Secretary of State’s Analysis Shows $200+ Million Cost for Hand-Marked Ballot System
A press release and memo released by the Georgia Secretary of State’s office today states than an internal analysis reveals that a hand-marked ballot system could cost between $207-$224 million over the next ten years. Most of the printing costs, shown as approximately $164 million in the memo, would fall to the counties to pay.
Press release:
HandmarkedToday, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger released the results of a comprehensive internal inquiry into the cost of implementing a hand-marked paper ballot system for the State of Georgia.
The internal inquiry, conducted by Georgia Secretary of State Director of Elections Chris Harvey, concluded that hand-marked paper ballots will cost the state up to $224 million over the course of a decade.
“The $224 million price tag for hand-marked paper ballots stands in sharp contrast to touchscreen-marked paper ballots which would cost our state $150 million and come with the added benefits of superior security, accessibility, and transparency,” said Deputy Secretary of State Jordan Fuchs. “It is our hope that lawmakers will choose the option that will bring greater savings to our taxpayers and peace of mind to our voters.”
The analysis, which took into account the various costs associated with hand-marked paper ballots including ballot scanning machines, electronic poll books and printing costs, noted that the vast majority of this unfunded mandate will fall to Georgia’s counties and taxpayers.
“Implementing hand-marked paper ballots would cost our state more than the estimated $224 million, since that number does not include the costs of staff, training, and other items related to election systems,” said Harvey. “A hand-marked paper ballot system would also dramatically shift costs onto local governments – placing a heavy burden on local taxpayers and drawing a stark distinction between this and other options designed to prioritize taxpayer savings.”
About Author
lawtonsack
Lawton is a graduate of Georgia Southern University (the GSU) with a degree in Information Technology. He has held numerous positions within the Georgia Republican Party throughout the years.
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
This is an out and out lie from the Secretary of State’s office. Hand marked paper ballots would only initially cost the state $30 million. These numbers don’t even reflect the vendor’s numbers. ES&S is the vendor they are trying to use to shove these un-auditable and hackable machines down our throats. ES&S is a highly partisan company that donates to the Republican party. Their lobbyist is now Gov. Kemp’s chief of staff. Something rotten is going on here. Why wouldn’t we want a system that can be effectively audited? This is a complete farce. They held debate today for only ONE HOUR and stacked the list with pro vendor speakers. EVERY election cyber expert says these ballot marking machines are a problem. Tell your legislators to vote NO on HB315!
It’s all about the presentation, too, because for some reasons the estimate includes a decade of printing costs. Not to mention the equipment costs are estimated, and not real prices. And you have to assume they’d round everything up, given the clear advocacy of the piece. (The estimate looks more like a pie-in-the-sky pro forma budget than anything).
But even if you just assume accuracy of the “low cost”, the cost would be what, around $20 million a year over a decade, or $50 million for the first year. So, it’s not like they’re as far away from that $30 million as the presentation would make it.
This smells fishy.
Are all the vendor proposals publicly available?
If the Gov. wanted an independent analysis he should get an independent firm to conduct one, not some internal memo with zero transparency.
If this was a corrupt process this is very much what it would look like.
I know this has been discussed before, but these touchscreen machines would produce a paper receipt that has just a bar code, or a bar code along with a written description of the votes cast?
Either way, has there been any talk of a separate bar code-reading machine that voters can use right after casting their vote, to double-check the accuracy?
I’ve read the ES&S proposal and it is not clear about that. It only specifically indicates a barcode on the ballot access card. So you would have to have been privy to the presentations to know exactly how this works I guess. I have asked Scott Holcombe about this but he hasn’t responded (he’s not my rep though).
They do seem to have a scanner for hand-marked ballots as part of their system though:
“ES&S offers the DS200 and ExpressVote for Method 1. Hand-marked ballots and vote summary cards marked via the ExpressVote are tabulated on the DS200 precinct tabulator and deposited into the secure ballot box.”
Seems like you couldn’t have a barcode on a hand marked ballot, right?
But I don’t know why their system is apparently so much more expensive.
But, here is a question that the state asked the vendors to respond to:
2. Describe how your solution would accommodate each of the proposed methods of in-person voting described in Section 3.4. Discuss the pros and cons of each method as it relates to your solution.
ES&S answer:
Method 1: In-person (early and election day) voting is primarily conducted with optical scan paper ballots marked by hand. Ballot-marking devices are available to be used as needed. Ballots (hand-marked and marked using ballot-marking devices) are scanned by digital scanners and deposited into a secure ballot box.
Method 2: In-person (early and election day) voting is conducted solely with ballot-marking devices. Ballots marked using ballot-marking devices are scanned by digital scanners and deposited into a secure ballot box.
Method 3: Absentee in-person (early) voting is conducted solely with ballot-marking devices. Election day voting is primarily conducted with optical scan paper ballots marked by hand. Ballot-marking devices are available to be used as needed. Ballots (hand-marked and marked using ballot marking devices) are scanned by digital scanners and deposited into a secure ballot box.
http://sos.ga.gov/index.php/elections/secure_accessible__fair_elections_safe_commission
My question is, why, if the equipment is capable, would we restrict in-person voting to ballot-marking devices only?
In any case, I don’t have a particular problem with ballot marking devices, but those ballot marks are what need to be counted, not some interpretation of those marks.
In addition, ES&S has the ability to have remote access to voting machines. The vote tabulations can be manipulated that way. This is clearly an attempt at securing one party rule in GA for the foreseeable future. We are in big trouble.
ES&S has donated $30k to the Republican State Leadership Committee & installed remote access software in election systems in 300 jurisdictions.
https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/11/05/voting-machines-what-could-possibly-go-wrong/
Printed paper costs more than 27,000 machines to print paper? This BS needs to be packaged up and sold because it is USDA prime. Yanno’ the Guv’na when he was SoS promised an Ernst and Young review of his office and processes after mailing out all of our voter data. He copped out after the storm blew over. I’m with B, I want to see a guaranteed independent consultant pulled in on this and it should have already happened. As I stated a couple of weeks ago however, it is quite obvious the fix is in. It is the Guv’s pet company and even the Dems don’t seem to want to fight even if they could.
ES&S has donated $30k to the Republican State Leadership Committee & installed remote access software in election systems in 300 jurisdictions.
https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/11/05/voting-machines-what-could-possibly-go-wrong/
A ballot marking machine is great if it ONLY produced a ballot that must be read as printed, no bar codes. A ballot that prints voters choices, but only reads an easily hacked-rigged bar code for vote tabulation is not a secure system. We need a system that only reads and tabulates voter choices with those choices visible for verification.
Raffensperger after three months hasn’t had time to report on the hack of the voter database by the Dems or malfunctioning machines in the Lt Gov race, but when voting machine lobbyists say “5h!+”, the response is where and how high.
It bodes well for Dems when Raffensperger thinks 55% or Georgians “are in the minority” and “out of the mainstream”.
So let’s review on our most recent experiences with voting machines:
First we have a SoS tell us an untold amount of times over an eight year period that the results from the total electronic machines were infallible even though there was no way to verify such claims. For an unknown number of years to me anyway ES&S was supporting the SoS in these claims and in actually handling the logistics of running the elections.
Then we get to the year the SoS is running for governor himself and lo and behold they are indeed fallible. But, but… we don’t have time to swap them out or augment them so we will have to use them anyway. Well, except for hundreds of them in certain precincts in Fulton and DeKalb that are somehow deemed more fallible than all the rest and have to be left sequestered. Keep in mind that over the 17 years the machines had been in use there were reports of a lack of machines and subsequent long lines in several urban and suburban precincts in each and every election. Ditto this most recent one in an election the sitting SoS squeaked through into the governorship, again using the guiding advice of ES&S in the handling of the machines.
Now we are being told that we still need special machines that can be restricted yet again and lo and behold it appears only the ones promoted by ES&S fit the bill. Every vote counts and oh, horror of horrors what if someone hand marks their ballot incorrectly. Never mind the untold thousands of votes not cast at all when the voters are facing half-day or more long lines from restricting their availability to machines to place their vote. There is clearly voter suppression in play though proving this in a court is another matter. Now keeping the party in power in place and throwing some business to the one “what brung ’em to the dance” is clearly the motive.
The comparison of the initial purchase price of the machines and services of ES&S to 20 years of inflated costs of using paper is so laughable the current SoS should be ashamed. But one thing I’ve almost never seen in Georgia politics is a sense of shame. Party over people has always been the mantra regardless of the one in power.
I’m curious to see the analysis of the touchscreen machines. Is there an assumption that this equipment will not need to be updated or replaced over 10 years? If so I’m very skeptical.
As pointed out in the open letter from Freedomworks and the National Election Defense Coalition that Jessica linked on Thursday the SoS is comparing an inflated original price for pen on paper ballots and the inflated “cost to run elections with hand marked ballots for ten years” against just the initial price of the ES&S ballot marking machines.
https://coaltionforgoodgovernance.sharefile.com/share/view/s79c8255766c48d7a?skipNativeCheck=true&fbclid=IwAR3m1GF0uLYlgjIReHA5m1orjVAgeN1nZwmB9kq1Cr1Bj9HrwKGv_NtmNd4
Keep in mind that the ES&S machines and their software are proprietary and will require annual fees in addition to the state contracts already in place for their election services. The example they use of comparing a the purchase and complete usage costs of a Chevy over 10 years to just the purchase price of a Bentley to somehow make the Bentley appear like the cheaper choice is perfect. When you throw in almost tripling the actual printing costs of paper ballots it invalidates the comps even more.
The current SoS is just as disingenuous with facts as the previous one but obviously Georgia voters have almost never seen that as a bad trait.
Of note earlier in the session we got this nugget from the SoS to the AJC:
Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger spoke in favor of ballot-marking devices during budget hearings last week, saying they’re more accurate because computer-printed ballots avoid ambiguity that could be introduced by stray marks on hand-marked ballots. But he also said he wouldn’t bias the state’s selection of a voting technology. “I don’t have a predetermined outcome,” Raffensperger said. “I want a fair process.”
And this from:
Senate Rules Chairman Jeff Mullis was forceful in his opposition to hand-marked paper ballots when he spoke on the Senate floor recently.
“I’m telling you, no paper ballots. They’re fraudulent,” said Mullis, a Republican from Chickamauga. “The most secure place in our entire election system should be the ballot box, and I will not stand here and let paper ballots take us back to the Dark Ages.”
https://www.ajc.com/news/state–regional-govt–politics/firm-close-ties-georgia-stir-concerns-about-voting-system-purchase/HVK4wcNsEAKO0Xa0ptLLKM/
Now we have the SoS showing that he definitely does have a predetermined outcome and I just had to throw in the Mullis quote to illustrate how much the fix is in with the
King’sGovernor’s choice of company and methods we will use for voting in Georgia in the future. BTW Sen. Mullis, 70% of the other states use hand marked paper ballots as their method of choice and the development of paper is likely the primary contributor to record keeping, enlightenment, and therefore the subsequent demise of the Dark Ages.