Local GOP committee urges Weston County commissioners to consider hand counts, citing costs, warranties and certification concerns

A group calling itself the Western County Republican Party Election Integrity Committee urged the Weston County Board of Commissioners on Thursday to adopt county-based hand counting of ballots rather than continuing to use electronic tabulators, arguing the change would be more transparent, less costly over time and avoid reliance on machines the presenters said may be uncertified or out of warranty.

The presenters told the commissioners that when the state ran the tabulators in western counties the per-election cost was about $7,000, but that county-negotiated contracts later raised the county’s per-election expense to nearly $27,000. They highlighted a recurring roughly $6,500 annual maintenance fee and an approximately $5,000 per‑election vendor employee charge as factors that, in off years, pushed local election costs toward $12,000. “When the state was running machines in western counties, the cost for election was $7,000,” one presenter said. “...you’re paying $6,500 for that same deal. ...we started hiring an ESNS employee to sit in our primaries for $5,000 every election.”

Why it matters: The presenters asked the board to weigh those higher recurring costs alongside operational and legal issues they said surround the current tabulator arrangement. They argued that hand counts are straightforward, verifiable and can be performed locally; their packet included a claimed local survey showing roughly 90% voter support for returning to hand counts. “Hand counting is very simply: print the ballots in the county, allow the voters to vote and know that the intent of their vote is recognized and counted,” a presenter said.

Discussion and questions from commissioners focused on practical and legal details. Commissioners asked where county ballots would be printed, how candidate-name rotation by precinct would be handled, whether local printers could meet state formatting and security requirements, and how hand-count processes would interoperate with statutory post-election audits (described in the presentation as a 5% hand count of selected races under rules the Secretary of State sets). Presenters said ballots could be printed locally if they meet state requirements and described a training model using teams of four counters for precincts, but acknowledged logistics and cost tradeoffs.

Presenters also flagged contract and warranty issues. They said an amendment to a March 2020 State contract indicates the vendor named in their packet will not warranty machines after June of the current year, leaving the county potentially exposed to increased repair or liability costs unless warranty extensions can be negotiated. Commissioners asked staff to research contract renewal options, costs of local printing, and whether the Secretary of State would need to approve changes to ballot printing or supply.

On statutory questions, participants debated whether state law requires counties to designate the type of voting equipment for each precinct by a given deadline and whether statutes intended an all‑or‑nothing choice (all precincts using machines or none). Presenters cited statutory language about counting boards and county authority but acknowledged ambiguity and risk: mixed-format precincts (some machine, some hand) could raise legal challenges or added logistical expense.

No vote or formal action was recorded. Commissioners and presenters agreed to refine the draft resolution that would establish precincts and voting format, and commissioners requested follow-up research on printing, warranty status and statutory requirements before placing a resolution for formal consideration at a future meeting.

The presentation packet and cited state guidance were left with the commissioners; presenters said they would share digital links on request. The board did not take a vote at this session.