County solicitor: judge upheld ballot-marking device screen; county remailed replacement packets after wrong-ballot mailing
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Assistant county solicitor and the registrar described a court decision that the ballot-marking-device screen design is legal and outlined how the county identified and remediated an isolated wrong-ballot mailing to about 50 voters, including remailing replacement packets and canceling originals where needed.
Assistant county solicitor Mr. Vargo told the commission that a court challenge to how candidates appear on the ballot-marking-device screen was decided by Judge Dally, who found the current screen design legal. “Judge Dally … did indicate that the way that the ballot marking devices currently … screen is currently designed is legal,” Vargo said.
Vargo and Registrar Christopher Camini described the county’s handling of an isolated Easton precinct mailing error. Camini said the office traced the issue to the first day of a 25,000-ballot mailing, identified about 50 potentially affected ballots, and implemented a remediation plan: the office attempted phone and email contact for two days, remailed replacement packets to voters who had returned originals, canceled the original ballots so they could not be counted twice, and offered alternatives for those who came to polling places. Camini summarized the outcomes: of the original mailing, 29 voters returned replacement ballots; 12 returned the original ballot but not the replacement (the original was counted); two voters surrendered their original packet and voted in person on machines; one cast a provisional ballot; and four did not return any ballot nor vote.
Camini and Vargo emphasized that the county segregates cured ballots and ballots with missing or incorrect dates and that statute prohibits pre-canvassing or opening mail-in ballots before receipt. Vargo said the county contacts voters to allow them to cure undated or misstated ballots where possible.
Commissioners asked whether machines could be reprogrammed to list cross-filed candidates differently on screens. Vargo said he did not know whether manufacturers could or would offer an alternative layout and recommended submitting questions to the vendor (ES&S) and reviewing any vendor responses at a public meeting. The commission did not order immediate machine reprogramming at the meeting.
The commission asked staff to forward vendor questions and to include this topic for the incoming commission to review if needed.