SB 472 — AN ACT CONCERNING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE RISK-LIMITING AUDITS WORKING GROUP.

480 4 sSB472 File No.

480 (1) "Risk-limiting audit" means a publicly verifiable auditing procedure that (A) manually examines a statistical sample of paper ballots which reflect the intents of the voters having cast such ballots, (B) produces an outcome of either "ACCEPTABLE" or "INCONCLUSIVE", and (C) guarantees a specified risk limit;

(2) "Risk limit" means 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 received the greatest number of votes as determined by the paper ballots;

and (3) "State election" has the same meaning as provided in section 9-1 of the general statutes.

Sec.

2.

Section 9-320f of the 2022 supplement to the general statutes is repealedandthefollowingissubstitutedinlieuthereof (EffectiveJanuary 1, 2024):

(a) (1) Not earlier than the fifteenth day after any [election or] federal or state primary and not later than two business days before the canvass of votes by the Secretary of the State, Treasurer and Comptroller, [for any federal or state election or primary,] or (2) not earlier than the fifteenth day after any municipal election or primary and not later than two businessdays before thecanvassofvotes by thetownclerk, [for any municipal election or primary,] the registrars of voters shall conduct a manual audit, or [, for an election or primary held on or after January 1, 2016,] an electronic audit authorized under section 9-320g, as amended by this act, of the votes recorded in not less than five per cent of the voting districts in the state, district or municipality, whichever is applicable.

For the purposes of this section, any central location used in a municipality for the counting of absentee ballots shall be deemed a voting district.

Such manual or electronic audit shall be noticed in advance and be open to public observation.

(b)sSB472 (1)/ TheFile votingNo. districts subject to an audit described in subsection (a) of this section shall be selected in a random drawing by the Secretary of the State and such selection process shall be open to the public.

(2)480 (A)5 [The]sSB472 ExceptFile as provided in subparagraph (B) of this subdivision, the offices subject to [an] a manual or electronic audit pursuant to this section shall be, [(1) in the case of an election where the office of presidential elector is on the ballot, all offices required to be audited by federal law, plus one additional office selected in a random drawing by the Secretary of the State, but in no case less than three offices, (2)] (i) in the case of an election where the office of Governor is on the ballot, all offices required to be audited by federal law, plus one additional office selected in a random drawing by the Secretary, [of the State,] but in no case less than three offices, [(3)] (ii) in the case of a municipal election, three offices or twenty per cent of the number of offices on the ballot, whichever is greater, selected at random by the municipal clerk, and [(4)] (iii) in the case of a primary, [election,] all LCO No.

3424480 2(b) ofThe 14voting officesdistricts requiredsubject to bean auditedaudit bydescribed federalin law,subsection plus(a) oneof additionalthis office,section ifshall any,be butselected in noa eventrandom lessdrawing thanby twentythe perSecretary cent of the officesState onand thesuch ballot,selection selectedprocess inshall abe randomopen drawingto by the municipalpublic. clerk.

(B)The Inoffices thesubject caseto ofan aaudit federalpursuant election,to this section shall be, (1) [in the case ofanelectionwhere theoffice ofpresidentialelectorisontheballot, all offices subjectrequired to abe comparisonaudited risk-limitingby auditfederal pursuantlaw, toplus thisone sectionadditional shalloffice beselected (i)in a random drawing by the officeSecretary of presidentialthe elector,State, ifbut applicable,in (ii)no allcase applicableless statethan three offices, as(2) defined in sectionthe 9-372,case (iii)of atan leastelection where the office of Governor is on the ballot, all offices required to be audited by federal law, plus one additional office selected in a random drawing by the Secretary of representativethe State, but in Congress,no ifcase applicable,less (iv)than atthree leastoffices, five(3)] in the case of a municipal election, three offices or twenty per cent,cent inof the aggregate,number of offices on the officesofstateballot, senatorandstatewhichever representative,is ifapplicable,and(v)anygreater, otherselected officeat random by the municipal clerk, and [(4)] (2) in the case of a primary, [election,] all offices required to be audited by federal law.law, plus one additional office, if any, but in no event less than twenty per cent of the offices on the ballot, selected in a random drawing by the municipal clerk.

(d) (1)The Priormanual toor commencingelectronic an audit described in subsection (a) of this section,section theshall registrarsconsist of voters shall manually batch the papermanual ballotsor toelectronic betabulation audited in groups of notthe greaterpaper thanballots fiftycast perand batchcounted andby createeach avoting ballottabulator manifestsubject to account for the size and location of each such batch.audit.

(2) [The] In the case of a manual or electronic audit described in subsection (a) of this section, such audit shall consist of the manual or electronic tabulation of the paper ballots cast and counted by each voting tabulator subject to such audit.

LCOSuch [report] reported results shall be filed sSB472 / File No.

3424480 36 ofsSB472 14File (3)No. In the case of a comparison risk-limiting audit described in subsection (a) of this section, such audit shall be conducted in accordance with instructions and procedures prescribed by the SecretaryoftheState.Priorto commencing any suchaudit,theSecretary shall set the risk limit for such audit based on the margin of victory in therace for theoffice subject to such audit,providedsuchrisk limit shall not be greater than five per cent.

The480 resultswith ofthe suchSecretary, audit[of the State] who shall beimmediately reportedforward onsuch a[report] formreported andresults into aThe mannerUniversity prescribedof byConnecticut thefor Secretary.analysis.

(4) [Such report] The results reported under subdivision (2) or (3), as applicable, ofthis subsection shall be filed withtheSecretary oftheState who shall immediately forward such [report] reported results to The University of Connecticut for analysis.

After receipt of such written report, the Secretary [of the State]State shall [filefile such report with] shall transmit to the State Elections Enforcement Commission a copy of such written report.

(f) (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 9-3119-311, and subject to the provisions of subdivision (3) of this subsection, in the case of a manual or electronic audit, the Secretary of thetheState Stateshallorder shall order a discrepancy recanvassrecanvassofthereturnsofanelection of the returns of an election or primary for any office if a discrepancydiscrepancy, [, as defined in subsection (o) of this section,]section, exists where the margin of victory in the race for such office is less than the amount of the discrepancy multiplied by the total number of voting districts where such race appeared on the ballot.ballot, provided in a year in which the Secretary of the State is a candidate for an office on the ballot and that office is subject to an audit as provided by this section, the State Elections Enforcement Commission shall order a discrepancy recanvass if a discrepancy, as defined by subsection (o) of this section, has occurred that could affect the outcome of the election or primary for such office.

[, provided in] (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 9-311 and subject to the LCO No.

3424 4 of 14 provisions of subdivision (3) of this subsection, in the case of a comparison risk-limiting audit, the Secretary of the State shall order a discrepancy recanvass of the returns of an election or primary for any office if a discrepancy exists where the risk limit set by the Secretary prior to the commencement of such audit is exceeded.

(3) In a year in which the Secretary of the State is a candidate for an office on the ballot and that office is subject to an audit as provided by this section, the State Elections Enforcement Commission shall order a discrepancy recanvass if a discrepancy [, as defined by subsection (o) of this section,] has occurred that could affect the outcome of the election or primary for such office.

Nothing in this subsection shallsSB472 be/ construedFile toNo. prohibit the Secretary [of the State] from requiring that a voting tabulator be examined and recertified.

(h)480 The7 auditsSB472 [reportFile filed]No. results reported to the Secretary of the State pursuant to subdivision (4) of subsection (d) of this section shall be open to public inspection and may be used as prima facie evidence of a discrepancy in any contest arising pursuant to chapter 149 or for any other cause of action arising from such election or primary.

(i)480 Ifshall thebe auditconstrued officials are unable to reconcileprohibit the [manualSecretary or[of electronic]count from anaudit describedin subsection(a)ofthis section with the electronicState] vote tabulation and discrepancies from therequiring electionthat ora primary, the Secretary of the State shall conduct such further investigation of the voting tabulator malfunction as may be necessary for the purpose of reviewing whether or not to decertify the voting tabulator or tabulators in question or to order the voting tabulator to be examined and recertifiedrecertified. pursuant to subsection (g) of this section.

Any(h) reportThe producedaudit by[report filed] results reported to the Secretary [ofof the State]State pursuant to subsection (d) of this section shall be open to public inspection and may be used as prima facie evidence of a resultdiscrepancy in any contest arising pursuant to chapter 149 or for any other cause of action arising from such LCOelection No.or primary.

3424(i)Iftheauditofficialsareunabletoreconcilethemanualorelectronic 5count offrom 14an investigationaudit shalldescribed bein filedsubsection (a) of this section with the Stateelectronic Electionsvote Enforcementtabulation Commission, and discrepancies from the commissionelection mayor initiatesuchprimary, furtherthe investigationSecretary inof accordancethe withState subdivisionshall (1)conduct ofsuch subsectionfurther (a)investigation of sectionthe 9-7bvoting tabulator malfunction as may be requirednecessary for the purpose of reviewing whether or not to determinedecertify ifthe anyvoting violationstabulator ofor tabulators in question or to order the generalvoting statutestabulator concerningto electionbe lawexamined haveand beenrecertified committed.pursuant to subsection (g) of this section.

Any report produced by the Secretary [of the State] as a result of such investigation shall be filed with the State Elections Enforcement Commission, and the commission may initiatesuch further investigation in accordance with subdivision (1) of subsection (a) of section 9-7b as may be required to determine if any violations of the general statutes concerning election law have been committed.

(l) After an election or primary, any voting tabulator may be kept locked for a period longer than that prescribed by sections 9-266, 9-310 and 9-447, if such an extended period is ordered by either a court of competent jurisdiction, the Secretary of the State or the State Elections EnforcementsSB472 Commission./ File No.

480 8 sSB472 File No.

480 Enforcement Commission.

On(n) orNotwithstanding afterany Julyprovision 1,of 2022,the general statutes, the SecretarySecretaryoftheStateshallhave mayaccessto amendthecodein suchany regulationsvoting machine whenever any problem is discovered as maya beresult necessaryof foran theaudit LCOdescribed No.in subsection (a) of this section.

3424 6 of 14 conduct of comparison risk-limiting audits described in subsection (a) of this section and to update such guidelines for expanded audits to account for the conduct of comparison risk-limiting audits.

(n) Notwithstanding any provision of the general statutes, the SecretaryoftheStateshallhave accessto thecodeinany voting machine whenever any problem is discovered as a result of an audit described in subsection (a) of this section.

[, "discrepancy"] (1) "Discrepancy" means any difference in vote totals between tabulator counts from an election or primary and [manualmanual or electronic]electronic counts from an audit described in subsection (a) of this section in a voting district that (A) in the case of a manual or electronic audit, exceeds one-half of one per cent of the lesser amount of the vote totals between such tabulator counts and [such]such the manual or electronic counts where such differences cannot be resolved through an accounting of ballots that were not marked properly in accordance with subsection (e) of this section,section; ["state election" means "state election", as defined in section 9-1, "municipal election"] and (B) in the case of a comparison risk-limiting audit, exceeds the risk limit set by the Secretary of the State prior to the commencement of such audit;

(2)[, "State"state election" hasmeans the"state sameelection", meaning as provideddefined in section 9-1;9-1, "municipal election"] (2) "Municipal election" means a municipal election held pursuant to section 9-164;

(3)[, "Municipal"manual"] election"sSB472 means/ aFile municipalNo. election held pursuant to section 9-164;

[,480 "manual"]9 (4)sSB472 "FederalFile election"No. has the same meaning as provided in section 9- 158a;

(5)480 (3) "Manual" means by hand and without the assistance of electronic equipment;

[andand "electronic"]["electronic"] (6)(4) "Electronic" means through the use of equipment described in section 9-320g;9-320g, as amended by this act.

and LCO No.

3424 7 of 14 (7) "Risk limit" means the maximum allowable likelihood that an audit described in subparagraph (B) of subdivision (1) of subsection (a) of this section fails to detect a difference in vote totals between tabulator counts from an election or primary and counts from such audit in a voting district.

2.3.

Section(NEW) 9-323(Effective January 1, 2024) (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of thethis generalsection, statutesnot islater repealedthan andseventy-two thehours followingafter isthe substitutedclose inof lieuthe thereofpolls (Effectiveat Julyeach 1,state 2022):election:

(1) The election officials in each polling place shall create a ballot manifest for such polling place by manually verifying the number of ballots cast that comprise the result publicly announced by the moderator under subsection (a) of section 9-309 of the general statutes and recording such number on such ballot manifest, in accordance with procedures prescribed by the Secretary of the State;

and (2)Theabsenteeballotcountersineachcentralcountinglocationshall create a ballot manifest for such central counting location by manually verifying the number of ballots cast that comprise the result publicly declared by the moderator under subsection (b) of section 9-150b of the general statutes and recording such number on such ballot manifest, in accordance with procedures prescribed by the Secretary of the State.

(b) Not later than twenty-four hours after the completion of any recanvass conducted at a state election in a voting district, the recanvass officials shall create a ballot manifest for such district by manually verifying the number of ballots cast that comprise the vote announced by the moderator under subdivision (1) of subsection (c) of section 9-311 of the general statutes and recording such number on such ballot manifest, in accordance with procedures prescribed by the Secretary of the State.

(c) All ballot manifest creation procedures shall be open to public observation.

(d) Immediately after a ballot manifest has been created pursuant to this section, the moderator shall submit such ballot manifest to the sSB472 / File No.

480 10 sSB472 File No.

480 registrars of voters.

Sec.

4.

Section 9-323 of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective January 1, 2024):

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 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, the judge shall forthwith order a hearing to be LCOhad upon such complaint, upon a day notmorethanfiveorlessthanthreedaysfromthemakingofsuchorder, and shall cause notice of not less than three or more than five days to be given to any candidate or candidates whose election may be affected by sSB472 / File No.

3424480 811 ofsSB472 14File hadNo. upon such complaint, upon a day not more than five or less than three days from the making of such order, and shall cause notice of not less than three or 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, to the Secretary of the State, to 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.

480 the decision upon such hearing, to such election official, to the Secretary of the State, to 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.

Such judges shall thereupon, in the case they, or any two of them, find any error in the rulings of the election official, any mistake in the count of such votes or any violation of said sections, certify the result of their finding or decision,decision,orthefinding orordecisionofamajorityofthem,totheSecretary the finding or decision of a majority of them, to the Secretary of the State before the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December.

Such certificate of such judges, or a majority of them, shall be final upon all questions relating to therulingsthe 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.

3.5.

Section 9-324 of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective JulyJanuary 1, 2022):2024):

Any elector or candidate who claims that such elector or candidate is aggrieved by any ruling of any election official in connection with any election for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of the State, State Treasurer,AttorneyGeneral,StateComptrollerorjudgeofprobate,held in such elector's or candidate's town, or that there has been a mistake in LCOthe count of the votes cast at such election for candidates for said offices or any of them, at any voting district in such elector's or candidate's town,oranycandidateforsuchanofficewhoclaimsthatsuchcandidate sSB472 / File No.

3424480 912 ofsSB472 14File theNo. count of the votes cast at such election for candidates for said offices or any of them, at any voting district in such elector's or candidate's town,oranycandidateforsuchanofficewhoclaimsthatsuchcandidate is aggrieved by a violation of any provision of section 9-355, 9-357 to 9- 361, inclusive, 9-364, 9-364a or 9-365 in the casting of absentee ballots at such election or any candidate for the office of Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of the State, State Treasurer, Attorney General or State Comptroller, who claims that such candidate is aggrieved by a violationofanyprovisionofsections9-700to9-716,inclusive,maybring such elector's or candidate's complaint to any judge of the Superior Court, inwhich such elector or candidate shall set out theclaimederrors of such election official, the claimed errors in the count or the claimed violations of said sections.

480 is aggrieved by a violation of any provision of section 9-355, 9-357 to 9- 361, inclusive, 9-364, 9-364a or 9-365 in the casting of absentee ballots at such election or any candidate for the office of Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of the State, State Treasurer, Attorney General or State Comptroller, who claims that such candidate is aggrieved by a violationofanyprovisionofsections9-700to9-716,inclusive,maybring such elector's or candidate's complaint to any judge of the Superior Court, inwhich such elector or candidate shall set out theclaimederrors of such election official, the claimed errors in the count or the claimed violations of said sections.

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 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.

Such judge shall, on the day fixed for such hearing and without unnecessary delay, proceed to hear the LCOparties. No.

3424If 10sufficient reason is shown, such judge may order any voting tabulators to be unlocked or any ballot boxes to be opened and a recount of 14the parties.votes cast, including absentee sSB472 / File No.

If480 sufficient13 reasonsSB472 isFile shown,No. such judge may order any voting tabulatorsto beunlockedor any ballot boxesto beopenedanda recount ofthevotescast, including absentee ballots,tobemade.Suchjudge shall thereupon, in case such judge finds any error in the rulings of the election official, any mistake in the count of the votes or any violation of said sections, certify the result of such judge's finding or decision to the Secretary of the State before the fifteenth day of the next succeeding December.

480 ballots, to be made.

Such judge shall thereupon, in case such judge finds any error in the rulings of the election official, any mistake in the count of the votes or any violation of said sections, certify the result of such judge's finding or decision to the Secretary of the State before the fifteenth day of the next succeeding December.

Such certificate of such judge of such judge's finding or decision shall be final and conclusive upon all questions relating to errors in the rulings of such election officials, to the correctnessofsuchcount,and,forthepurposesofthissectiononly,suchcorrectness 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, unless the same is appealed from as provided in section 9-325.

4.6.

Section 9-328 of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective JulyJanuary 1, 2022):2024):

If such complaint is made subsequent to such election or LCOprimary, it shall be brought not later than fourteen days after such election or primary, except that if such complaint is brought in response sSB472 / File No.

3424480 11 of 14 primary,sSB472 itFile shallNo. be brought not later than fourteen days after such election or primary, except that if such complaint is brought in response to [the manual tabulation of paper ballots, authorized] an audit conducted pursuant to section 9-320f, as amended by 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, in which he shall set out the claimed errors of the election official, the claimed errors in the count or the claimed violations of said sections.

Such480 judgeto shall[the forthwithmanual ordertabulation aof hearingpaper toballots, beauthorized] hadan uponaudit suchconducted complaint,pursuant uponto asection day9-320f, notas moreamended thanby fivethis noract, lessor thansection three1 daysof fromthis theact, making of such order,complaint and shall causebe noticebrought of not lesslater than threeseven nor more than five days toafter bethe givenclose toof any candidatesuch or[manual candidatestabulation] whoseelectionornominationmaybeaffectedbythedecisionuponsuchaudit, hearing, to suchany electionjudge official, the Secretary of the State,Superior theCourt, Statein Electionswhich Enforcementhe Commissionshall andset toout anythe otherclaimed partyerrors orof partiesthe whomelection suchofficial, judgethe deemsclaimed propererrors partiesin thereto, of the timecount andor place for the hearingclaimed uponviolations suchof complaint.said sections.

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 or nomination 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.

If sufficient reasonisshown,hemayreason is shown, he may order anyvotingtabulatorsany voting tabulators to be unlocked or any ballot boxes to be opened and a recount of the votes cast, including absentee ballots, to be made.

Such judge shall thereupon, if he finds any error in the rulings of the electionelectionofficialor official or any mistake ininthecount the count of thethevotes,certify votes,theresult certify the result of his finding or decision to the Secretary of the State before the tenth day succeeding the conclusion of the hearing.

Such judge may, if necessary, issue his writ of mandamus, LCOrequiring the adverse party and those under him to deliver to the complainant the appurtenances of such office, and shall cause his sSB472 / File No.

3424480 1215 ofsSB472 14File requiringNo. the adverse party and those under him to deliver to the complainant the appurtenances of such office, and shall cause his finding and decree to be entered on the records of the Superior Court in the proper judicial district.

480 finding and decree to be entered on the records of the Superior Court in the proper judicial district.

5.7.

Subsection (a) of section 9-329a of the general statutes is repealedrepealedandthefollowingissubstitutedinlieuthereof and(EffectiveJanuary the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective July 1, 2022):2024):

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.

Sec.

8.

Subsection (b) of section 9-3 of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective January 1, 2024):

(b) During any municipal, state or federal election, primary or recanvass, or any audit conducted pursuant to section 9-320f, as amended by this act, or section 1 of this act, the Secretary of the State sSB472 / File No.

480 16 sSB472 File No.

480 may issue an order, whether orally or in writing, to any registrar of voters or moderator to correct any irregularity or impropriety in the conduct of such election, primary or recanvass or audit.

Any such order shall be effective upon issuance.

As soon as practicable after issuance of anoralorderpursuantto thissubsection,theSecretary shallreduce such order to writing, cite within such order any applicable provision of law authorizing such order and cause a copy of such written order to be delivered to the individual who is the subject of such order or, in the case that such order was originally issued in writing, issue a subsequent written order that conforms to such requirements.

The Superior Court, on application of the Secretary or the Attorney General, may enforce by appropriate decree or process any such order issued pursuant to this subsection.

Sec.

9.

Subdivision (3) of subsection (b) of section 9-229 of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective January 1, 2024):

(3) The duties of each regional election monitor shall include, but not be limited to:

(A) Holding the regional instructional sessions described in subdivision (2) of this subsection;

(B) communicating with registrars of 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 (C) transmitting any order issued by the Secretary of the State, pursuant to subsection (b) of section 9-3, as amended by this act.

Sec.

10.

Subsection (a) of section 9-229b of the general statutes is repealedandthefollowingissubstitutedinlieuthereof(EffectiveJanuary 1, 2024):

(a) There shall be a regional election monitor within each planning region, as defined in section 4-124i, who shall represent, consult with and act on behalf of the Secretary of the State in preparations for and operationsofanyelection,primaryorrecanvass,oranyauditconducted pursuant to section 9-320f, as amended by this act, or section 1 of this sSB472 / File No.

480 17 sSB472 File No.

480 act.

Sec.

11.

Section 9-320g of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective January 1, 2024):

Notwithstanding any provision of this title, the Secretary of the State, in consultation and coordination with The University of Connecticut, may authorize the use of electronic equipment for the purpose of conducting any audit required pursuant to section 9-320f, [for any primary or general election held on or after January 1, 2016] as amended by this act, or section 1 of this act, provided (1) the Secretary of the State prescribesspecificationsfor (A) thetesting,set-upandoperationof such equipment, and (B) the training of election officials in the use of such equipment;

and (2) the Secretary of the State and The University of Connecticut agree that such equipment is sufficient in quantity to accommodate the total number of audits to be conducted.

Nothing in this section shall preclude any candidate or elector from seeking additional remedies pursuant to chapter 149 as a result of any information revealed by such process.

Sec.

12.

(Effective October 1, 2022) The Secretary of the State shall establish a pilot program for the conduct of risk-limiting audits at municipal elections in 2023.

The Secretary shall randomly select three municipalities for participation in such pilot program, in accordance with the following:

(1) One municipality with a population of less than twenty thousand;

(2) one municipality with a population of twenty thousand or greater, but less than ninety thousand;

and (3) one municipality with a population of ninety thousand or greater.

For the purposes of this section, "population" means the estimated number of people according to the most recent version of the State Register and Manual prepared pursuant to section 3-90 of the general statutes.

JulySection 1,1 2022January Section1, 12024 9-320fNew LCOsection No.Sec.

34242 13January of1, 142024 Sec.9-320f sSB472 / File No.

2480 July18 1,sSB472 2022File 9-323No. Sec.

3480 July 1, 2022 9-324 Sec.

43 JulyJanuary 1, 20222024 9-328New Julysection 1, 2022 Sec.

54 9-329a(a)January Statement1, of2024 Purpose:9-323 Sec.

To5 implementJanuary the1, recommendations2024 of9-324 theSec. risk-limiting audits working group.

[Proposed6 deletionsJanuary are1, enclosed2024 in9-328 brackets.Sec.

Proposed7 additionsJanuary are1, indicated2024 by9-329a(a) underline,Sec. except that when the entire text of a bill or resolution or a section of a bill or resolution is new, it is not underlined.] LCO No.

34248 14January of1, 142024 9-3(b) Sec.

9 January 1, 2024 9-229(b)(3) Sec.

10 January 1, 2024 9-229b(a) Sec.

11 January 1, 2024 9-320g Sec.

12 October 1, 2022 New section Statement of Legislative Commissioners:

In Section 1, "or primary" was deleted throughout, "in accordance with" was changed to "as described in" in Subsec.

(d), "subsection (g)" was changed to "subsection (f)" in Subsec.

(h) and "prescribed" was changed to "described" in Subsec.

(k) for accuracy.

GAE Joint Favorable Subst.

sSB472 / File No.

480 19 sSB472 File No.

480 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 23 $ FY 24 $ Secretary of the State GF - Potential See Below See Below Cost UConn Various - Cost 625,000 400,000 Note:

GF=General Fund;

Various=Various Municipal Impact:

Municipalities Effect FY 23 $ FY 24 $ Various Municipalities Cost See Below See Below Explanation This bill implements risk-limiting audits by January 1, 2024 for state elections but maintains the existing post-election audit process for federal and state primaries and municipal elections.

The bill is anticipated to result in costs to municipalities and the University of Connecticut, and potential costs to the Secretary of the State (SOTS), as described below.

The bill allows the (SOTS) to prescribe instructions for the registrars of voters to conduct the risk-limiting audits.

Under this bill, election officials who participate in administering and conducting risk-limiting audits must be compensated at the municipality's standard rate of pay for electors.

These requirements will result in various costs to municipalities beginning in FY 24.

The extent of the cost will depend on the requirements of the risk-limiting audit and the level of compensation for the election officials.

sSB472 / File No.

480 20 sSB472 File No.

480 The bill expands the University of Connecticut's post-election responsibilities to include risk-limiting audits, which is estimated to result in costs of at least $625,000 in FY 23 and $400,000 in FY 24, as well as additional costs in the out years.

It is anticipated that the FY 23 costs will consist of an estimated $600,000 in personnel costs (including fringe benefits), for two new personnel (a Principal Investigator and an Engineer) and supplementary time from existing staff.

Additionally, $25,000 in equipment and travel expenses are expected.

After the year of start-up, costs will decline to approximately $400,000 in FY 24 and FY 25, then remain at approximately $225,000 annually thereafter.

These costs may be borne by either the General Fund or the university's other revenues (e.g., tuition).

If wage costs are funded through the General Fund, then the fringe benefits costs will be incurred within the Office of the State Comptroller.

The bill also expands the SOTS's responsibility to include risk- limiting audits.

The SOTS may incur costs for additional staff and technology depending on the extent of these responsibilities.

Additionally, the bill establishes a pilot program to conduct risk- limiting audits at municipal elections in 2023.

The pilot program will consist of three municipalities, randomly selected by the SOTS.

This may result in various costs in FY 23 to each municipality selected.

The Out Years The annualized ongoing fiscal impact identified above would continue into the future subject to inflation.

sSB472 / File No.

480 21 sSB472 File No.

480 OLR Bill Analysis sSB 472 AN ACT CONCERNING 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 guaranty 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) creating ballot manifests, and (3) applying existing provisions for post-election audits to RLAs (e.g., provisions 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 conducting the audits.

It also allows her to adopt associated regulations.

The bill also establishes a pilot program to conduct RLAs at municipal elections in 2023.

It requires SOTS to randomly select three municipalities for the program, with one municipality for each of the following population ranges (i.e., the estimated number from the most recent State Register and Manual):

(1) less than 20,000;

(2) 20,000-89,999;

and (3) 90,000 or greater (§ 12).

Lastly, the bill makes minor, technical, and conforming changes.

EFFECTIVE DATE:

January 1, 2024, except the provision establishing the pilot program for the 2023 municipal election is effective October 1, 2022.

sSB472 / File No.

480 22 sSB472 File No.

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

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

Under the bill, an RLA is a publicly verifiable auditing procedure that (1) manually examines a statistical sample of paper ballots, which reflect the intents of the voters who cast the ballots;

(2) producesan outcome ofeither “ACCEPTABLE” or “INCONCLUSIVE”;

and (3) guaranties 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 received the most votes as determined by the paper ballots (i.e., the percentage chance an RLA will fail to catch that the reported results are incorrect).

Under the bill, the risk limit for RLAs is capped at 5% (presumably, the secretary will set the specific limit in her prescribed procedures or in regulation, see below).

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

1.

presidential elector;

2.

all applicable state offices (i.e., those for which all electors of the state may vote, including Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary, 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 federal law requires to be audited.

sSB472 / File No.

480 23 sSB472 File No.

480 If an office of a representative in Congress or state legislator is subject to recanvass or an election contest, the secretary 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 subsequent use at RLAs following procedures established by SOTS and open to public observation.

Although not defined by the bill, a “ballot manifest” is generally a detailed description of how the ballots are stored and organized, listing at minimum the physical location of every ballot cast in the election so that individual ballots or batches of ballot cards can be found, retrieved, and examined manually.

Under the bill, a ballot manifest must be created by manually verifying and recording the number of ballots cast that comprise the result publicly announced by the moderator.

The manifests must be created by:

1.

election officials in each polling place within 72 hours after the polls close, 2.

absentee ballot counters in each central counting location within hours after the polls close, and 3.

recanvass officials within 24 hours after completing any 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 Similar to post-election audits, the bill requires the secretary to designate a day for an RLA to begin, which must be at least (1) 15 days after the state election but (2) two business days before the canvass of votes.

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

sSB472 / File No.

480 24 sSB472 File No.

480 Conducting an Audit Under the bill, registrars of voters must conduct the RLAs and SOTS must prescribe instructions and procedures for conducting them, consistent for all offices.

The bill also allows her to adopt necessary regulations for the audits and to establish 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 (i.e., 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 the secretary on a form she prescribes.

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

Instead of the secretary forwarding the original report to the State Elections Enforcement Commission (SEEC), as currently required, the bill requires her to transmit to SEEC a copy of UConn’s written report, whether for RLAs or post-election audits.

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

Principally, it:

1.

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

2.

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

3.

directs her or her designee to examine and recertify a tabulator if sSB472 / File No.

480 25 sSB472 File No.

480 UConn’s written report indicates that it failed to record votes accurately and in accordance with state law;

4.

requires preserving and returning paper ballots used in an RLA to their designated receptacle (e.g., ballots must be returned to the ballot box, securely sealed, and locked);

5.

requires the secretary, 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 the secretary or a court with competent jurisdiction to issue an order to (a) keep a voting tabulator locked for a longer period than prescribed by law and (b) have a tabulator audited by a person they designate.

By law, if the secretary produces a report on the investigation it must be filed with SEEC, which may investigate further to determine if there was an election law violation.

SEEC may also issue orders (see 6, above) if they receive this report.

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 components and processes used in its programming.

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

Regional Election Monitors As with post-election audits, the bill requires regional election monitors to (1) represent, consult with, and act on the secretary’s behalf for RLA preparation and operation and (2) communicate with and help registrars of voters to prepare and implement the audits.

ELECTION COMPLAINTS AND EVIDENCE Like post-election audits, the bill requires RLA reported results to be sSB472 / File No.

480 26 sSB472 File No.

480 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.

It also specifies that an action or complaint may be brought in response to any state election audit, not just manual tabulations of paper ballots.

The bill specifies that 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, the secretary must audit at least 5% of the state’s voting districts (i.e., 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 conduct the audits by hand unless the secretary, in consultation with UConn, authorizes them to be conducted electronically (CGS § 9- 320f, as amended by PA 21-2, June Special Session).

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

Once complete, they compare their results with the reported results.

Registrars must report the audit results on a secretary- 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, the secretary must order a recount (i.e., recanvass) for an office if there is a discrepancy that could affect its outcome.

(If the secretary 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 the voting tabulator and audit vote counts that exceeds 0.5% of the lower total, where the difference cannot be resolved through an accounting of ballots that were improperly marked (CGS § 9-320f(f) & (o)).

COMMITTEE ACTION Government Administration and Elections Committee sSB472 / File No.

480 27 sSB472 File No.

480 Joint Favorable Substitute Yea 19 Nay 0 (03/29/2022) sSB472 / File No.

480 28