HB0426 amends Maryland election law to replace the prior mandatory manual postelection audit framework with a risk-limiting audit system for statewide elections. After each statewide election, the State Board of Elections, working with local boards, must conduct a risk-limiting audit of at least one statewide contest and at least one local contest in each county, with authority to select additional contests for audit. The bill also allows, but does not require, an automated software audit after a statewide election, and permits local boards to conduct risk-limiting audits of local contests.
The bill defines key audit terms, including “risk limit,” “risk-limiting audit,” “automated software audit,” and “local contest,” and sets procedures for how audits are to be conducted, observed, reported, and, if necessary, expanded. Risk-limiting audits must be completed before certification of election results, be publicly observable to the maximum extent practicable, and be reported on the State Board’s website within 10 days of completion. If an audit shows the electronic count was incorrect, the official result must be altered to match the audit outcome, and the State Board must adopt regulations governing contest selection, risk limits, and audit methods.
In practical terms, the bill changes the state’s postelection verification process by removing the prior requirement for a manual audit after each statewide general election and substituting a statistical audit model intended to provide strong assurance that election outcomes are correct. It affects the State Board of Elections, local boards, canvassing authorities, and election administrators responsible for tabulation verification and certification. The law takes effect June 1, 2025.
The available legislative context shows little recorded controversy: the bill passed the Senate 34-0 with amendments, suggesting broad bipartisan support. No committee transcript or recorded debate was provided, but the unanimous vote indicates general confidence in the move toward risk-limiting audits as an election integrity measure. Because no discussion excerpts are available, there is no documented opposition in the supplied materials.
The main policy issue raised by the bill is the balance between stronger statistical auditing and the administrative burden of implementing a new audit regime before certification deadlines. Potential points of contention include how the State Board will choose contests, set the risk limit, and manage public observation and reporting requirements, but the provided record does not show active disagreement on those points.
HB0426 substantially revises § 11-309 of the Election Law Article by replacing the prior mandatory manual audit structure for statewide general elections with a required risk-limiting audit framework and by authorizing, rather than requiring, automated software audits after statewide elections. It also authorizes local boards to conduct risk-limiting audits of local contests and establishes new definitions, reporting duties, public observation requirements, and regulatory authority for the State Board of Elections. The bill affects election administration, postelection canvassing, and certification procedures, and it can alter official results if a risk-limiting audit finds the electronic count was wrong.
The overall sentiment appears strongly favorable. The bill passed the Senate 34-0 with amendments, indicating broad support and little visible partisan division in the available record. The absence of committee transcripts or recorded opposition suggests the measure was viewed as a technical election-administration reform rather than a controversial policy change.
No specific contention is documented in the supplied materials, but the likely areas of debate are the shift from manual audits to risk-limiting audits, the timing of audits before certification, and the discretion given to the State Board to choose contests and set audit parameters. Election administrators may be concerned about implementation logistics, while election-integrity advocates may focus on whether the new statistical method is sufficiently transparent and robust. However, the unanimous Senate vote suggests these issues did not produce significant recorded opposition.