Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Polling‑place‑optimization topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Voting Rights Code presents polling‑place optimization tool to Richmond County elections board
Summary
A remote presenter from Voting Rights Code demonstrated a distance‑based polling access tool that models how changes to early‑voting and election‑day sites affect average travel and underserved pockets; the board asked staff to follow up on cost and scope for a possible 2027 project.
A representative of Voting Rights Code demonstrated a polling‑place optimization tool to the Richmond County Board of Elections, outlining how an algorithm that minimizes long travel "tails" can quantify changes in access when officials add, remove or relocate polling sites.
The presenter, identified in the meeting as Susama of Voting Rights Code, said the tool measures access "purely in terms of distance" — either straight‑line or driving — and produces recommended legally acceptable polling locations and demographic analyses. "We don't do any other types of access," she said, describing the product as focused on distance and on minimizing long outliers so fewer voters must travel very far.
Director Travis Doss told the board the county had discussed consolidating polling places earlier in the year and framed the demonstration as a way to move from qualitative judgments to quantitative estimates. Doss said staff and the company estimated a basic analysis using existing code would cost roughly $700–$1,200, while a customized build to target specific site types could run around $3,000.
Why it matters: Board members said they wanted the county to understand the tradeoffs before changing precincts or early‑voting sites. The tool is designed to show how many voters would be affected by consolidation or by adding sites and how changes would affect particular demographic or rural/urban groups.
Board reaction and next steps: Members asked about prior clients and whether the work was partisan; the presenter said prior work had been done for Verified Action (described in the meeting as an organization with c3 and c4 branches) and stressed that her LLC works with a c3 fiscal sponsor to avoid party alignment on this analysis. The board agreed any project should be budgeted for 2027; Doss said staff would return with a recommended scope and cost and that a formal agreement would be required before the county runs analysis on Richmond County data.
The demonstration included examples from other jurisdictions showing modest estimated changes (for example, a cited Madison analysis that predicted up to a 3% access change for the county when early‑voting sites were altered). The presenter emphasized the product is intended for iterative work with election officials, not as a prescriptive replacement for local knowledge.
The board did not take immediate action to contract the service at the meeting; members directed staff to include the item in 2027 budget planning and to return with more precise cost and scope options.
