Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge purchase of ballot‑on‑demand printers, precinct voting and stronger audits
Summary
Dozens of residents and party officials urged the court to fund ballot‑on‑demand printers, move to precinct‑level tabulation or hand‑marked ballots, and adopt statistically valid audits. Speakers cited security concerns with barcodes, logic and accuracy testing, and suggested Denton County’s approach as a model.
A broad cross‑section of Collin County residents and party activists used their public‑comment time to press for changes to the county’s voting equipment and auditing procedures. Commenters urged the court to buy ballot‑on‑demand printers so voters could mark paper ballots directly and to pursue precinct‑level tabulation and more robust audits.
Lisa Hendrickson, a State Republican Executive Committee member, told the court: “I am here to ask for the ballots, the paper ballots to be purchased and do what we need to do.” Jessica Hulsey, chair of the Collin County GOP Election Protection Committee, asked commissioners to “please purchase approximately 300 ballot on demand printers that will print hand markable ballots” so each polling location can offer multiple printers.
Speakers ranged from former military and cyber professionals warning about USB and modem risks to county precinct chairs and elected‑party officials who described local experiences with spoiled ballots or printer errors. Several citizens cited Denton County’s use of the Hart ballot‑on‑demand system and estimated cost comparisons, arguing the change could pay for itself in a few election cycles by reducing ongoing BMD maintenance fees. Others urged statutory fixes to permit broader post‑election verification and to require tamper‑evident seals on machine ports.
Court members and staff engaged with audience members about logistics, storage and procurement; elections staff said many of the technical details and lead times remain to be studied before any purchase. The court’s unanimous direction to staff to return with options reflects the weight of these comments but stops short of immediate procurement.
