Alabama House approves bill requiring post‑election audits after every general election

The Alabama House of Representatives voted to pass House Bill 95, a measure requiring a post‑election audit after every county or statewide general election, after extended floor debate and two recorded votes.

Sponsor Chairman Joe Lovern, who introduced the measure, told colleagues the audit "does not change election results. It only checks them where the post audit of the machines at random." He described the process as a ‘‘toe in the door’’ to verify machines and procedures and to give voters greater confidence in election mechanics.

Opponents pressed the sponsor on cost and implementation. Multiple members asked whether the $35,000 fiscal note represented a per‑county cost; Lovern and the fiscal office clarified on the floor that the $35,000 estimate is cumulative statewide per day, not $35,000 per county. Representative McCampbell and others warned that larger counties could require more time and resources and urged clearer limits on expenditures and safeguards against local misuse of the random‑selection process. "I don't want it being a situation where we are deciding that we want to target a certain group of people," Representative McCampbell said, urging a transparent random‑selection method.

Several members asked whether audits could overturn certified results. Lovern and supporters repeatedly said the bill is expressly post‑certification: the audit "would not overturn the election" and is conducted after the statutory contest period to avoid changing outcomes. The sponsor also described a pilot audit that had identified a discrepancy, which supporters said justified a statewide, routine spot‑check program to detect mechanical or procedural problems before the next election cycle.

After debate on the committee substitute and floor amendments (including timing language that the audit "shall commence no earlier than 31 days following the statewide general election or the expiration of the time period for filing an election contest, whichever is less, and shall be completed within 30 days of commencement"), members voted down a sponsor amendment and then adopted other amendments. The House recorded votes for the amendment and final passage; the bill passed as amended by a recorded vote.

The bill assigns the canvassing board of each county (sheriff, circuit clerk, probate judge) to randomly select at least one precinct and at least one county‑ or statewide race (excluding absentee and provisional ballots) to audit; the probate judge shall order and complete the audit and report findings to the Secretary of State, which must publish results on its website. The sponsor said audit materials must be sealed, logged, and returned after the audit, and that the process is designed to test machinery and procedures, not to reopen contested outcomes.

Lawmakers who opposed or questioned the measure raised concerns about statewide cost if larger counties expand audits beyond one precinct, administrative capacity in small probate offices, the absence of detailed safeguards for the random draw at the local canvassing board level, and whether there is sufficient evidence of systemic error to justify the mandate. Supporters countered that a modest statewide procedure would deliver public confidence at a small cost.

The House also debated and passed other bills later in the session. HB 95 was adopted as amended; the next procedural step is transmittal to the Senate.