Committee hears testimony to expand and speed post‑election audits in Massachusetts

The Joint Committee on Election Laws heard bipartisan testimony supporting S.517 and H.876 aimed at strengthening Massachusetts’ post‑election audit process.

Lisa Dammit, testifying for the Brennan Center for Justice, said the measures would ‘‘provide a check on election equipment’’ and urged audits that ‘‘include every category of ballot — mailed, early voting, election day and UOCAVA’’ to avoid gaps that could leave ‘‘opportunity for undetected errors.’’

The bills would expand the state’s current audit practice in several ways: require audits every two years rather than only during presidential cycles; broaden audits to cover provisional and early ballots; require a statewide audit report be published within 30 days of the election and maintained online for at least six years; and authorize, but not require, municipalities to undertake post‑election audits using standards set by the Secretary of the Commonwealth.

Deb Chatterjee of Common Cause Massachusetts said the post‑election audit ‘‘is an invaluable piece of our election infrastructure’’ and that the bill ‘‘would expand the audit to include all ballots, including provisional ballots, early voting, and anything else covered by PD‑43’’ and move the statewide reporting timeline ‘‘so the public can see results while election outcomes are still top of mind.’’

Mark Lindeman, policy and strategy director for Verified Voting, described risk‑limiting audits as ‘‘tailored specifically to check outcomes’’ and said they can provide high assurance of the reported winner by sampling ballots and escalating the sample size when discrepancies appear. Lindeman praised the bill’s approach of establishing a stakeholder work group to pilot audit methods and report recommendations by the summer of 2027 rather than immediately mandating one specific technical method.

Nell Forgus, legislative specialist for the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts, supported the transparency measures, saying ‘‘reliable access to audit records for a reasonable period of time strengthens public confidence in the accuracy of election outcomes.’’ She reiterated that municipal audits would be authorized, not required, and would follow standards set by the Secretary.

During committee questions, Senator Rausch and other members asked whether Massachusetts lags other states and how often audits should run. Panelists said Massachusetts already audits some state contests but limits audits to presidential cycles under current law; the bills would require audits every two years and provide a pathway to consider risk‑limiting audits using a work group and pilots. Committee members asked about costs and operational burdens; witnesses said cost estimates were not specified in testimony and recommended a collaborative process so audits remain feasible for local election officials.

Witnesses described how audits can surface errors without changing election outcomes and noted escalation procedures under risk‑limiting audit protocols that can lead to additional review or a full recount if a discrepancy casts doubt on a reported result. The panel cited examples including a 2020 county hand count in Georgia that revealed an omitted set of ballots and a historical Florida local contest where a programming error affected results.

No formal committee vote occurred during the hearing. Committee staff and the panel signaled that the next steps would include consideration of the bills and the work group process described in the legislation.