Requires use of paper ballots during conduct of election; requires use of open source voting technology; makes appropriation.
S1307 would require New Jersey to move to a paper-ballot voting system for in-person voting at polling places, including early voting and election day voting, over a five-year phase-in period. During that transition, counties would be required to use paper ballots tabulated by optical scanners or other Secretary of State-certified equipment that uses open-source software. The bill generally prohibits the use of electronic voting machines to record votes, while preserving a limited number of machines or systems for voters with disabilities, so long as those accessibility devices do not rely on proprietary or nonpublic software.
The bill also adds detailed election-administration requirements. Counties would have to retain paper ballots for at least two years, and election officials would need to reconcile scanner totals, voter sign-in records, mail-in and provisional ballots, and memory-card or flash-drive handling before official results are verified. The measure updates related election statutes to reflect paper-ballot procedures, open-source certification, early-voting operations, emergency ballot use, voter assistance, and election security practices, and it directs the Secretary of State to adopt implementing rules quickly. It also includes a state appropriation and a reimbursement mechanism for county implementation costs.
The bill would substantially revise Title 19 election law by replacing references to voting machines with paper-ballot and optical-scan procedures across multiple statutes, while preserving emergency ballots, provisional ballots, and limited accessibility voting devices. It would require the Secretary of State to certify open-source voting technology, establish ballot retention and reconciliation procedures, and create or update standards for early voting, printing-on-demand systems, and ballot security. The bill also repeals a number of older statutes governing voting machines and related equipment after the five-year phase-in, signaling a full transition away from the current machine-based framework.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented legislative debate or vote history to gauge formal sentiment. Based on the bill text and sponsor statement, the measure appears to be framed as an election-integrity and transparency proposal, emphasizing paper records, open-source software, and post-election reconciliation. The overall tone of the bill is prescriptive and reform-oriented rather than compromise-oriented, with a clear preference for paper-based voting and public access to software code.
The main points of contention are likely to be the elimination of standard electronic voting machines, the mandate that voting technology use open-source software, and the cost and logistics of replacing existing systems statewide. Supporters would likely emphasize auditability, transparency, and a voter-verifiable paper trail, while opponents may raise concerns about implementation complexity, accessibility for voters with disabilities, cybersecurity, and the expense of county-level conversion. The bill also narrows the use of electronic systems to a limited disability-access exception, which could draw scrutiny from disability advocates if the available certified devices are too restrictive or if the transition affects accessibility.