Laserfiche WebLink
. r <br />Attachment <br />to BCC Resolution , page <br />8. Section 14, HB 1529 & CS for SB 499 (continued) <br />4bProposed: Such request must be filed with the canvassing board prior <br />to the time the canvassing board adjourns or within 5 days after mid- <br />night of the date the election was held, whichever occurs later. <br />Objection: The meaning of the entire sentence is confusing because <br />of the phrase, "whichever occurs later." However, it appears that the <br />intent is to have the canvassing board be ready to accept requests for <br />manual recounts for the five days after the election. Does this mean <br />that vote tabulations are not official for five days? <br />4ePr2posed: The county canvassing board may authorize a manual recount. <br />Objection: What criteria are supposed to be used by the canvassing <br />board in order for it to make a decision that is on firm legal ground? <br />I doubt if the members of the canvassing board --the judge, the county <br />commissioner, or the supervisor of elections --will accept such sweeping <br />authority with no basis whatsoever. <br />4dProposed: The manual recount must include at least three precincts and <br />at least 1 percent of the total votes cast for such candidate or issue. <br />Objection: In elections with many candidates for one office, the losers <br />could get together and each could choose three different precincts to <br />be manually recounted, so that in a municipality it would be necessary <br />to manually recount all precincts. It is a time consuming process that <br />is expensive, and it would postpone knowing the official final returns <br />until the recounts were completed. It would be a serious interference <br />in mailing absentee ballots and in preparing for the next election if <br />the recounts were requested after the first primary or the second <br />primary. If a statewide candidate requested a manual recount, all 67 <br />counties would be affected. <br />THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE FISCAL IMPACT ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. <br />9. Section 15, HB 1529 & CS for SB 499 <br />Proposed: There is created a Bureau of Voting Systems Certification <br />within the Division of Elections of the Department of State which shall <br />provide technical support to the supervisors of elections and which <br />is responsible for voting system standards and certification. Sixteen <br />initial positions are established in the bureau, and the sum of <br />$669,000 is hereby appropriated to the Divsion of Elections from the <br />General Revenue fund for purpose of carrying out the provisions of this <br />act. <br />Objection: Rather than creating such a far reaching bureau at one time, <br />perhaps it would be more effective and less expensive to make a gradual <br />approach. This would allow the Division of Elections and the supervisors <br />of elections to absorb the changes and new rules gradually, to analyze <br />the value to the voters and to the administration of elections in each <br />county. There will have to be a corresponding increase in the number <br />of employees in the supervisors of elections' offices to deal with the <br />additional requirements by the Department of State and the Divison of <br />Elections. <br />THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE FISCAL IMPACT ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. <br />