Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Provisional Ballots And Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Officials describe heavy provisional and write‑in workload; polling worker urges secure handling of provisional envelopes
Summary
County elections staff described processing 1,282 provisional ballots (1,246 counted) and nearly 5,000 write‑ins that increased adjudication time; a polling worker urged using a lockbox for provisional envelopes and staff agreed to consider the change.
County elections staff told the Iron County Commission that post‑election processing this cycle required significant time and follow‑up because of provisional ballots and an unusually large number of write‑ins.
Unidentified Speaker 3, who presented the canvass statistics, said 1,282 provisional ballots were issued and that 1,246 of those were counted after follow‑up; 30 provisionals were not counted, including three that were duplicate votes and two that lacked sufficient identification. He said 532 of the provisionals resulted from same‑day registrations, and that about 97% of provisional ballots were ultimately counted.
The presenter also described rejected and challenged ballots: 44 envelopes with signature mismatches, 32 unsigned envelopes, 12 ballots challenged for other curable reasons and 28 ballots rejected for noncurable reasons (for example, ballots placed in drop boxes without the required envelope). He noted 45 ballots were returned after the postmark deadline.
Elections staff and commissioners spent time describing the county's adjudication workload. "We had 4,999 ballots that had a write‑in on them," Unidentified Speaker 3 said, and added that 4,775 of those were adjudicated for two named write‑in choices, which increased processing time. Staff explained the preview screens and manual adjudication required to determine whether a write‑in met the standards to be counted.
After the formal certification, a polling worker who volunteered at a Cedar City site urged a small operational change: she suggested storing provisional envelopes in a locked container rather than the cardboard box used during the process to reassure voters and better secure materials. Unidentified Speaker 3 acknowledged the concern and said staff plans to sort and better separate provisional envelopes in future elections, noting the change could reduce later effort in adjudication and processing.
Commissioners and staff commended poll workers for long shifts and extensive follow‑up calls to voters to cure signatures and gather required ID. No formal changes were adopted at the meeting; staff indicated the suggestions would be considered for future operational procedures.
