General Comments

1.  Comments about what constitutes “official results” seem out of place in this document.  See pages 7 and 9.  Suggest removing these comments.

2.  Based on errors in state tables (see corrections to six of the tables below), suggest sending document to each state for review for accuracy.  EAC has a process for reviewing state-specific information and should use it for all publications

3.  If a table goes onto a second page, repeat the header row at the top of the 2^nd page.

Design and Testing (Page 5) – In the 2^nd sentence in the 2^nd paragraph (“Some jurisdictions conduct . . .”), either remove reference to “Election Day” or add references to early voting and absentee voting.

Votes on each type of ballot (page 7) – In the 3^rd paragraph under Paper Ballots (“the Michigan law is clear . . .”), replace “valid vote” with “valid ballot” as the Michigan law dictates that the ballot – not the vote – be reviewed for distinguishing marks.  In the same paragraph, replace “how a valid ballot is counted” with “what a valid vote is.”  Looking for a cross in the proper circle or square is determining whether the vote is valid, not how a valid ballot is counted.

 Votes on each type of ballot (page 7) – In the 3^rd sentence in the 1^st paragraph (“Assuming the voter marks the ballot appropriately, the ballot will be counted correctly.”), there are other assumptions that must be made for this statement to be true.  The optical scan voting unit must be tested to make sure that it is working properly, the timing marks printed on the ballot must be aligned according to the manufacturer’s specifications, the paper must be of the correct size and weight, etc.

Votes on each type of ballot (page 7) – The last two sentences in the 2^nd paragraph (“The law then defines how votes are counted.  ‘[T]he return printed by the electronic vote-tabulation equipment . . . [shall] . . . constitute the official return of each precinct’ (CO-1-7-507)”). are unrelated to a “valid vote.”  As a result, I suggest removing these sentences as they address what constitutes official results.

Votes on each type of ballot (page 8) – There are audits that can be performed with DREs without voter verifiable audit trails.  The current text (“also recognizes the need for there to be a second, auditable count available” in the last sentence under “Electronic Voting”) does not address this.  Suggested rewrite:  . . . also recognizes the need for auditing and reconciliations.”

Table 1: Valid Vote Standards (pages 10-11) – Maryland has an objective standard for what constitutes a valid vote.  See Code of Maryland Regulations, 33.08.02.

Table 2: Types of Recounts (pages 13-14) – While a “citizen” can initiate a recount, the “citizen” must be a registered voter in Maryland.  If the citizen is not a candidate, the citizen can only file a petition for a recount of a ballot question for which s/he is eligible to vote.  As long as the voter follows the required recount procedures, the recount is guaranteed.  Suggest footnote explaining limitation of non-candidate citizen and correction to sentence explaining that citizen-initiated recounts are not guaranteed (they are if all of the procedures are followed). 

Table 4: Method of Recount (page 18) – What does “Varies” (header of 4^th column) mean?  In Maryland, a petitioner for a recount can select either a hand/manual recount or a machine re-tabulation.  Does “varies” mean “both”?

Table 5: Who Pays for a Recount (page 19-20) – Please add an asterisk in the “Petitioner” column for Maryland.    In Maryland, a petitioner for a recount pays for the record unless the outcome of the election is changed, the petitioner gains a certain number of votes, or the margin of difference is 0.1% of less.  See Election Law Article, § 12-107(b)(2), Annotated Code of Maryland.

Table 6: Observing a Recount (pages 21-22) – All columns should have an “X” for Maryland.  Recounts are open to the public.  See Election Law Article, § 12-106(a)(2), Annotated Code of Maryland and Code of Maryland Regulations 33.12.03.02A.  The sentence above Table 6 should be adjusted accordingly.

Table 7: Legal Standing to Contest an Election Outcome (pages 23-24) – Please add an “X” in the Candidate/Party column for Maryland.  In Maryland, a registered voter can seek judicial relief.  See Election Law Article, 12-202(a), Annotated Code of Maryland.  As candidates must be registered voters, a candidate has legal standing to contest an election outcome.  A political party, however, does not. 

Table 7: Legal Standing to Contest an Election Outcome (pages 23-24) – Please add an “X” in the Candidate/Party column for Maryland.  In Maryland, a registered voter can seek judicial relief.  See Election Law Article, 12-202(a), Annotated Code of Maryland.  As candidates must be registered voters, a candidate has legal standing to contest an election outcome.  A political party, however, does not. 

Conducting a Recount (page 17) – In the 2^nd sentence of the 3^rd paragraph under “What is recounted?”, add “or the appropriate official” as a parenthetical comment after “Secretary of State.”   This parallels the language on page 16.  See 1^st sentence in 1^st paragraph under “When is a recount started. . .”

Conducting a Recount (page 17) – In the 2^nd bullet of “How is a recount conducted?”, add “be” between “should” and “tested.”

Page 3 - first bullet, "The Ballot.", first sentence should be revised.  Not sure exactly what that is trying to say, so I do not have a suggestion on how to fix.

Page 3 - last paragraph beginning with "The EAC", take out "the" between "by" and "HAVA"

Page 10 - below "Determining Voter Intent", following first sentence in second paragraph is a random "15"

Page 18 - Table 4, Georgia should have an "X" in the "Machine Re-tabulation" column

Page 7, Paragraph beginning "Optical scan ballots", 4th sentance should be "such as circling candidate names" not "such a"

Page 15, "Who coducts the recount?" table lists Louisiana under heading "Court".  Louisiana allows a candidate to make a written request for the parish board of election supervisors to recount the absentee by mail and early voting ballots for his office if the number of absentee by mail and early voting balltos cast for all candidates for an office could make a difference in the outcome of the election.  LSA-R.S. 18:1313(I)(2)(a).  This is before an election contest is filed with a court and is in addition to a recount prior to the trila of an election contest suit in LSA-R.S. 18:1451.

Pages 21-22, "Observers and Monitors" table lists Louisiana with NO "X" marks.  Any recount by the parish board of election superviors is open to the public, which would include all candidates and media. 

Page 20 regarding Table 5: Who Pays for a Recount. West Virginia should have an asterik beside the X.

Page 22 regarding Table 6: Observing a Recount. West Virginia allows observation by Candidates/Parties, Public and Media, therefore, please place an X in each box.

Page 24 regarding Table 7: Legal Standing to Contest an Election Outcome. An election outcome can be contested by any person, therefore, an X needs to be added to the first column in this table.

On Page 22, Ma. allows the media and public to observe recounts from behind a guard rail. The candidates involved are able to closely observe.

Page 3 - first bullet, "The Ballot.", needs to be rewritten.  I think it should read, "There are numerous steps in election administration prior to the time when recounts and contests can be conducted."

Page 9, bullet three.  “target circle” should be “target area” as mentioned in the first full paragraph on page 9.

Page 12: Recommend change “contest” to “election” or “campaign.”  Since this report discusses contests and recounts, this sentence might be confusing to a reader.

Page 15, “What is the scope of the recount?”  Virginia updated their recount laws after the 2005 recount and this sentence is no longer accurate.  See Va. Code Ann. § 24.2-802(D)(3) (amended 2008).  Virginia now runs all optical scan ballots through the scanners in a recount.

Page 20, It is correct that Virginia’s recount costs are paid by the petitioner if the recount does not change the outcome of the election in some situations.  The counties and cities pay the cost when “there was between the candidate apparently nominated or elected and the candidate petitioning for the recount a difference of not more than one-half of one percent of the total vote cast for the two such candidates.”  See Va. Code Ann. § 24.2-802(E)(iii).

On page 10, Table 1: the author may want to look at Ohio Revised Code Section 3506.21 and add an "X" under "Voter Intent" for Ohio.

Table 5: Who Pays for a Recount: An "X" should be placed under "Government" for Ohio.  Also, the author may want to insert two asterisks next to the "X" under "Petitioner" and add the following footnote: "** indicates that deposit paid for a recount may be refunded, in whole or in part, depending upon the results of the recount."

Table 6: Observing a Recount: An "X" should be placed both under "Public" and "Media" for Ohio.

Pennsylvania would like to address inaccuracies in five of the charts.

Page10/11- Table 1 Valid Vote Standards PA should have an X under “Objective” not “Voter Intent”

Page 15/16- Table 3 Who Conducts a Recount PA should be placed in the “Election Official” column rather than “Court”

Page 18/19- Table 4 Method of Recount PA should have an X under “Varies”

Page 19/20- Table 5 Who Pays for a Recount PA also should have an X under “Government” as well as “Petitioner”

Page 23/24- Table 7 Legal Standing to Contest an Election Outcome PA should have an X in both columns

Table 2 - Maine does not have Automatic recounts, only candidate initiated.  Please remove the X under Automatic recounts.

Table 3 - In Maine, the Secretary of State conducts the recount not the election official.  Please correct accordingly. 

Table 4 - In Maine, the method of recount is always Hand/manual.  Please add an X under hand/manual.

Table 5 - In Maine, the petitioner pays a deposit (from $0 to $10,000) for the recount depending on the percentage difference of votes between the first and second place candidates.  The deposit is refunded if the recount changes the outcome of the election.  In most cases, the deposit does not pay for the entire cost of the recount. 

In Table 6 - In Maine, candidates/parties, the public and the media can observe the recount, so all 3 options should be checked.

In Table 7 - In Maine, a candidate has standing to contest an election outcome (not a party), but since the only option is candidate/party, that should be checked.