Lincoln County asks state for written guidance after Secretary of State memo on signed absentee ballots

At a May 26, 2026 Lincoln County departmental meeting, county elections staff flagged a Secretary of State recommendation that accompanied mailed ballots and warned it had created local confusion about how to handle absentee ballots that bear identifying marks.

The memo quoted by county staff said: "Sign your ballot and write your birth year on the signature envelope. The primary ballot looks different... Offices will only appear in a primary ballot if the office has at least one filed candidate." That insert, distributed on brightly colored paper with outgoing ballots, prompted staff to review whether their longstanding resolution-board practice—voiding a marked ballot, transposing clear voter intent onto a clean ballot, and counting the transposed ballot—remains lawful.

County elections staff said the office has used a resolution board process for many elections and had already used it to resolve two ballots. Under that practice, a three-judge resolution board can cross out an identifying mark and transpose votes to a clean ballot when the voter’s intent is clear; the voided ballots are retained in a locked “voided ballot” pile.

Several commissioners and the county attorney questioned whether that procedure conflicts with the statute the meeting attendees cited by number, which the group read aloud and summarized as providing that "any identifying marks... placed on the ballot by the elector... must result in immediate rejection of the ballot without notice to the elector." Commissioners said they prefer to include votes where possible but cannot ignore plain statutory language.

Commissioners asked staff to seek written clarification from the Secretary of State’s office and said they could pursue an Attorney General opinion if necessary. County staff said they had repeatedly tried to get written guidance and had not yet received an explicit, written legal rationale from the Secretary of State.

Members of the public who spoke during the meeting urged the county to avoid disenfranchising voters wherever it can and to publish the original email the county relied on so the public could see what was distributed to counties.

The county did not take formal action at the meeting. Officials said they would follow the statute unless they receive written, legally defensible direction from the Secretary of State’s office or the Attorney General clarifies the conflict.

What’s next: county elections staff will continue outreach to the Secretary of State, consider contacting the Attorney General for an opinion, and will document any ballots handled as rejected under statute in the official canvass records.