Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.

State of Election Administration Legislation 2023 Year-End Report: Election audits and qualifications for election auditors

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Election Admininstration Legislation VNT.png
State of Election Administration Legislation
2023 Year-End Report
Executive summary • About the tracker and methodology • Tracking trends • Specific policy subsets • Ranked-choice voting • Private funding bans • Election audits and qualifications for auditors • Photo ID requirements for in-person and absentee voting • Noncitizen voting
More on 2023 election administration legislation
Enacted bills
Absentee/mail-in voting • Early voting • Electoral systems • Voting rights for convicted felons • Private funding • Primary systems • Redistricting • Voter identification
Select a state from the menu below to learn more about election policy in that state.

December 15, 2023
By Ballotpedia staff

Jump to:

Election audits

There are two types of post-election audits: audits of election results—which include traditional post-election as well as risk-limiting audits—and procedural audits. Procedural audits may include a systematic review of voting equipment, performance of the voting system, duties of election officials and workers, ballot chain of custody, or other oversight mandated by law. The scope of procedural audits varies by state.

Audits of election results check that election results a state's voting system tallies match results from paper records, such as voters’ paper ballots or electronic voting machines’ paper records. Typically, traditional post-election audits involve recounting ballots and comparing the results to those of the state's voting system. Risk-limiting audits are similar to traditional audits but use statistical techniques to review a random sample of votes cast.

Heading into 2023, 35 states and the District of Columbia required traditional post-election audits, and three states required risk-limiting post-election audits. Three states required procedural post-election audits, but not a traditional or risk-limiting audit. Numerous states with traditional or risk-limiting audit requirements also had provisions related to procedural audits. Finally, eight states had a risk-limiting audit pilot program (see map below).

Fifteen states approved new election audit laws in 2023. Four of these states enacted new post-election audit requirements, while nine states amended or expanded existing audit requirements. Georgia and Indiana modified risk-limiting audit pilot programs.


Qualifications for election auditors

In addition to bills addressing requirements for post-election audits, we’ve also tracked five bills related to qualifications for election auditors this year:


In addition to bills addressing requirements for post-election audits, we also followed six bills on qualifications for election auditors this year:


  • Michigan SB570 prohibits a county clerk who “is an officer or member of the governing body of a national, state, or local political party, or is a precinct delegate of a political party” from conducting post-election audits required by law. The bill requires the secretary of state to train an appointee of such clerks to conduct the audit. Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) signed the bill on November 29, 2023.
  • New Hampshire SB157 defines who may conduct an audit as a team including an individual who has "...been trained by the secretary of state in the audit process and the use of audit equipment," as well as an elected official. The bill also provides that the secretary of state may include technical experts in the audit team to assist with the technology being used.
  • New York A3512 would create new audit requirements and provides that the state boards of elections may contract with an election auditing entity that “must meet standards to ensure its independence.”
  • Oregon HB3448 defines an entity qualified to conduct an audit as one with “significant experience conducting election audits... [and that is] based outside of Oregon and does not employ any individuals who reside in Oregon.”
  • North Carolina H372 would require the state to "implement best practices to ensure, at a minimum, each audit … [i]s conducted by nonpartisan officials with expertise in elections."
  • Utah HB0155 would have allowed the state to contract with a “qualified independent accounting firm” for the purposes of assisting in an audit of the election system and election results.

Ballotpedia's Election Administration Legislation Tracker

Election tracker site ad.png


State election laws are changing. Keeping track of the latest developments in all 50 states can seem like an impossible job.

Here's the solution: Ballotpedia's Election Administration Legislation Tracker.

Ballotpedia's Election Administration Tracker sets the industry standard for ease of use, flexibility, and raw power. But that's just the beginning of what it can do:

  • Ballotpedia's election experts provide daily updates on bills and other relevant political developments.
  • We translate complex bill text into easy-to-understand summaries written in everyday language.
  • And because it's from Ballotpedia, our Tracker is guaranteed to be neutral, unbiased, and nonpartisan.

About the authors

Joe Greaney is a staff writer on Ballotpedia's Marquee Team.

Janie Valentine is a team lead on Ballotpedia's Marquee Team.

Ballotpedia Editor in Chief Geoff Pallay reviewed the report and provided feedback, as did Managing Editor Cory Eucalitto.

See also

Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=State_of_Election_Administration_Legislation_2023_Year-End_Report:Election_audits_and_qualifications_for_election_auditors&oldid=9597905"