SB 394 — AN ACT IMPLEMENTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE RISK-LIMITING AUDITS WORKING GROUP.

564394 (2)Theabsenteeballotcountersineachcentral countinglocationshall create a ballot manifest for such pollingcentral placecounting location in accordance with procedures prescribed by the Secretary of the State;State.

and (2)Theabsenteeballotcountersineachcentralcountinglocationshall create a ballot manifest for such central counting location in accordance with procedures prescribed by the Secretary of the State.

In any action brought pursuant to the provisions of this section, the complainant shallfile a certificationattachedto thecomplaint indicating sSB394that /a Filecopyofthecomplaint No.hasbeensent by first-classmailor delivered to the State Elections Enforcement Commission.

564If such complaint is made prior to such election, such judge shall proceed expeditiously to LCO 11 sSB394of File20 Substitute Bill No.

564394 thatrender ajudgment copyofthecomplainton hasbeensentthe bycomplaint first-classmailorand deliveredshall cause notice of the hearing to be given to the Secretary of the State and the State Elections Enforcement Commission.

If such complaint is made prior to such election, such judge shall proceed expeditiously to render judgment on the complaint and shall cause notice of the hearing to be given to the Secretary of the State and the State Elections Enforcement Commission.

Such certificate of such judges, or a majority of them, shall be sSB394final /upon Fileall questions relating to the rulings of such election officials, to the correctness of such count and, for the purposes of this section only, such claimed violations, and shall operate to correct the returns of LCO 12 of 20 Substitute Bill No.

564394 12the sSB394moderators Fileor No.presiding officers so as to conform to such finding or decision.

564 final upon all questions relating to the rulings of such election officials, to the correctness of such count and, for the purposes of this section only, such claimed violations, and shall operate to correct the returns of the moderators or presiding officers so as to conform to such finding or decision.

If such complaint is made subsequent to the election,it shallbebrought not later thanfourteendaysaftertheelection or, if such complaint is brought in response to [the manual tabulation of sSB394paper /ballots Fileauthorized] an audit conducted pursuant to section 9-320f, as amended by this act, or section 1 of this act, such complaint shall be brought not later than seven days after the close of any such [manual LCO 13 of 20 Substitute Bill No.

564394 13tabulation] sSB394audit Fileand, No.in either such circumstance, such judge shall forthwith order a hearing to be had upon such complaint, upon a day not more than five nor less than three days from the making of such order, and shall cause notice of not less than three nor more than five days to be given to any candidate or candidates whose election may be affected by the decision upon such hearing, to such election official, the Secretary of the State, the State Elections Enforcement Commission and to any other party or parties whom such judge deems proper parties thereto, of the time and place for the hearing upon such complaint.

564 paper ballots authorized] an audit conducted pursuant to section 9-320f, as amended by this act, or section 1 of this act, such complaint shall be brought not later than seven days after the close of any such [manual tabulation] audit and, in either such circumstance, such judge shall forthwith order a hearing to be had upon such complaint, upon a day not more than five nor less than three days from the making of such order, and shall cause notice of not less than three nor more than five days to be given to any candidate or candidates whose election may be affected by the decision upon such hearing, to such election official, the Secretary of the State, the State Elections Enforcement Commission and to any other party or parties whom such judge deems proper parties thereto, of the time and place for the hearing upon such complaint.

Any elector or candidate claiming to have been aggrieved by any ruling of any election official in connection with an election for any municipal office or a primary for justice of the peace, or any elector or sSB394candidate /claiming Filethat there has been a mistake in the count of votes cast for any such office at such election or primary, or any candidate in such an election or primary claiming that he is aggrieved by a violation LCO 14 of 20 Substitute Bill No.

564394 14ofanyprovisionofsections9-355,9-357to9-361,inclusive,9-364,9-364a, sSB394or File9-365 No.in the casting of absentee ballots at such election or primary, may bring a complaint to any judge of the Superior Court for relief therefrom.

564 candidate claiming that there has been a mistake in the count of votes cast for any such office at such election or primary, or any candidate in such an election or primary claiming that he is aggrieved by a violation ofanyprovisionofsections9-355,9-357to9-361,inclusive,9-364,9-364a, or 9-365 in the casting of absentee ballots at such election or primary, may bring a complaint to any judge of the Superior Court for relief therefrom.

sSB394Such /judge Fileshall thereupon, if he finds any error in the rulings of the electionofficialor any mistake inthecount of thevotes,certify theresult of his finding or decision to the Secretary of the State before the tenth LCO 15 of 20 Substitute Bill No.

564394 15day sSB394succeeding Filethe No.conclusion of the hearing.

564 Such judge shall thereupon, if he finds any error in the rulings of the electionofficialor any mistake inthecount of thevotes,certify theresult of his finding or decision to the Secretary of the State before the tenth day succeeding the conclusion of the hearing.

If such complaint is made prior to such sSB394primary /such Filejudge No.shall proceed expeditiously to render judgment on the complaint and shall cause notice of the hearing to be given to the Secretary of the State and the State Elections Enforcement Commission.

564LCO 16 sSB394of File20 Substitute Bill No.

564394 primaryIf such judgecomplaint shallis proceedmade expeditiouslysubsequent to rendersuch judgmentprimary onit theshall be brought, not later than fourteen days after such primary, or if such complaint andis shallbrought causein noticeresponse to [the manual tabulation of thepaper hearingballots, described in] an audit conducted pursuant to section 9-320f, as amended by this act, or section 1 of this act, such complaint shall be givenbrought, tonot later than seven days after the Secretaryclose of theany Statesuch and[manual thetabulation] Stateaudit, Electionsto Enforcementany Commission.judge of the Superior Court.

If such complaint is made subsequent to such primary it shall be brought, not later than fourteen days after such primary, or if such complaint is brought in response to [the manual tabulation of paper ballots, described in] an audit conducted pursuant to section 9-320f, as amended by this act, or section 1 of this act, such complaint shall be brought, not later than seven days after the close of any such [manual tabulation] audit, to any judge of the Superior Court.

(3) The duties of each regional election advisor shall include, but not sSB394be /limited Fileto: No.

564 17 sSB394 File No.

564 be limited to:

(B) communicating with registrars of votersLCO to17 assist, to the extent permitted under law, in preparations for and operations of any20 election,Substitute primaryBill orNo. recanvass, or any audit conducted pursuant to section 9-320f, as amended by this act, or section 1 of this act;

394 voters to assist, to the extent permitted under law, in preparations for and operations of any election, primary or recanvass, or any audit conducted pursuant to section 9-320f, as amended by this act, or section 1 of this act;

and (2) the Secretary of the State and The University of sSB394Connecticut /agree Filethat such equipment is sufficient in quantity to LCO 18 of 20 Substitute Bill No.

564394 18accommodate sSB394the Filetotal No.number of audits to be conducted.

564 Connecticut agree that such equipment is sufficient in quantity to accommodate the total number of audits to be conducted.

13 from passage New section StatementGAE ofJoint LegislativeFavorable Commissioners:Subst.

InLCO Section19 3(a),of "or20 municipalSubstitute electionBill and"No. was changed to "or any municipal election or primary and" for accuracy;

and394 inAPP SectionJoint 3(l),Favorable sSB394LCO /20 Fileof No.20

564 19 sSB394 File No.

564 "Such court or the Secretary [of the State]" was changed to "Such court or the Secretary of the State", and "as the court or the Secretary of the State may designate" was changed to "as the court or the Secretary [of the State] may designate", for consistency.

GAE Joint Favorable Subst.

sSB394 / File No.

564 20 sSB394 File No.

564 The following Fiscal Impact Statement and Bill Analysis are prepared for the benefit of the members of the General Assembly, solely for purposes of information, summarization and explanation and do not represent the intent of the General Assembly or either chamber thereof for any purpose.

In general, fiscal impacts are based upon a variety of informational sources, including the analyst’s professional knowledge.

Whenever applicable, agency data is consulted as part of the analysis, however final products do not necessarily reflect an assessment from any specific department.

OFA Fiscal Note State Impact:

Agency Affected Fund-Effect FY 27 $ FY 28 $ FY 29 $ Secretary of the GF - Cost 340,000 205,000 360,000 State Note:

GF=General Fund Municipal Impact:

Municipalities Effect FY 27 $ FY 28 $ FY 29 $ Various STATE 2,000 None Up to 50,000 Municipalities MANDATE 1 - Cost Explanation The bill implements risk-limiting audits (RLAs), beginning with a pilot program in FY 27 and expanding statewide in FY 29.

This results in a cost to the Secretary of the State (SOTS) of $340,000 in FY 27, $205,000 in FY 28, and $360,000 annually beginning in FY 29.

Additionally, there is an aggregate cost to municipalities of approximately $2,000 in FY 27, and up to $50,000 beginning in FY 29.

SOTS costs in FY 27 consist of two one-time costs and annual costs.

One-timeFY27costsareexpectedtobe:(1)$200,000tosupportprogram development;

and (2) $15,000 for licensing the pilot program.

The program development costs, which are paid for by SOTS but ultimately borne by the University of Connecticut Center for Voting Technology 1State mandate is defined in Sec.

2-32b(2) of the Connecticut General Statutes, "state mandate" means any state initiated constitutional, statutory or executive action that requires a local government to establish, expand or modify its activities in such a way as to necessitate additional expenditures from local revenues.

sSB394 / File No.

564 21 sSB394 File No.

564 and Research, are associated with developing and testing auditing software and processes and conducting the pilot program audits.

Annual SOTS costs are expected to be:

(1) $125,000 beginning in FY for the program's ongoing maintenance and upkeep;

(2) $80,000 beginning inFY 28 to support risk-limiting audit software licensing;

and (3) $155,000 beginning in FY 29 for equipment replacement costs.

The cost to municipalitiesis associatedwiththe additionallabor costs to implement risk-limiting audits.

The bill establishes a limited pilot program in FY 27 for three municipalities, before expanding RLA applicabilityinFY29.

Theexactcostwilldependonwhetherastatewide race qualifies for risk-limiting audits and on the number of other races subject to them.

The Out Years The annualized ongoing fiscal impact identified above would continue into the future, subject to inflation and the number of risk- limiting audits carried out annually.

sSB394 / File No.

564 22 sSB394 File No.

564 OLR Bill Analysis sSB 394 AN ACT IMPLEMENTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE RISK- LIMITING AUDITS WORKING GROUP.

SUMMARY This bill implements risk-limiting audits (RLAs) for state elections but, generally, maintains the existing post-election audit process for federal and state primaries and municipal elections.

RLAs are publicly verifiable auditing procedures that manually examine a statistical sample of paper ballots and guarantee a specified risk limit, which the bill caps at 5%.

To accomplish this, the bill establishes the general scope and procedures for RLAs, such as (1) outlining election officials’ duties and the affected public offices;

(2) requiring the creation of ballot manifests;

and (3) applying existing provisions for post-election audits to RLAs (such as those on using electronic equipment and voting tabulators and how to address election contests).

The bill requires the secretary of the state (SOTS) to prescribe instructions and procedures for doing the audits.

It also allows her to adopt related regulations.

The bill establishes a pilot program to do RLAs of state elections in 2026.

It requires SOTS to randomly select three municipalities for the program, with one for each of the following population ranges, as estimated in the most recent State Register and Manual:

(1) less than 20,000;

(2) 20,000-89,999;

and (3) 90,000 or greater (§ 13).

Additionally, current law requires regular post-election audits for municipalelectionsandprimariesto occur noearlierthanfivedaysafter an election and no later than two business days before the town clerk’s canvass for votes.

Instead, under the bill, the audits for municipal electionsmust occur at least 15daysafter theelectionor primary instead sSB394 / File No.

564 23 sSB394 File No.

564 of five.

Lastly, the bill makes minor, technical, and conforming changes to existing election audit statutes, such as requiring a copy, rather than the original, of UConn’s analysis to be submitted to the State Elections Enforcement Commission (SEEC).

EFFECTIVE DATE:

January 1, 2027, except the pilot program is effective upon passage.

RISK-LIMITING AUDIT SCOPE Definitions The bill requires registrars of voters to do RLAs for state elections, instead of the current post-election audit process.

Federal and state primaries, as well as municipal elections and primaries, remain subject to existing auditing requirements (see BACKGROUND).

Under thebill,anRLAisapublicly verifiableauditing procedure that (1) manually examines a statistical sample of paper ballots that reflect the intents of the voters who cast the ballots, (2) produces an outcome of either “ACCEPTABLE” or “INCONCLUSIVE”, and (3) guarantees a specified risk limit.

The “risk limit” is the maximum probability that an audit would produce an outcome of “ACCEPTABLE” when there is a disagreement between the person declared elected and the person who got the most votes as determined by the paper ballots (in other words, thepercentage chance an RLA will fail to catch that the reported results are incorrect).

The bill caps the risk limit for RLAs at 5% (presumably, SOTS will set the specific limit in her prescribed procedures or in regulation;

see below).

Covered Offices Under the bill, an RLA must be done on the election outcomes for the following offices:

1.

presidential elector;

sSB394 / File No.

564 24 sSB394 File No.

564 2.

all state offices for which all electors of the state may vote, including governor, lieutenant governor, SOTS, treasurer, comptroller, attorney general, and senator in Congress;

3.

atleastonerepresentativeinCongress,selectedbyrandomdraw;

4.

at least 5% of the General Assembly, selected by random draw;

and 5.

any other office for which federal law requires an audit.

However, the bill excludes a contest from an RLA if (1) the candidate ran unopposed or (2) it is subject to recanvass because of a close or tie vote (in practice, close or tie votes already require a full recount).

If an office for a Congressional representative or state legislator is subject to recanvass or an election contest, SOTS must ensure that office is selected for an RLA.

The bill requires the random draws to be open to the public.

RISK-LIMITING AUDIT PROCEDURES Pre-Audit Ballot Manifests The bill requires election officials to create ballot manifests for use at RLAs following procedures established by SOTS and open to public observation.

Although undefined by the bill, a “ballot manifest” is generally adetaileddescriptionofhowballotsare storedandorganized, listing, at minimum, the physical location of every ballot cast in the electionsothatindividualballotsorbatchesofballotcardscanbefound, retrieved, and examined manually.

Under the bill, a ballot manifest must be created as outlined in procedures SOTS provides.

The manifests must be created by:

1.

election officials in each polling place within 72 hours after the polls close;

2.

ballot counters in each central counting location for absentee, early voting, and same-day election registration ballots within 72 hours after the polls close;

and 3.

recanvass officials within 24 hours after completing any sSB394 / File No.

564 25 sSB394 File No.

564 recanvass in a voting district for a state election.

Under the bill, the moderator must submit a ballot manifest to the registrars of voters immediately after creating it.

The registrars must then submit it to SOTS before the designated day to begin an RLA.

Designated Day Like post-election audits for federal and state races, the bill requires SOTS to designate a day for an RLA to begin, which must be at least 15 days after a state election but at least two business days before the canvass of votes.

Each audit must have advance notice and be open to the public.

Conducting an Audit Under the bill, registrars of voters do the RLAs.

SOTS must prescribe instructions and procedures for doing them by January 1, 2027, consistent for all offices subject to these audits.

The bill also allows her to adopt associated regulations and set guidelines for expanded audits when audit results cannot be reconciled with the outcome of the person declared elected by having the greatest number of votes, as determined by the paper ballots (the “reported results”).

If an RLA for a particular office is “INCONCLUSIVE,” the secretary must order a manual recount of all ballots cast for that office.

She may also issue an order, as under current law, to correct any irregularity or impropriety from an RLA.

Reporting Results As under current law, all audit results, including RLAs, must be filed with SOTS on a form she prescribes.

SOTS must immediately forward the results to UConn, which must analyze them and submit a written report describing any identified concerns to SOTS.

She must then send SEEC a copy of UConn’s written report.

Electronic Equipment and Voting Tabulators The bill extends several of existing law’s provisions on using electronic equipment and voting tabulators in post-election audits to sSB394 / File No.

564 26 sSB394 File No.

564 also cover RLAs (CGS §§ 9-320f & 9-320g).

Principally, it:

1.

allows SOTS, after consulting with UConn, to authorize the use of electronic equipment;

2.

requires her to have access to the code in any voting machine whenever there is a problem due to an RLA;

3.

directs her or her designee to examine and recertify a tabulator if UConn’s analysis indicates that it failed to record votes accurately and as required by state law;

4.

requires carefully preserving and returning paper ballots used in an RLA in their designated receptacle (such as returned to the ballot box, securely sealed, and locked);

5.

requires SOTS, if audit officials cannot reconcile the audit results with the reported results, to investigate voting tabulators as needed to determine if they must be (a) decertified or (b) examined and recertified;

and 6.

authorizes SOTS, SEEC, or a court with competent jurisdiction to issue an order after a state election to keep a voting tabulator locked for longer than law requires.

The billallowseither thecourt or SOTS toorder anaudit ofthevoting tabulator by people they designate, but SEEC may order an audit if SOTS is the office in question.

If SOTS produces a report on an investigation of a voting tabulator, it must be filed with SEEC, which may investigate further to determine if there was an election law violation.

Under the bill, if the machine in question is an optical scan voting system, an order to lock it must include the tabulator, memory card,and all other parts and processes used in its programming.

ELECTION OFFICIALS Reporting to SOTS sSB394 / File No.

564 27 sSB394 File No.

564 By law, each municipal clerk must give SOTS a statement with the names, post office addresses, and terms of each person elected to office in a municipal election.

The bill requires this statement to be filed by the last day of the month in which the election was held, instead of within days after the election as under current law.

Compensation Under the bill, municipalities must compensate election officials who participate in implementing an RLA at the municipality’s standard rate of pay for elections.

Regional Election Advisors As with post-election audits, the bill requires regional election advisors to consult and coordinate with SOTS in the preparation for and operation of RLAs, including communicating with and helping registrars of voters.

ELECTION COMPLAINTS AND EVIDENCE Like post-election audits, the bill requires RLA-reported results to be open to public inspection and allows them to be used as prima facie evidence of an irregularity for a contested election or other cause of action from an election.

The bill also specifies that (1) an action or complaint may be brought in response to any state election audit, not just the manual tabulations of paper ballots, and (2) its RLA provisions do not preclude a candidate or elector from seeking other existing remedies for contested elections.

BACKGROUND Post-Election Audit Procedure Under current law, SOTS must audit at least 5% of the state’s voting districts (meaning polling locations), selected at random after a federal, state, or municipal regular election or primary.

Audits must be noticed in advance and open for public observation.

Registrars of voters must do the audits by hand unless SOTS, in consultation with UConn, authorizes them to be done electronically (CGS § 9-320f).

sSB394 / File No.

564 28 sSB394 File No.

564 During the audit, registrars tally the paper ballots cast by voters and counted by each optical scan voting tabulator subject to the audit.

They compare their results to the reported results.

Registrars must report the audit results on an SOTS-prescribed form with the total number of ballots counted and the total votes for each audited candidate, broken down by whether the ballot was properly or improperly completed.

After a post-election audit, SOTS must order a recount (a recanvass) for an office if there is a discrepancy that could affect its outcome.

(If SOTS is a candidate on the ballot that is subject to an audit, SEEC orders the recount.) For this purpose, a “discrepancy” is a difference between thevotingtabulatorandauditvotecountsthatexceeds0.5%ofthelower total, where the difference cannot be resolved through an accounting of ballots that were improperly marked (CGS § 9-320f(f) & (o)).

BACKGROUND Related Bill sHB 5001, §§ 45-57, reported favorably by the Government Administration and Elections Committee, among other things, has substantially identical provisions.

COMMITTEE ACTION Government Administration and Elections Committee Joint Favorable Substitute Yea 19 Nay 0 (03/20/2026) sSB394 / File No.

564 29