Under the Dome | Special Session: Election Bill Takeaways | Vol. 110
Volume 110
Friends,
So many of you showed up for this special session to fight for election integrity. While a lot of the things we wanted may not have made it into the bill, I want to thank you all for your hard work.
Election Bill (SB 3EX) Takeaways
I am going to preface this all by saying that the bill was a mixed bag. There were some things in it I legitimately liked. Yet, with what the final version looked like, I was a NO because the good stuff in it, to me, was not good enough to justify extending the use of QR codes. I am going to break it all down a bit more. I am going to tell you some good things in the bill and some bad things in the bill. I am not advocating for it either way in this analysis but if you want my take, I would have voted NO.
Hand Count
One of the positives of the bill was a requirement that, in any contest where the candidates are within 0.5% of each other, a mandatory hand recount will occur with a requirement that the certification be redone to fix any discrepancies found during the hand recount. I wish it was a mandatory hand recount period, with no criteria for what the margin must be. Further, I think if we are going to operate with a marginal criteria like this, it would need to be bigger.
There are positives here. This is the first time ever we will have language in code enacting a mandatory hand count. This is statutory language we could aim to expand in the future now that it is in place. The marginal requirement would have triggered a hand count in some notable instances like the Presidential election in 2020 or the Governor’s race in 2018. So, while not as extensive as we would prefer, this is undoubtedly a step in the right direction.
Hand Marked Paper Ballots
One of the reasons I would have been a NO on the bill is because this section does not become relevant until 2028, meaning we are still mostly stuck with our current systems in 2026. Yet this is good news regardless.
The bill essentially ensures that in the 2028 election and beyond we will have hand marked paper ballots with ballot on demand printing. The committee, which is studying the issue and will make the recommendation to the General Assembly on our next voting system, is legally limited at only considering hand marked paper ballots with ballot on demand printing. So, functionally, this means the legislature will only be given our preferred policy outcome as an option and no other options. So ensuring that this occurs is certainly good news.
Risk Limiting Audits
It is certainly true that a risk limiting audit is no replacement for a hand count. Nonetheless, I am glad that the bill expanded these audits to most of our statewide and congressional races. While we would like automatic hand counts, these can force hand counts if the sample is found to have errors. So expanding audits is certainly never a bad thing.
QR Codes
I can’t defend this part of the bill. It extended the deadline to get rid of QR codes till January 2028. This sets up the General Assembly to change our voting system in the 2027 legislative session. The main reason we were in this mess was because Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger made no effort to comply with state law. Regardless, we shouldn’t have extended the use of QR codes for tabulation of anything.
Summary
So, it is a mixed bag. Some good things happened such as ensuring we will have hand marked paper ballots with ballot on demand printing in the 2028 election and beyond and placing a mandatory hand count in statute for the first time ever. Extending the use of QR codes though was bad. That is the good, bad, and the ugly on this legislation.
