Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pre Certification Report topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DeKalb County board reviews pre‑certification report, finds about two dozen minor discrepancies
Summary
The DeKalb County Board of Registration and Elections met in a special session to review a state‑required pre‑certification report comparing ballots cast with unique voter IDs; staff said about two dozen minor discrepancies will be reconciled during canvassing and no action was required at the meeting.
The DeKalb County Board of Registration and Elections met in a special called session Oct. 26 to review a state‑required pre‑certification report and heard that about two dozen minor discrepancies between ballots cast and voter ID numbers will be reconciled before the county’s scheduled certification meeting next week.
Director Smith, executive director of the DeKalb County Board of Registration and Elections, told the board the review is required by the state election board rule "180 three‑one‑twelve, dash 0.12." "We are required to present the pre‑certification report and compare the total numbers of ballots cast to the total number of unique voter ID numbers," Director Smith said. She told members the discrepancies are small and will be reconciled during canvassing activities this week and again before certification.
The report and subsequent board discussion also addressed turnout and reconciliation procedures. "We had approximately 6% voter turnout and 4% was election day," Director Smith said, noting early‑voting reconciliation is performed hourly while Election Day reconciliation happens after polling places close. Anthony Lewis, a board member, said turnout was low but higher than he expected. "Election day turned out for me," Lewis said.
Nancy Jester, a board member, asked about the ability to write in candidates during the primary. Director Smith confirmed that write‑ins are not allowed in this primary: "So, yeah, so no write ins during the primary." Susan Motter, a board member, and other members asked questions about why Election Day figures more frequently show minor mismatches; staff explained that the single‑day, post‑tally process on Election Day makes on‑the‑spot reconciliation more difficult than during early voting.
No formal action was required at the meeting; the board approved the meeting agenda at the outset and later adjourned by unanimous voice votes. The board scheduled a certification meeting next week to receive final, fully audited numbers and to take any required official action at that time.
The meeting was brief and procedural: staff presented the pre‑certification report, answered members’ questions about reconciliation and turnout, and confirmed that canvassing will address the listed discrepancies before certification.
