Hand-count audits target 5% ballots

Summary#

Wyoming SF-113, titled “2026 election hand count comparison,” is an enacted law that amends existing election law and adds requirements for the 2026 primary and general elections. Its stated goal is to compare hand counts of selected ballots with electronic results and identify inconsistencies or errors.

• Each county clerk must arrange a hand-count audit of ballots cast on election day, using ballots from tabulating machines whose combined total is as close as possible to 5% of the county’s election-day ballots.
• The audit must cover one federal race and one statewide race selected by the secretary of state, plus every legislative race printed on the ballot. A county canvassing board may add other races.
• County clerks appoint audit boards of at least three qualified electors; no more than two members of a board may be from the same political party. The boards count each mark, undervote, and overvote according to the ballot instructions.
• Audits must be completed no later than nine days after the county canvass. Counties must report inconsistencies or errors to the secretary of state, who must report the audit results to a legislative committee by May 1, 2027.
• For the 2026 elections, an election judge may also serve on a counting board for the hand-count audit. This is an exception to the usual restriction stated in the amended text.

What it means for you#

• County clerks: You must organize the audits, appoint audit boards, and report inconsistencies or errors to the secretary of state. The law does not require you to audit every ballot.
• County canvassing boards: You select the tabulating machines whose ballots will be audited. You may also choose additional races to audit.
• Secretary of state: You must tell each county which federal and statewide races to audit by the Wednesday after each election. You must report the audit results to the legislative committee by May 1, 2027.
• Voters: The electronic count remains in use; the law adds a hand-count comparison for a sample of election-day ballots. It does not set out a public process for viewing audit records or responding to errors.
• Election judges and audit-board members: Judges may serve on audit boards for this purpose in 2026. Audit boards must have at least three qualified electors, with no more than two from the same party.

Money#

No publicly available information.

• The law requires county clerks to arrange audits and appoint boards, but the supplied material gives no cost estimate, funding source, or staffing estimate.
• The law does not state whether the state or counties will pay any audit costs.

What is unclear#

• The law does not explain how counties should select machines when their ballot totals cannot come close to 5%, or how the audit sample is otherwise chosen.
• It requires counties to report inconsistencies or errors “not less than” nine days after the county canvass, but does not give a latest reporting date.
• It does not specify what must happen if the hand count and electronic count differ.
• It does not say whether audit results or records must be made public.
• The prior versions of the amended statutes and the full text of the referenced audit laws were not supplied, so the exact changes to existing appointment rules and audits cannot be fully checked.

Case for#

• A hand count provides a direct comparison with electronic results for a sample of ballots, which could help identify counting errors.
• The audit includes statewide and federal races chosen by the secretary of state, along with every legislative race on the ballot.
• Party limits on audit-board membership may help ensure that boards are not made up mostly of members of one party.
• The deadlines require audits to be completed soon after the county canvass and results to reach a legislative committee.

Case against#

• The audit covers only a sample—about 5% of election-day ballots—not every ballot.
• The law does not clearly explain how to resolve differences between the hand count and electronic results or whether a difference triggers further review.
• Counties must do the work, but the law provides no cost estimate or funding details.
• The unclear deadline for reporting inconsistencies could leave counties without a clear final date for notifying the secretary of state.