Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Collin County OKs vendor contract to redact ballot images; staff estimate $324,000 to do work manually
Summary
The Commissioners Court approved a contract to use a third‑party redaction tool for public release of ballot images and heard staff estimates showing a manual redaction effort would cost roughly $324,000 and take more than six months for the 2024 general election files.
Collin County Commissioners Court on Thursday approved use of a commercial redaction tool and related contract to prepare ballot images for public release, after county elections staff said the alternative—manual redaction—would be time‑consuming and costly.
Collin County Elections Administrator Caleb Breaux told the court the county sought guidance after a Texas Attorney General opinion advised redacting ballot images before posting them online. Breaux said the county solicited feedback from neighboring counties and a vendor named Seveira (used by Denton and Tarrant counties) that provides an automated redaction tool and a hosted service. “Seveira’s in‑house redaction tool … would be handed off to us in about 2 months after we send these files up,” Breaux said.
Why it matters: The vendor tool would let the county remove identifying information from ballot images more quickly than doing the work by hand; Breaux provided a staff estimate showing manual redaction was a heavy lift. “For the 2024 general election, we have 520,196 records that need to be redacted,” he said, and that manual processing would require about 21,675 staff hours and an estimated cost of $324,000. For the 2024 primary (37,685 records), he estimated about 5,737 hours and $84,000.
Court action and cost details: The court moved and approved the contract and associated procurement by voice vote; the judge announced the motion carried 5‑0. Court members asked whether Seveira’s hosting service (which would allow the public to download images directly from a vendor site) was included; Breaux said hosting is an additional service and not included in the redaction contract budget but that he had included hosting in his budget for future consideration.
What court members asked: Commissioners pressed staff on alternatives and safeguards. A commissioner asked if the county could instead provide mock files for testing; Breaux said the vendor would accept a sample set of about 1,000 mock ballots so the county would not need to send live election files for the trial. A separate line of questioning sought the vendor’s pricing for hosting; Breaux said he would confirm whether hosting fees were included and circle back to the court.
Discussion versus decision: The formal action approved by the court was to proceed with the vendor contract and procurement as presented; the court did not adopt any separate policy changes in the discussion. The court’s approval was recorded by voice vote as “Motion carries 5 to 0.”
Next steps: Breaux said the vendor would provide the cloud‑hosted redaction system to the county roughly two months after the county transmits sample files for configuration; Breaux also said Seveira’s staff would not access ballots except to troubleshoot issues with the tool.
Ending: Court members did not request further delay and the procurement will move forward; the judge closed discussion and the meeting proceeded to other agenda items.
