Discussion and possible direction regarding the Elections Department Informational Update on the review of the November 2024 election, including key takeaways and recommendations to improve processes for future elections.

Joe Casey, Interim Deputy County Administrator, presented this item. Mr. Casey discussed the steps being taken to address issues from the previous general election. He stated one of the main challenges was ballot errors, which occurred due to a compressed timeline for reviewing over 700 pages of ballots. He stated moving forward, the plan is to allocate at least five working days for ballot review, even if vendors request a faster turnaround.

The Board and staff explained that multiple vendors can be used for ballot printing and equipment, with the primary vendors being Runbeck for printing services and ES&S for machines. The issue with the previous election was a delay in receiving the ballot proofs, which caused a tight turnaround for proofing and printing. To address this, candidates will now have the option to review a full deck of ballots in the conference room during the five-day review period to ensure accuracy, including checking name spellings. This new process gives candidates the chance to ensure their names are on the ballot, but participation will be optional.

The Board and staff discussed the challenge of emailing large PDF files of ballots due to size limitations for email inboxes. For the general election, the files were around 7,500 pages, making them difficult to send. To address this, he suggested candidates could review the ballots in person, as posting them online or sending them via email might risk security and duplication issues. He stated the ballots would need specific security features like watermarks which aren't present in the PDF files, making in-person inspection the safer option for reviewing.

Supervisor Gomez and staff discussed the process of handling ballot errors, particularly in rural areas. They identified the importance of notifying candidates when issues arise, as candidates can help spread the word to affected voters. In the case of a specific race, there was a delay in notifying voters about a ballot error, and some voters mistook the second mailed ballot for a duplicate. The suggestion was made to clearly mark the second ballot with a message indicating it was not a duplicate, to prevent confusion in rural areas where voters may not check their mail regularly.

The Board and staff made a suggestion to use phone trees, emails, and text messages to notify voters directly, especially in rural areas where people may not be reachable by traditional means. There was a concern that candidates should be notified immediately of ballot errors so they could quickly address the situation and inform their supporters. Additionally, the need for more resources in the elections department was raised to ensure timely responses and avoid delays in critical election processes.

The Board and staff discussed the Logic and Accuracy (L&A) test. It was clarified that only state and federal candidates are tested for machine accuracy, while county and city candidates are not specifically included, although they can attend the tests. There was a concern about the lack of notification for these tests, with suggestions to improve public notice, including adding Facebook posts to reach a wider audience. Staff acknowledged that these procedural changes would be added to the elections department's ongoing processes.

In response to the Board, Mr. Casey explained that the software for the new machines is designed to handle various ballot sizes and formats, including two-page ballots. The request is for two additional DS 950 machines to replace the outdated DS 450, which no longer meets the department’s needs due to its slow performance. The existing 850 machine is nearing the end of its life and no longer receives support, but it could be kept as a backup. The cost for two DS 950 machines is approximately $300,000, though they could operate with just one and rely on the 850 as a backup.

The Board focused on the challenges of moving away from machine-based voting systems. While some have suggested eliminating machines, it was emphasized that this isn't feasible due to statutory requirements. The discussion also addressed the need for a gradual transition, possibly by introducing a 25% sample hand count to validate the machine results, allowing for smaller-scale testing and adjustments before implementing changes. The goal would be to ensure accuracy and avoid the pitfalls of a sudden, complete switch, which could have a negative impact and incur high costs. A detailed process would need to be developed and tested before making any significant changes.

Mr. Casey highlighted the need to build up three fully certified teams to operate the new machines. These teams would need to be dedicated and trained ahead of time. Additionally, regular maintenance on the machines is essential, and the vendor should perform maintenance at least 60 days before each election to ensure the equipment is in good working condition.

The Board emphasized the need to inform the Board of Supervisors if issues like re-tabulation occur, so they can provide support and be aware of any challenges before they escalate. The Board expressed their commitment to working as a team to avoid blame and ensure public understanding. They also discussed the timing of changes to election rules, referencing the Purcell Doctrine, which suggests that the closer to an election changes are made, the less likely they will be accepted by a court.

The Board and staff discussed the training and certification requirements for county employees and poll workers involved in elections. It was noted that county employees who assist with elections, like delivery drivers or signature verifiers, take an oath and follow a two-party rule for handling ballots. Mr. Stevens stated signature verifiers undergo annual training, and there are about six or seven certified verifiers in the county. Additionally, the Board reviewed the challenges of recruiting poll workers, particularly from the public, and discussed using County employees as backup when there are gaps, although the $35 daily compensation for travel and training has been noted as insufficient to attract a younger workforce.

The Board discussed the challenges of transitioning back to a precinct-based voting model, with a focus on increasing voter confidence. The idea of returning to precinct-level voting and hand-counting ballots was explored, especially as the current voting center model has led to long wait times and decreased confidence. The Board also discussed the possibility of implementing a hand-counting system similar to the French model, where ballots are counted at the precinct and then sent to central locations for validation.

The Board and staff discussed the challenges encountered with the early board process, where the bottleneck was caused by the human element of opening envelopes and checking for errors, not the machines. To improve this, they plan to increase the number of early board members, including county staff, as backup teams. These staff members would be appointed 50 days before the election, with coordination between the Recorder's office and the Election office to ensure smooth workflow.  Mr. Stevens stated the process now involves scanning ballots twice—once when received and once for signature verification—adding pressure to the office, but the current staff are managing the workload while seeking to hire two more staff members for support.

Vice-Chairman Crosby discussed the importance of distinguishing between "canvas" and "certification" in the context of election results. He pointed out that while the agenda referred to the Elections Department certifying results, Arizona state law assigns the certification and canvassing responsibility to the Board of Supervisors, not the Elections Department. Crosby expressed concern that the language in the agenda and some practices might be shifting responsibility away from the Board, potentially undermining its checks and balances role in certifying election results. He stressed the need for the Board to ensure its oversight and certification role is maintained, aligning with statutory requirements, and warned against the trend of judicial overreach.

Mr. Casey and Ms. Renteria discussed the plan to recruit early board members earlier and increase the number of members to streamline the process. Additionally, they aim to implement electronic adjudication for voter intent to speed up the resolution of potential issues, reducing delays in tabulation. There were also discussions about optimizing the elections department space, including expanding the ballot cage, reorganizing the layout for better efficiency, and creating a more open tabulation area with direct observation for transparency.

Chairman Antenori mentioned that there is a bill in the legislature proposing to place the elections director under the County Recorder's office. He noted that the bill includes other board duties as well, but emphasized that any changes would require approval. He added that this topic will be discussed further in the future.

The Board discussed the need to create a list of items that require approval, including the new machines, construction contracts for renovations, and new training. These items will be brought before the Board as agenda items for approval, and the necessary budget amendments or fund transfers from the contingency fund will be requested to cover election-related expenses. The process will move forward with the items being presented as soon as possible for approval.

The Board and staff discussed the timeline for upcoming election-related items, including machine upgrades, facility renovations, and potential ballot measures. While the new election machines can be brought before the Board soon, the remodel will take longer as details are gathered. There was also discussion about Prop 123, which pertains to state trust land funding for education. The initial goal was to have it on the May or August ballot, but those deadlines have passed, meaning it will now be a statewide special election in November with a single ballot question. The Board saw this as an opportunity to test new election processes and possibly add local jurisdictional measures.

The Board and staff discussed ways to reduce wait times at voting centers, particularly in high-traffic areas like Douglas and Sierra Vista. Suggestions included consolidating some remote locations, adding new vote centers, purchasing additional equipment, and increasing staffing. Expanding early voting opportunities was also considered, but staffing challenges made it difficult to sustain extended early voting hours.

Vice-Chairman Crosby and Mr. Hendel discussed an issue regarding the discrepancy in the number of early vote hand counts. Mr. Hendel stated that he would research the issue further and provide a response.

The Board and staff discussed expanding early voting options, particularly in Douglas, where no early voting was available. There was interest in adding at least one early voting day in October, preferably on a Saturday, to accommodate those who work Monday through Friday. Recruitment challenges for election workers were also addressed, with suggestions to improve outreach through local organizations and possibly offer a stipend to encourage participation. The discussion also covered the ballot processing timeline, noting that while election results could potentially be completed faster, the required five-day signature cure period and provisional ballot verification ensure that final results cannot be determined immediately.