Marshall County; custodian of voting tabulators, selection committee, salary increased, duties clarified
HB193 is a local act for Marshall County that revises the process for appointing the custodian of voting tabulators and updates that position’s duties and compensation. The bill amends Section 45-48-111.03 of the Code of Alabama 1975 to add the presiding district judge to the selection committee and to clarify that the committee includes the presiding circuit judge, circuit clerk, judge of probate, sheriff, and presiding district judge. It also updates the custodian’s qualifications, requiring training or at least three years of experience with voting tabulators.
The bill spells out the custodian’s responsibilities in detail, including testing and sealing tabulators, handling paper rolls and test totals, supporting ADA voting equipment, overseeing delivery and pickup of equipment, assisting on election day, and preparing for recounts. It increases the custodian’s salary from $8,900 to $27,000 per year, effective July 1, 2026, allows future salary increases by resolution of the Marshall County Commission beginning June 1, 2028, and raises the required bond from $10,000 to $20,000. The act becomes effective June 1, 2026.
HB193 changes local election administration law in Marshall County by revising who selects the custodian of voting tabulators, clarifying the custodian’s operational duties, and substantially increasing the salary and bond requirements for the position. The bill affects county election officials, the Marshall County Commission, and the county general fund, which will pay the increased salary. It also reinforces procedures for tabulator testing, ADA equipment handling, election-day support, and recount preparation.
The bill appears to have been received very favorably and without controversy. It passed both chambers unanimously, with no recorded dissenting votes in the House or Senate. The lack of committee transcript material suggests there was little or no public debate captured in the available record, and the voting history indicates broad agreement on the need to update and compensate the position.
No notable points of contention are reflected in the available materials. The only policy choices embedded in the bill are administrative: expanding the selection committee, defining duties more specifically, and increasing pay and bond amounts. If any concern existed, it would likely have centered on the larger salary increase and the county-funded fiscal impact, but the unanimous votes suggest those issues did not generate opposition in the recorded proceedings.