Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Moderator Audit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Moderators, election officials press for explicit authority to run hand‑count checks of tabulators
Summary
Moderators and several municipal election officials urged the committee to let moderators perform a parallel hand count of selected races to verify tabulators; Secretary of State cautioned that local recounts introduce variable standards and prefers state recount procedures.
Moderators and election officials pressed the House Election Law Committee to adopt legislation clarifying moderators’ authority to conduct supplemental hand counts of tabulator ballots under House Bill 12‑23.
Representative Kevin Scully introduced the bill, saying it confirms the constitutional role of the moderator to “sort and count” votes and provides a transparent reporting step if a moderator finds a discrepancy between a machine count and a hand count. Moderators who testified said a limited, double‑verified hand count of a selected race at the close of polls can reassure voters and detect tabulation errors without imposing a full recount.
Moderators described the standard double‑count procedure: two counters each count piles and swap to verify totals. Supporters said a parallel hand‑count is a quick, low‑cost quality‑control check performed during the unofficial tallying on election night. Several moderators recounted experiences where the hand count matched the machine; a handful pointed to minor machine or data irregularities they believed the check would have detected earlier.
Secretary of State David Scanlon opposed turning the moderator’s on‑night check into an alternative local recount mechanism. Scanlon said state recount procedures are uniform, methodical and administered by the SOS for state and federal contests; allowing separate local hand counts as the official result could produce divergent standards and confusion. He said the statute already allows local officials to choose machine or hand counts and that post‑election audits and image‑based tools provide better standardized verification.
Testimony illustrated the tension: moderators argued the practice is a traditional quality‑control measure anchored in Part II, Article 32 of the state constitution; the SOS emphasized the need for consistent statewide procedures and cautioned that ad‑hoc local recounts can produce errors if not tightly controlled.
Committee members asked technical questions about procedures, how many ballots are used in pre‑election tests, and whether results should trigger a state‑level follow-up. Moderators suggested the bill requires notification to the clerk and SOS if discrepancies are found; Scanlon said his office should be informed and could pursue further review. The committee did not vote on HB 1223 during the hearing.
