Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Election Audit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reports post‑election audit bill favorably after debate on scope and cost
Summary
A House‑sponsored bill to require post‑election audits of tabulators received a favorable committee report after proponents cited past tabulator issues and opponents criticized the proposal as statistically insignificant and incomplete; the committee adopted a friendly amendment and recorded a 9-5 favorable vote.
A post‑election audit bill sponsored in the House as House Bill 30 was reported favorably by a Senate committee, which voted 9-5 after a public hearing in which election administrators, test‑lab staff and an election watcher offered competing views about the bill's value and scope.
Representative Wood, the House sponsor, told the committee the measure would not be a recount but a narrow, statistically limited audit meant to confirm that DS200 tabulators and the paper ballots they process are functioning correctly. "The post election audit bill is not a recount," Representative Wood said, adding that the tabulators used to process paper ballots are more than 10 years old and that audits are recommended by the manufacturer.
Robert Garris, a former election manager for Lee County, testified in support and described problems found during a 2022 limited audit, saying the audit uncovered at least one instance of "transposed votes" in a hand count in one county. Garris said the bill would scale a previously limited framework to a statewide spot check of tabulators.
Opponents included Clay Parikh, who worked in voting system test labs, and Angela Shepherd, who described a county public testing episode. Parikh called the bill "not an audit" and "a partial recount" that is "statistically insignificant," arguing the sample sizes in the draft bill would be too small to provide meaningful assurance. Shepherd said she brought a copied absentee ballot to a public logic-and-accuracy test that was accepted by a tabulator during testing, and that the episode raised concerns about the devices.
The committee considered and adopted a friendly amendment that adjusted the bill's timeframe to align probate judges' responsibilities with the post‑audit timeline. Representative Wood said the fiscal note for the state was $35,000. Several senators asked whether that figure represented a one‑time statewide cost or a per‑county cost; Representative Wood and senators debated the fiscal exposure and the staffing implications for probate offices.
Senators split over the appropriate balance of assurance and cost. Senator Stutz and others said the measure would be a starting point and could justify larger audits if problems were found; other senators questioned whether the narrow sample would reassure voters or simply stir controversy.
On the committee roll call, the bill received a favorable report by a 9-5 vote. The committee also recorded favorable action on the amendment separately before taking the final vote on the bill.
