Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections Voting Machines topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Suffolk County Legislature to review $34 million voting-machine request
Summary
At a June 6 public hearing, two residents asked Suffolk County legislators to reconsider a $34 million Board of Elections request for ES&S voting machines, citing cost, vendor selection, security concerns and alternatives including paper ballots or leasing arrangements.
Acting Chair Legislator Catherine Stark opened a Suffolk County Legislature public hearing on June 6, 2024, in Riverhead to receive comments on the 2025–2027 capital budget. Two residents used the three-minute public-comment period to raise objections to a $34 million request from the Suffolk County Board of Elections for new ES & S all-in-one voting machines.
Susan Hansen said she objected to the $34 million request while noting she did not intend the remarks as a personal attack on the Board of Elections. "I'm here to object to the $34 million request from the Board of Elections for new ES & S all-in-one voting machines," Hansen said, summarizing the BOE's rationale as presented to the Legislature: existing machines have exceeded expected lifespan, technical issues require replacement, the requested funding would cover 2025 through 2027, machine choices are constrained by state guidelines and the BOE needs a showing of costs when applying for New York State grant money.
Hansen flagged two main objections: the cost and uncertainty about grant funding. She asked whether the county — and ultimately taxpayers — would shoulder the expense if grant funds did not materialize, and suggested the Legislature and BOE should take seriously alternatives such as paper ballots with hand-counting and same-day voter ID procedures. "The technology is changing rapidly and making a three-year commitment in these fluid and changing times is too risky," Hansen said, urging at minimum that the county consider a lease agreement with termination options.
Roy Reynolds, a resident who said he had worked with election-technology experts, told legislators he was concerned the budget language specifically mentioned ES & S machines. He asked whether that specific reference could be removed and whether the county planned a request-for-proposals or competitive process. "Please, give consideration to not using the ES & S machines, they're just -- they're a nightmare," Reynolds said, and pressed for clarity on how members of the public could learn more about procurement plans.
No BOE representative spoke during the hearing, and there was no formal response from the Legislature during public comment. Chief Deputy Clerk Hope Clark confirmed the hearing had been properly noticed. The acting chair closed the hearing at about 2:10 p.m. with no votes or formal actions taken; the record indicates the concerns raised centered on procurement process, vendor selection and fiscal risk to taxpayers.
Next steps were not announced at the hearing; the Legislature and Board of Elections would need to respond separately to the budget request and procurement plan. If legislators or the BOE schedule further review or presentations, those will provide the venue for officials to outline grant prospects, procurement timelines and whether a lease or RFP process will be pursued.
