AN ACT to amend and reenact section 16.1-06-15 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to conducting and reporting postelection audits.
SB 2175 amends North Dakota law governing voting system testing and postelection audits. The bill keeps the existing requirement that voting systems be tested before each election, but it revises the postelection audit process to make it more specific and mandatory after statewide primary, general, and special elections. Under the bill, the secretary of state must order a random audit in one precinct or polling location in each county, beginning on the sixth day after election day and ending by the eighth day, before county canvassing occurs.
The bill also specifies who conducts the audit and what is reviewed. County auditors must appoint an election board to perform the audit, give notice of the audit, and ensure the board reviews ballots from one federal contest, one statewide contest, one legislative contest if applicable, and one county contest. If discrepancies are found between the machine count and the audit, the secretary of state may order additional audits in the county, and those audit results may serve as the official record used during canvassing. The bill further requires the audit results to be submitted to the secretary of state for publication and directs how ballots are stored afterward.
SB 2175 amends section 16.1-06-15 of the North Dakota Century Code, expanding and clarifying the state’s postelection audit requirements for voting systems. It affects county auditors, county recorders, election boards, the secretary of state, and the handling, storage, and reporting of ballots and audit results. The bill strengthens post-election verification procedures and creates a more structured timeline and reporting framework for audit administration.
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial. It passed the Senate unanimously, 47-0, and the House by a wide margin, 87-2, with five absent. The available record contains no committee testimony or discussion, but the vote totals suggest general bipartisan agreement on the need for postelection audit procedures and election system verification.
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials. Based on the bill text, any debate would likely have centered on the scope and timing of mandatory audits, the administrative burden on county election officials, and whether additional audits should be triggered when discrepancies are found. However, the recorded votes indicate that any such concerns did not prevent strong legislative approval.