Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Chain Of Custody topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission asks counties for ballot chain-of-custody records and urges bipartisan task force to fix election rules
Summary
After extended public comment about missing chain-of-custody records and audit practices, the Elections Commission voted to request counties’ chain-of-custody documentation and voted to recommend that the legislature create a bipartisan task force to address election-rule conflicts.
Following extensive public testimony raising chain-of-custody, signature-verification and audit concerns, the Elections Commission voted to request county-level chain-of-custody documentation and recommended that the Legislature establish a bipartisan task force to consider reforms.
Why it matters: The request aims to gather the forms and records that document how ballots moved from drop boxes and postal collection to county custody and from counties to the state counting center. Commission members and public witnesses said those forms are required under administrative rules (HAR 3-177-453) and are the primary record for reconciling counted ballots with physically collected ballots.
Public testimony was strongly critical and specific. Testifier Nolan Chang said counties did not follow chain-of-custody rules and listed several administrative rules he said were violated, including requirements for sealed containers and records of seals. Jennifer Hunt and other observers said they filed records requests and were told counties either had no complete documentation or were not releasing it. Commissioner Cushni emphasized the purpose of chain of custody: "The purpose of chain of custody is to make sure that ballots are not either being added or subtracted illegally through the process." He and other commissioners said they have not seen consistent reconciliations comparing the number of ballots collected to the number counted.
Formal actions: The commission first considered a motion to open a formal investigation into ballot chain-of-custody matters; that motion failed. Later, the commission approved a narrower, procedural motion directing staff to request the chain-of-custody documentation the counties had completed under HAR 3-177-453 (collections from postal service and drop boxes and transfers from counties to the state). Roll call on the records-request motion returned a majority in favor; Commissioner Osterkamp recorded the lone no vote in that roll call. The commission also voted to recommend to the Legislature the formation of a bipartisan task force to examine and resolve election-law and rule conflicts identified by commissioners and members of the public.
How the records request and task-force recommendation read: commissioners asked for (1) county chain-of-custody forms for drop-box and USPS collections as prescribed by HAR 3-177-453 and (2) chain-of-custody records documenting transfers from county custody to the state counting center. The task-force recommendation asks the Legislature to convene a bipartisan group of legislative staff and commission members to draft or reconcile statutory and administrative fixes.
What’s next: The commission will await the counties’ submissions. Several commissioners urged that the requested documents be submitted promptly and that staff confirm receipt and circulation to commissioners. Commissioners also discussed taking legislative priorities — including chain of custody, observer access to signature verification, uniform forms and audit procedures that rely on paper ballots rather than electronic ballot images — to the new legislative session.
Ending: The commission’s vote to request county chain-of-custody records and to recommend a legislative bipartisan task force were the meeting’s main operational outcomes. Commissioners and members of the public said they plan to follow up if records are not produced.
