Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents raise election integrity concerns during Meade County public comment; county staff and auditor defended
Summary
Several Meade County residents accused state vendors and officials of tampering with voting equipment and urged hand counting; a county elections employee defended local processes, and staff said they will research auditing procedures and staffing for the upcoming primary.
Dozens of residents used public comment time at a Meade County Board of Commissioners meeting to raise concerns about election security, while county staff and election employees defended local procedures.
Speakers at the start of the meeting accused state-level actors and voting-system vendors of manipulating ballots and disabling ballot imaging. One attendee urged listeners to visit SDcanvassing.com and said county officials are “tyrannical and treasonous,” calling for resignations. Cindy Cook, introduced herself as a Mead County resident and alleged widespread machine manipulation and a “secret black box tabulator,” saying she had sent the board “600 pages of evidence.”
A second speaker, Dale Boos, asked practical questions about how state demands might be carried out, whether ES&S (the tabulator vendor referenced in the comments) could install software via thumb drive or remotely, and urged the county to consider hand counting. “It’s our only secure and transparent way,” Boos said.
The public comment period also included a brief defense of county elections by an elections office employee identified as Bernie, who said, “We have clean elections, clean counting in Mead County,” and asked the public not to conflate national allegations with local procedures.
County staff did not endorse the allegations but said they would look into specific procedural and statutory questions raised during public comment. The board’s chair gave commissioners five minutes to respond and asked auditor staff to follow up on requests for information. The auditor’s office later noted they are short of poll workers and will continue outreach to recruit workers for the upcoming primary.
Why it matters: Residents’ allegations—if substantiated—would affect public confidence and could require procedural or legal responses. Commissioners did not take policy action during the meeting; staff said they would research statutory limits and audit procedures and return with information.
Next steps: The county auditor’s office will follow up with the public on specific questions and circulate relevant statutes and procedures to the board; no vote or formal action was taken on election procedures at this meeting.
