Election Law - Postelection Tabulation Audits - Risk-Limiting Audits
Summary
SB313 revises Maryland’s postelection audit requirements to replace the existing mandatory manual audit framework for statewide general elections 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, may do so after a special general election, and may also conduct an automated software audit after a statewide election. The bill also allows local boards to conduct risk-limiting audits of local contests at their discretion.
The measure defines key audit terms, including “risk-limiting audit,” “automated software audit,” “electronic count,” and “local contest,” and requires the audits to use voter-verifiable paper records and statistical methods to confirm election outcomes. If an audit finds that the electronic tabulation was wrong, the official result must be corrected to match the audited outcome. The bill also requires public observation to the maximum extent practicable, reporting of audit results on the State Board’s website, and regulations from the State Board to implement the new audit procedures.
Impact
The bill amends Election Law § 11-309 in the Annotated Code of Maryland by repealing the prior requirement for a manual audit after each statewide general election and replacing it with a mandatory risk-limiting audit regime for statewide elections. It also authorizes, rather than requires, automated software audits after statewide elections, permits risk-limiting audits after special general elections, and gives local boards discretion to audit local contests. The bill changes how postelection tabulation checks are conducted, but preserves the role of voter-verifiable paper records and establishes procedures for correcting election results if an audit reveals an incorrect outcome.
Sentiment
The voting history suggests broad bipartisan support for the bill, with strong passage in both chambers and no recorded opposition in the Senate vote and limited opposition in the House vote. The absence of committee transcript material limits insight into detailed debate, but the final legislative outcome indicates general confidence in the shift toward risk-limiting audits as an election integrity measure. Overall, the bill appears to have been viewed favorably as a modernization of audit procedures.
Contention
The main policy issue is the replacement of a fixed manual audit requirement with a statistical risk-limiting audit process, which may raise questions about audit methodology, transparency, and implementation. The bill addresses this by requiring public observation where practicable, State Board regulations on contest selection, risk limits, and audit methods, and by allowing correction of results if the audit finds an error. Another potential point of contention is the discretion given to local election officials, including the county election director’s ability to block audit selection for certain contests that begin in December, which could affect which races are reviewed.