Washington County elections office calls November 2024 a successful, secure election; staff answer community concerns about vote-by-mail and observation

Washington County elections staff told the Board of Commissioners at a work session that the November 2024 general election was conducted accurately and in accordance with state and federal law, and they outlined steps the office takes year‑round to prepare, secure and verify mail ballots.

"The November was a successful election conducted accurately and in accordance with all applicable state and federal elections laws," said Dan Forrester, Elections Division Manager. He and other elections leaders reviewed the office's ballot design and proofing process, logic‑and‑accuracy testing, voter registration updates, ballot mailing and tabulation procedures, and post‑election adjudication.

The presentation matters because members of the public and some commissioners have raised repeated concerns this cycle about the security of vote‑by‑mail, the use of tabulation machines and the degree of observer access to secure areas. Elections staff and Deputy County Counsel Jason Busch explained the county's legal constraints, described current observation practices and identified options and costs for expanding transparency.

Staff reported the office accepted and processed 301,105 returned ballots in November 2024. With the county's voter registration near 400,000 at the time, Forrester said that equated to roughly 75.27% turnout. He described the scale of the operation: 171 ballot styles for this election, a test deck of about 9,000 ballots used in logic‑and‑accuracy testing, and an intensive signature‑verification and adjudication process after ballots are received.

Forrester also described registration work: during the November cycle the office processed around 65,000 registration updates (not including nearly 7,000 inactivations), and over the full calendar year 2024 the office processed nearly 20,000 registration updates and inactivated about 21,000 records, figures he provided to the board.

On costs, Forrester said the elections office uses two headline metrics: cost per eligible voter and cost per ballot cast. He reported the cost per eligible voter for the recent election was $1.89; the cost per ballot cast was $2.51. He noted those figures fluctuate with turnout and said rising personnel and printing costs are the principal drivers of higher election expenses.

The office highlighted outreach and voter‑service initiatives. Forrester said the county added 34,832 users to its Ballot Tracks messaging service during the election and now has 58,771 total users — roughly 15% of registered voters — who receive notices when a ballot is mailed, received and accepted or if a signature is challenged. He also said the Votes electronic tool saw much higher use among UOCAVA (uniformed and overseas) voters: of about 2,700 UOCAVA voters, roughly 870 used the Votes platform to mark and return a ballot.

The elections office reported 171 voter assistance team interactions during the cycle, described bipartisan teams that assist voters with disabilities, and said it provides Spanish‑language in‑person assistance through four bilingual Spanish staff and other languages via telephone translation.

Staff credited a wide array of county partners for operational support, singling out the Washington County Sheriff's Office for security coordination and local law enforcement for traffic and on‑site support at drop sites. They also thanked facilities, ITS and communications teams for rapid response, new drop‑box installation and public information work, including an "Election Heroes" video series produced by county communications.

Deputy County Counsel Jason Busch reviewed the legal framework when community members ask whether the county may abandon vote‑by‑mail or machine tabulation. He told the board that state law and administrative requirements direct counties to use vote‑by‑mail and to implement state‑approved security plans, and he cited two specific Oregon statutes as directly on point: Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 254.470 (procedures for conducting elections by mail) and ORS 254.074 (state requirement that counties adopt security plans for elections). Busch also summarized recent litigation the county faced, saying courts have upheld the county's use of vote‑by‑mail and machine tabulation in challenges brought in federal and state court (including a multistate federal case and a county‑specific case heard in Washington County Circuit Court).

"We have clear direction from the state, which preempts meaning expressly directs or limits the county's ability to act in a certain way," Busch said, adding that statutory or legislative change — or a successful court challenge — would be required to change the vote‑by‑mail requirement.

Board members asked detailed operational questions about observation, chain‑of‑custody terminology, printer and postal coordination, and how staff handle ballots returned without a ballot inside the envelope. Forrester and Joe Nelson, Director of Assessment, Taxation, Records and Elections, explained that ballots are opened and processed in a way that intentionally separates a voter's identity from how they voted to protect ballot privacy; when a returned envelope contains no ballot it is set aside and not counted. For signature challenges and missing signatures, staff said they notify voters and allow a remedial period (three weeks in this election) to resolve the issue.

Commissioners also pressed staff about observation access to secure areas and options for additional transparency such as streaming cameras. Forrester said the county already offers an observation room with video feed so observers can see signature verification and adjudication work without impeding operations or compromising security, and that expanding observation capacity would incur costs in staff time, equipment and potentially facility upgrades.

Commissioner Snyder asked whether the written responses the office prepared to public questions (from a prior January 7 public comment period) had been published. County legal staff and the clerk confirmed an interdepartmental memo exists and agreed to add that communication to the meeting packet for public access.

No formal policy changes or votes resulted from the presentation. Staff concluded by playing a short video produced by communications and by thanking temporary and permanent elections workers. Forrester and Nelson repeatedly credited bipartisan teams, community partners and county departments for supporting the election.

The board asked staff to provide additional follow‑up information requested during the session, and the clerk agreed to post the interdepartmental memo to the meeting packet for public review.