Legislative auditors: Ford County ballot counts reconciled but machine testing missed statutory windows

Legislative Post Audit reported that Ford County’s ballots for the 2024 general election reconciled with the number of voters who checked in, but auditors identified multiple procedural issues with provisional ballots and with the timing and scope of tabulation‑machine testing.

"We found that the number of votes cast matched the number of people who checked in to vote," Sam Dads, a senior auditor with Legislative Post Audit, told the committee. He also said two provisional voters did not sign the provisional poll book and that auditors found a voted provisional ballot "stuck in one of the bins inside the tabulation machine" that had not been sealed as required by state law.

The audit reviewed two limited topics requested by the committee: Ford County’s ballot reconciliation process and its tabulation‑machine testing for the 2024 general election. Auditors said they were able to reconcile ballots cast to voter check‑ins despite the provisional‑ballot signing and sealing issues, and they concluded the one unsealed ballot was likely counted; they did not do work to re‑test vote totals.

On tabulator testing, Legislative Post Audit told the committee that Ford County ran three separate tests that included pre‑audited test ballots and checks for overvote rejection. But the public pre‑election test required by statute — a public test within five days before the election — included only one of Ford County’s seven tabulation machines. The report says Ford County later completed comprehensive pre‑ and post‑election tests that covered all machines but did those tests outside the statutory windows: roughly one month before election day instead of within five days before the election, and nine business days after canvas instead of within five business days.

"We interpret state law to mean that all tabulation machines should be publicly tested within this 5 day window," Dads said. Officials from the Kansas Secretary of State’s office told auditors they agree all machines should be tested before use, but they disagreed about whether every machine must be part of the specific public test that falls within five days of the election.

Ford County’s election official, identified in the hearing only as the Ford County clerk, told the committee the county tests all of its equipment but that logistics make the five‑day public test window impractical. "There is no way I can test all of my equipment 5 days before election," the clerk said. She said early voting that can begin up to 20 days before an election, and equipment repair and loaner timelines, require testing earlier so the county knows machines are working before early voting begins. She said machines are sealed after testing and moved to voting sites the day before the election.

Auditors also identified one unresolved error in the comprehensive post‑election test: one of Ford County’s seven tabulation machines ran three more test ballots than expected during the post‑election test. Auditors reviewed the machine’s test ballots and determined the machine had the correct number of test ballots recorded, but they said they could not determine why three additional ballots were run and that the county election officer reported she did not know either.

The report includes two legislative recommendations: clarifying the time frame for the public tabulation‑machine test and strengthening guidance on securing test ballots. Committee members urged relevant committees to review the audit findings and consider statutory changes. "I think we should all encourage our relevant committees to look at the results of this and see if we need some statute changes," the committee chair said.

The committee approved the meeting’s consent calendar, which included accepting the Ford County limited‑scope performance audits, by voice approval during the session.

The audit and the county clerk’s explanation left committee members divided on whether the statutory testing windows are workable for smaller or rural counties and whether the statute or county practices should change. Auditor Dads noted a related statutory clarification recommendation around how post‑election audits select precincts (the law may allow auditing a precinct with very few ballots), and the committee highlighted that as an item for legislative review.

The audit documents and the committee’s discussion are available in the Legislative Post Audit materials for this meeting; staff stood for questions after the presentation.