Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Post Election Audit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel adopts bill to formalize post‑election audit procedures, including observers and minutes
Summary
House Bill 85, which clarifies post‑election audit procedures and requires minutes and defined observer representation, was amended to correct a statutory cross‑reference and received a unanimous due pass after testimony from the Secretary of State's office and county clerks about implementation and security concerns.
House Bill 85, authored by the Management Audit Committee and presented by Chairman Knapp, would formalize procedures for post‑election ballot audits, including who may observe, the requirement to take minutes of audits and transmission of results to the Secretary of State.
Joe Rubino, policy director and general counsel for the Secretary of State, and county clerks testified that the bill largely codifies existing practices but would increase representation and uniformity. Rubino noted a drafting error on page 2 (the bill referenced Wyoming statute '21‑8‑115' but it should read '22‑8‑115') and recommended a simple amendment.
Mary Langford, representing county clerks, said clerks incorporate many of the proposal's practices already but asked the committee to be mindful of election security and small county spaces when accommodating additional observers. She said clerks would provide minutes and submit records to the Secretary of State's office as required by the bill.
Gail Simmons of Civics 307 testified in opposition to the bill's objection track, arguing that a formal channel for objections could invite public disruption and increase clerks' administrative burden during a time‑sensitive period.
Committee members asked clarifying questions about logistics and timelines; clerks said implementing the statutory changes by July 1, 2026, was feasible because many counties already follow similar procedures. The committee adopted the technical cross‑reference amendment (changing '21' to '22') and voted 9–0 to due‑pass HB 85.
The committee did not adopt broader substantive changes requested by opponents; proponents and clerks said the statutory changes would mostly standardize practices that many counties already perform.
