Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Election Integrity topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Local residents urge hand counts and raise claims about test‑deck matches during Pennington County public comment
Summary
Several speakers at the Pennington County commission meeting alleged that mock ‘test deck’ results matched primary outcomes and urged hand counts or audits; county election staff explained statutory recount procedures and the role of post‑election audits.
Several people used the public‑comment portion of the Pennington County Board of Commissioners meeting on June 16 to raise concerns about recent election results and to urge additional manual checks.
Karen McNeel, who said she ran for state senate twice, told commissioners that where anomalies appear in other states “it can probably happen anywhere.” Cindy Cook of Rapid City offered a sharper allegation: “It is predetermined who wins and who loses,” she said, likening the patterns she described to data she said she had captured from test decks and the Secretary of State website. Dale Boo said he viewed public test‑deck results before the election and later found roughly 10 races that matched the mock‑deck percentages, which he said he found “concerning.”
Commissioners asked staff from the auditor’s office to explain test‑deck procedures and the recount process. The auditor’s representative said counties are required to run a test deck for each unique ballot style (the office cited an example of 3,150 ballots across styles) and that public tests are run to confirm tabulator accuracy before counting begins. If a recount is requested, the judge appoints a recount board; by statute the recount is run through tabulators first, and the board may then decide to do a hand count if discrepancies remain. The auditor told the commission that two recent precinct recounts were run through tabulators and the results matched 100 percent, so the boards declined to hand‑count.
Commissioners asked a citizen who said he had documentation about the ten matching races to provide that material to county staff; they asked Jordan, county staff, to accept it and circulate it to the commission for follow‑up. The commission did not direct any immediate changes to election procedures but discussed next steps for staff review.
Why it matters: The county described the difference between a statutory recount and a discretionary hand count and reiterated that post‑election audit processes exist to verify tabulator accuracy. Speakers’ public allegations raised political and public‑confidence concerns that commissioners said they would forward to auditing staff for review.
