Supporters push bill to publish redacted ballot images and cast‑vote records to boost verification

Tom Murray and supporters presented HB 18‑21 as a narrowly tailored transparency measure to publish machine‑generated ballot images and cast‑vote records (with steps to remove personal identifiers) so independent parties can verify tabulation outcomes without compromising ballot secrecy. Murray said public access to redacted images would enable citizens and local campaigns to perform quick checks and resolve disputes before they escalate into expensive audits or litigation.

Provisions and safeguards: The bill includes requirements for secure storage, dual (local and state) archival of image files, audit logs, standardized formats, and penalties for misuse. Supporters pointed to other states (Georgia, Wisconsin, Vermont) where public access to redacted ballot images exists and has not undermined ballot secrecy. Murray and backers argued that public availability of images could have exposed and resolved anomalies earlier in known cases.

Clerks’ implementation questions: Town clerks and the City & Town Clerks Association raised practical concerns about municipal capacity, storage, whether the Secretary of State would host a central portal, and how paper‑only ballots (hand counts, UOCAVA email‑printed ballots) would be handled, since not every ballot goes through a scanner that produces standardized images. Clerks noted retained thumb‑drive cards in some machines and requested clarity on retention schedules and logistics.

Balance of privacy and transparency: Members asked how the bill protects voters who deliberately make identifying marks or write names on ballots; presenters noted such marks are unlawful, and the bill exempts personal identifying notations from publication as part of the record and contains penalties for misuse. The committee closed the hearing after clerks and supporters exchanged technical questions, leaving implementation details (portal, state/local storage and cost model) for follow up.