County officials tell committee automated audits could match hand counts with far less labor

County election officials and an audit vendor told the committee that automated post‑election audit tools can yield the same accuracy as hand counts while substantially reducing the labor, time and cost of audits.

Eileen Keane (Monmouth County Board of Elections) explained the stress on local election staff during post‑election periods and outlined the current statutory hand‑count process. She said the existing statute requires hand counting and that hand counts for selected batches require multiple teams and days of work.

Linda Hughes (Burlington County) described a pilot comparing hand counts to a third‑party automated audit: the county hand‑counted 8,481 ballots with eight teams of four people over two full days (about 544 working hours and nearly $12,000 in payroll), while the same ballots were tabulated by a third‑party automated system with three workers in six hours and matched the machine tallies. "We used 3 workers. It was completed in 6 hours," she said, arguing the automated option preserved accuracy and dramatically reduced labor.

Steve Trout of Clearballot reiterated that the bill would provide counties with optional audit methods and would not force counties to abandon hand counts. Senators asked about bipartisan safeguards; Hughes described chain‑of‑custody practices (two keys, paired party staffers, and dual deadbolts) used in ballot custody and audit handling.

The committee took testimony but did not vote; witnesses urged the committee to allow counties the option of automated audits to increase efficiency and public confidence.