“Georgia bill to strip QR codes from ballots would cost tens of millions of dollars”

voting technology

Votebeat:

Tucked inside a massive elections bill passed last month by Georgia’s legislature is a provision that requires the state to spend millions of dollars to overhaul the state’s existing voting system, or to purchase a new one before 2026.

Election officials and experts say it’s an impossible timeline, and that the vague language of the bill may prevent the use of electronic tabulators altogether. Lawmakers allocated no money for the change, which would remove computer-readable QR codes and other barcodes that the state’s voting system relies on to accurately tabulate ballots.

“We’re talking about an expense of about $25-to-$26 million, to about $300 million, depending on how you want to do it,” Gabe Sterling, the chief operating officer in the secretary of state’s office, told the House Governmental Affairs Committee on March 20, eight days before the bill passed the House. If lawmakers wanted to proceed, Sterling told them, they should write the legislation to make the changes contingent on appropriating enough money to pay for them, and move the effective date back to give election officials more time.

Lawmakers have already pushed the effective date back two years — from 2024 to 2026 — but did not make the change contingent on providing funding. So if the governor signs the bill now, it’s not clear where election officials will get the money.

The ban on computer-readable codes made headlines when the bill passed, but the cost — which legislators have known about for months — has not been previously reported.

The legislation would make the state’s current voting system, put in place in 2020 at a cost of more than $100 million, impossible for the state to use. Sterling says that if the governor signs it, Georgia will spend millions of dollars “to achieve absolutely nothing.”…

Share this:

“Two months to count election ballots? California’s long tallies turn election day into weeks, months”

election administration

AP:

Nearly two months after the election, a recount settled the outcome in a Northern California U.S. House primary contest, breaking a mathematically improbable tie for second place but also spotlighting the lengthy stretch it took count the votes.

Most California residents vote by mail, and in the pursuit of accuracy, thoroughness and counting every vote, the nation’s most populous state has gained a reputation for tallies that can drag on for weeks — and sometimes longer. Voting in the state’s primary election concluded on March 5.

At time when many Americans have doubts about election integrity, a two-month stretch to tally votes in one House race “absolutely is a problem from an optics point of view,” said Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, which seeks to improve the voting process….

A tally of votes in early April showed the top spot was claimed by former San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo, a Democrat. Two other Democrats were deadlocked for the second spot with 30,249 votes each — state Assembly member Evan Low and Santa Clara County Supervisor Joe Simitian.

That tally was followed by a recount and disputes over contested ballots that concluded Wednesday, with Low picking up a five-vote advantage in the recount to claim the second spot on the November ballot.

The contest will not play into control of the narrowly divided House, which will be decided in swing districts being contested by Democrats and Republicans around the country.

The voter foundation’s Alexander said one of the problems behind lengthy counts is tight budgets for county election officials who do the laborious work. She said there is no direct funding from the state to administer elections, so counties are limited in how many people can be hired to review ballots and what kind of equipment is used. And close contests mean long vote counts.

Share this:

ELB 5:7: Rick Pildes: The Two Ricks Discuss the Trump Immunity and Hush Money Cases

ELB Podcast, Supreme Court

New ELB Podcast:

How should we understand the Supreme Court’s questions in the Trump immunity case?

Will the Court let  Donald Trump go to trial for 2020 election interference based just on his acts as a candidate and not as President?

Are the legal theories advanced in Donald Trump’s hush money case in New York legally sound?

On Season 5, Episode 7 of the ELB Podcast, a conversation about the latest Trump cases between Rick Pildes and Rick Hasen.

You can subscribe on Soundcloud, Apple Podcasts, and Spotify.

Share this:

“Trump-nominated FEC leader: let political donors hide their identities”

campaign finance, federal election commission

Raw Story:

A Donald Trump-nominated Federal Election Commission leader wants to make it easier for political donors to hide their identities — a major impediment to post-Watergate interpretations of political transparency that allow anyone to see where politicians are getting their money.

The proposed directive, titled “Requests to Withhold, Redact, or Modify Identifying Information,” was submitted today by Commissioner Allen J. Dickerson for possible consideration at the commission’s public May 16 meeting. Raw Story obtained a copy.

Dickerson’s memorandum says that the Federal Election Campaign Act’s disclosure requirements “are not absolute” and subject to exceptions.

“Where a person or group can show ‘a reasonable probability’ that compelled disclosure ‘will subject them to threats, harassment, or reprisals from either Government officials or private parties,’ they must be excused from disclosing the information that will put them at risk,“ Dickerson’s memorandum says.

Share this: