Ballot counting reforms set audits and recounts

Summary#

Senate Bill 1451 would amend three sections of Idaho law on ballot counting, post-election audits and recounts. The stated goal is to revise rules for counting and adjudicating ballots; the supplied material gives no separate short title. The bill is introduced and is not law. The parent statutes were not supplied, so it is not possible to verify which provisions are new and which would remain unchanged.

  • The Secretary of State would set standards for what counts as a vote. At a polling place, voters would have the ability to adjudicate their own ballot if it has an overvote (more choices marked than allowed).
  • For overvotes on paper ballots processed by a vote tally system, the county clerk would apply the Secretary of State’s hand-counting standards. After review, the clerk may use software to correct the overvote or make a duplicate ballot showing the voter’s intent; the original must be preserved with a note.
  • The Secretary of State would order audits after primary and general elections. Audits would include a hand recount and comparison with reported results. The listed elections include federal races, governor, the closest-margin statewide office and ballot question, and one legislative race within a county.
  • Audited precincts would be selected by lot at an open public meeting, without a computer. The bill limits the precinct count, with an exception for multiple precincts if their ballots total fewer than 2,100. The Secretary of State could order more audits if initial findings warrant them, limited to the types of problems found.
  • County clerks would follow set procedures for recounts: compare a random sample counted by hand and by machine, then recount the remaining ballots by machine or by hand depending on the size of the difference. Machine-cast ballots with overvotes or undervotes must remain unchanged for recounts.
  • The bill’s text also addresses when county clerks may release election results. It does not establish whether that rule differs from current law.

What it means for you#

  • Voters: The bill says voters at polling places must have the ability to adjudicate their ballot if it has an overvote. It does not explain how that would work. For paper ballots with overvotes found during machine tabulation, it sets out a review and possible correction process.
  • County election officials: County clerks would facilitate audits and follow the recount rules. The county sheriff would take custody of ballots selected for audit, then return them after the audit unless they are subject to a recount.
  • Candidates, parties and some ballot-question committees: Candidates, political parties and committees that publicly reported spending money on an audited ballot question could appoint an observer. Audits would be open to news media.
  • The public: The Secretary of State would post which elections, counties and precincts were selected for audit, and later post audit results. The bill would not itself change voter eligibility, impose a tax or fee, or create a new election agency.
  • Timing: The bill says it would take effect upon passage and approval. Whether or when it would pass is uncertain.

Money#

The bill assigns audit costs to the Secretary of State’s office, but no cost estimate is provided.

  • The office would pay audit costs, including reimbursing county clerks for costs of helping with audits.
  • County clerks would also have recount and ballot-counting duties; the bill gives no estimate of the resources those duties would require.
  • No publicly available information on total spending, staffing needs or any cost savings.

What is unclear#

  • Without the current text of the three Idaho Code sections, it is not possible to confirm what the bill changes compared with current law.
  • The bill does not explain how a voter would adjudicate an overvote at a polling place, or define how officials determine the voter’s intent.
  • It does not set out how the Secretary of State chooses which eligible elections to audit, or give a detailed method for selecting the random sample used in recounts.
  • No cost estimate or staffing estimate is included.
  • The bill gives the Secretary of State authority to set audit procedures by directive at least 60 days before an election, but the procedures are not included in the bill.

Case for#

  • The bill appears intended to make ballot-counting rules more consistent by requiring the Secretary of State to set standards for what counts as a vote.
  • Hand-counting selected ballots and comparing them with machine results could help identify differences between the two counts.
  • A process for reviewing overvotes could allow officials to count a voter’s clear intent when it can be determined from the ballot.
  • Public selection of audit precincts and opportunities for observers could make the audit process more open to scrutiny.

Case against#

  • The bill leaves key details to later directives and does not explain how voters would adjudicate overvotes at polling places.
  • The Secretary of State could order additional audits based on initial findings, but the bill does not set an overall cap on those audits or estimate their cost.
  • Requiring audits, recount work and ballot custody changes could add work for state and county offices; the bill does not quantify that burden.
  • The bill does not specify how the Secretary of State will choose among the listed elections for audit, which may leave important decisions to that office’s judgment.