Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mail Ballots topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Officials consider using USPS barcode data to verify mail‑ballot dates as postmark practices change
Summary
A proposed regulation would allow county clerks to use physical USPS postmarks or barcode/scan data to determine when a mail ballot was mailed; callers pressed the office for specifics about barcode reliability and public transparency.
Deputy Secretary of State Mark Velaschin told the workshop that proposed regulation R088-25P is designed to address recent changes the United States Postal Service has made to how it applies postmarks. Under the changes Velaschin described, a postmark may reflect the date a piece of mail is first processed by an automated sorting machine rather than the date it was dropped in a mailbox.
Velaschin said the draft would allow a county or city clerk to use (1) a physical USPS postmark visible on the return envelope or (2) "information from a barcode or similar marking used by the United States Postal Service" to identify the mailing date for purposes of determining whether a mail ballot was postmarked on or before Election Day. He noted that if a clerk cannot determine a postmark but receives the ballot by 5 p.m. on the third day after the election, the ballot would be deemed timely under existing law.
Velaschin provided scale context, saying roughly 670,000 Nevadans cast mail ballots in the 2024 general election and that an unknown number of those ballots could be affected by USPS postmark changes. He said the office wants to explore USPS-provided information to increase visibility and pledged to make any new sources of verification public.
Oscar Williams of Reno questioned whether barcode or scan data is consistently available and called the regulation's phrase about "information from a barcode" vague. "Information from a barcode or similar marking used by the United States Postal Service is vague," he said, and asked what the logical solution would be when a ballot lacks a postmark. Velaschin acknowledged the uncertainty, cited relevant USPS guidance (Domestic Mail Manual), and said the office is working to identify usable data and will publish guidance for the public and county offices.
No immediate procedural change was finalized at the workshop; written comments will be considered and the adoption hearing is scheduled for Jan. 21.
