Election Law - Postelection Tabulation Audits - Risk-Limiting Audits
Summary
HB426 revises Maryland’s postelection audit framework and replaces the prior mandatory manual audit after each statewide general election with a risk-limiting audit system. Under the bill, the State Board of Elections, working with local boards, must conduct a risk-limiting audit after each statewide election, and may do so after a special general election. 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 at their discretion.
The bill defines key audit terms, including “risk-limiting audit,” “automated software audit,” “local contest,” and “manual count,” and sets procedural requirements for how audits are selected, observed, completed, and reported. It requires the State Board to choose at least one statewide contest and at least one local contest in each county for audit after each statewide election, with the audit completed before certification of results. If an audit finds the electronic count was wrong, the official result must be corrected to match the audit outcome, and the State Board must post a report describing the process and results within a short deadline.
Impact
HB426 amends Section 11-309 of the Election Law Article to modernize Maryland’s election verification process by shifting from a fixed manual audit model to a statistically based risk-limiting audit model. It expands the State Board’s authority and responsibilities, creates a framework for auditing both statewide and local contests, and requires regulations governing contest selection, risk limits, and audit methods. The bill affects the State Board of Elections, local boards of elections, county election directors, and the certification process for election results, while preserving the finality of certified results unless an audit identifies an incorrect outcome.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have broad legislative support and was enacted, with strong favorable votes in both chambers and no committee opposition reflected in the provided materials. The vote totals suggest the measure was generally viewed as a technical but important election-administration reform aimed at strengthening confidence in vote tabulation. No committee transcripts were provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate in the supplied context.
Contention
The main policy issue in the bill is the replacement of a mandatory manual audit with a risk-limiting audit, which may raise questions about audit methodology, transparency, and whether statistical audits are preferable to broader hand-count procedures. Another point of potential concern is the bill’s requirement that audits be completed before certification, which could affect election timelines and administrative workload for state and local election officials. The bill also gives the State Board discretion over which contests are audited, though it limits that discretion by requiring at least one statewide contest and one local contest in each county and by restricting certain December-starting offices unless the county election director agrees.