Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Voter-audit groups tell Riverside supervisors tabulators counted more ballots than paper records; auditors call for reconciliation
Summary
Multiple speakers from the Riverside County Election Integrity Team told the board independent audits found thousands more tabulated ballots than paper records across recent elections, and called on the Registrar of Voters to enable reconciliation and meetings with auditors; speakers said county scanners can flag duplicate scans but safeguards were not in use.
Members of local independent auditing groups spoke during the Nov. 18 public-comment period to present audit findings that they say show discrepancies between tabulator vote counts and the available paper ballot records.
Speakers including Greg Langworthy, Sharon Neal and Cindy Allen described audits of the June special election, the general election and a recent primary that found thousands of ballots tabulated in excess of the paper trail auditors could verify. Neal said the Registrar of Voters (ROV) count exceeded auditors’ collected ballot tallies by 2,015 ballots in one contest, a 3.09% difference; other speakers presented additional discrepancies across several contests and elections.
Members of the Riverside County Election Integrity Team (REIT) and other auditors asked the board to require better reconciliation procedures, earlier access to data before certification, and for the ROV to permit direct meetings and access to chain-of-custody materials. Speakers also said ROV staff acknowledged the technical possibility that a physical ballot can be scanned more than once and urged the county to enable existing scanner software features that detect duplicate scans.
Board members acknowledged the concerns and several said they want county staff to engage with auditors and ensure procedures promote public confidence. The record shows requests for meetings with Registrar staff and calls for improved reconciliation procedures; the board did not take formal action to change ROV procedures at the meeting.
The board received this sequence of public comments as part of item 3.1 public comment. Supervisors thanked speakers and requested further information from county departments where appropriate.
