct judges and that custodian receipts from the ballot board were not present on the pages she received. “In review of list of the provisional voters that I did receive, 6 precincts or locations were unsigned by the precinct presiding judge,” Simpson said.
Cindy Wiley and other commenters described a separate, technical issue: a county cyber expert had reported more than 5,000 pages of ballot images from the 2020 general election were missing from the CASvote records database; Wiley said the county’s elections administrator was told of that discrepancy. Wiley asked whether the court had initiated an investigation or publicly acknowledged the report and said she and others have found apparent duplicates and deceased voters still listed as active on the rolls.
County counsel answered from the bench that the county had received the report and that Elections Administration and the county’s IT office were working to reproduce the numbers the cyber expert provided. The counsel told the court that staff were investigating and would have additional information for the court later.
Other speakers asked the court to add a formal agenda item for further public discussion and a question-and-answer format similar to a previously held elections forum. One commenter also raised concerns about the county’s use of countywide voting and the $750–$975 fees the county charged to fulfill certain ballot-image public-record requests.
No formal action or vote on election procedures was taken during the meeting; the court’s counsel said staff are investigating the issues raised.
