Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Election Canvass topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cascade County canvassers certify Fort Shaw Irrigation District results after manual tally
Summary
County canvassers certified the Fort Shaw Irrigation District election after staff described a manual canvass process and reported ballot and acreage totals (126 ballots issued, 82 returned; acreage turnout about 69%). The board approved a motion to certify by voice vote; the transcript contains inconsistent candidate name spellings between staff statements and the motion text.
Terry Cox summarized the county’s manual canvass of the Fort Shaw Irrigation District election and the Cascade County Board of County Canvassers voted to certify the results.
Cox, speaking for county staff, said the district’s certified owner list is a spreadsheet of property owners and designated agents that the county uses to determine who receives ballots in this irrigation-district election, which is processed manually rather than through the county’s electronic voting system. "We sent out 126 ballots," Cox said, and "82 ballots were returned." He added that two returned ballots were treated as blank or rejected and one ballot was returned as undeliverable. Cox reported the total acres represented by accepted returns as 9,003.85 and said the percent of acres voted was about 69 percent overall (District 2 roughly 68 percent; District 4 roughly 67 percent).
Cox described common issues that affected mailing and acceptance: changes in ownership or delays filing new designated-agent forms, co-owner situations where votes are split (for example, two sisters inheriting property who each receive a share), and ballots returned without the required acreage information. He said judges hand-tallied pages, compared cover sheets to line totals and maintained daily logs to reconcile ballots and acres for transparency. "We double checked and triple checked," Cox said of staff verification.
After the staff presentation, a board member moved to certify the canvas. The motion text read that the board "hereby certify that this constitutes a full and true and complete canvas" and declared elected the individuals named in the motion. The transcript records inconsistent candidate references: in Cox’s summary he read winners with vote totals as "Rich Foyle with 5,751 votes and Kenard Spanky with 6,198 votes," while the motion as read aloud named "Rich Boyle and Tanner Steitke." The board then proceeded to a voice vote; the chair called for those in favor to say "Aye," and the chair announced the motion carried.
The chair opened the floor for public comment on non-agenda matters; none were offered. With no further board business, the canvassers adjourned.
The county’s canvas documents shown at the meeting include the certified owner list, the county tracking sheet with rounded eligible acres, judges’ tally pages and a summary cover sheet intended to reconcile page totals with reported ballot and acreage totals. The transcript does not record a detailed roll-call vote count; the motion was adopted by voice and the chair announced that it carried.
Officials and public records from the county (the official written canvas) should be consulted for the authoritative spelling of candidate names and the official certified totals, as the meeting transcript contains inconsistent name spellings in the staff summary and the motion language.
