Post-Election Audits

Elections

Easily browse the critical components of this report…

Introduction

A post-election tabulation audit—often known as a post-election audit or PEA—checks that the equipment and procedures used to count votes during an election worked properly and that the election yielded the correct outcome.

In states that conduct post-election audits it is usually a statutory requirement. Legislatures can decide whether to require post-election audits in their states and what kind of audit to use.

While the phrase "post-election audits" can be used to mean a variety of election validation efforts, as a term of art it refers to checking paper ballots or records against the results produced by the voting system to ensure accuracy. Paper records used in an audit may include voter-marked paper ballots, voter-verified paper audit trails produced by direct-recording electronic voting machines (DREs) or paper ballot records produced by ballot-marking devices. Typically only a sample of the paper records are examined, so in effect a post-election audit is a partial recount of results to verify that the voting system is accurately recording and counting votes.

Although post-election audits can lead to a full recount if errors are detected, they differ from a recount in that they are conducted regardless of the margins of victory. Recounts are most often triggered or requested if there is a tight margin of victory. See NCSL’s webpage on recounts for more information.

Why Do a Post-Election Audit?

If an audit process is in place, it can inform election officials of any errors in the system and can act as a deterrent against fraud. Proponents of post-election audits argue that they can also help avoid a full recount by revealing when a recount is necessary to verify the correct election outcome. And, ultimately, a robust post-election audit can increase confidence in the results of an election.

Post-election audits can be time-consuming for election administrators, and most post-election audits contain an element of hand counting paper records, which is an error-prone process. Even with good procedures, people physically looking at votes on a piece of paper are less reliable at tabulating than a machine, although humans are better at discerning voter intent. (See NCSL's brief explainer on why machine counts are more accurate than hand counts.)

Types of Post-Election Audits

States use two main types of post-election tabulation audits: traditional post-election audits and risk-limiting post-election audits.

Traditional Post-Election Audits

Most audits look at a fixed percentage of voting districts or voting machines and compare the paper record to the results produced by the voting system. Even in a landslide election, they will count the same number of ballots as they would in a nail-biter election.

34 states and Washington, D.C., require a traditional post-election audit: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin.
Louisiana will implement traditional post-election audits beginning in 2023, depending on the procurement and implementation of a new voting system.
Two states have statutes that authorize, but do not require, local officials to use traditional post-election audits: Michigan and Oklahoma.
Several of these states allow counties to use a risk-limiting audit instead of a traditional post-election audit. (see the following section).

Traditional post-election audits are usually conducted manually by hand-counting a portion of the paper records and comparing them to the electronic results produced by an electronic voting machine. However, some states have a process by which some or all of the audit can be conducted electronically. This may be done with the assistance of a computer or a tabulation device other than the one that was initially used to tabulate results. And some traditional post-election audits use a "tiered" system, which means a different number of ballots are reviewed, depending on the margin of victory.

A case study of a traditional post-election audit, from West Virginia, is provided below, as well as a tiered post-election audit, from New Mexico, and a partially electronic post-election audit in Connecticut.

Risk-Limiting Audits

In recent years, researchers have developed statistically based audit techniques that decrease the number of ballots to be audited, while also providing statistical confidence that the election result is correct. As defined in Washington, "a 'risk-limiting audit' means an audit protocol that makes use of statistical principles and methods and is designed to limit the risk of certifying an incorrect election outcome." In races with a large margin, fewer ballots need to be counted. If the race is tighter, more ballots are audited. For more details see NCSL's webpage on Risk-Limiting Audits.

Three states have a statutory requirement for a risk-limiting audit: Colorado, Rhode Island, and Virginia.
Eight states have either statutory or administrative pilot programs: Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Texas.
Four states give counties the option to conduct risk-limiting audits: California, Ohio, Oregon and Washington.
In 2022, Maine passed HP 1482, which will require an RLA pilot after the 2024 general election and allow them statewide starting in 2025.

A case study of a risk-limiting audit, from Colorado, is provided below and details can be found below and on NCSL's webpage on Risk-Limiting Audits.

Considerations for Legislators

Should audits be required? Are they voluntary or only conducted under certain circumstances?
What type of equipment is used in the state? A paper trail is needed to conduct a post-election audit, and some older systems do not contain this paper trail. Most newer voting systems, however, have the capacity to undertake a post-election audit and produce the necessary paper trail.
How are the audited ballots, precincts, machines or districts selected?
How many races will the audit include?
Who determines what contests are selected to be audited? What are the factors in determining the selection of audited contests (for example, the closeness of the reported outcome, the geographical scope of the contests or any cause for concern regarding the accuracy of the reported outcome)? When is this decided? Is it before the election, after unofficial results are available, or after the election has been certified?
Should the audit be a traditional post-election audit or a risk-limiting audit?
Which categories of ballots are audited? Does the audit include absentee ballots, early voting ballots, ballots sent from citizens overseas and provisional ballots, or just votes cast in person on Election Day?
When is the audit conducted? Some states call for post-election audits after election results are finalized, with the intent of providing information to improve future elections. Other states conduct an audit before results are finalized, which may allow for the resolution of any discrepancies.
Does a requirement for post-election audits put an extra burden on election officials? Post-election audits can be labor and time-intensive. In the longer term, though, states may find cost savings if audits make expensive recounts less common. And, with time, better procedures will develop.
Who conducts the audit? Is it done by the states, local jurisdictions or an independent audit board? Who provides the resources and staff for conducting the audit? Who participates and who can be present when the audit is conducted?
Who conducts the audit? Is it done by the states, or the local jurisdictions? Who provides the resources and staff for conducting the audit?
What happens if the audit shows a discrepancy? When is a full recount triggered?

Case Studies

Traditional post-election audit: West Virginia

In West Virginia, the post-election audit is conducted as part of the canvass. At least 3% of precincts are chosen at random, and voter-verified paper ballots are counted manually to compare the manual count to the automated equipment count. If the manual count differs by more than 1% from the automated equipment count, or if the outcome of the election would change due to the discrepancy, then the discrepancies are immediately disclosed to the public and all voter-verified paper ballots are manually counted. Note that whenever there is a difference between the vote totals from the automated equipment and the manual count, the manual count of the voter-verified paper ballot is the vote of record (W. Va. Code, § 3-4A-28).

Risk-limiting audit: Colorado

Risk-limiting audits (RLAs) were first enacted in Colorado in 2009, and implemented in November 2017. According to the statutory language, the legislature's goal in enacting RLAs was “to ensure effective election administration and public confidence in the election process” and to “provide a more effective manner of conducting audits than traditional audit methods in that risk-limiting audit methods typically require only limited resources for election races with wide margins of victory while investing greater resources in close races” (Colo. Rev. Stat. §1-7-515).

In a nutshell, an RLA provides strong statistical evidence that the reported outcome of an election is correct. It also provides a high probability of discovering and taking appropriate action in the case of a wrong outcome. State and local election officials worked closely with academics, experts and advocates to establish a strong set of rules and procedures for the implementation of RLAs that can be a model for other states (see Colorado Secretary of State Election Rule 25).

The first step is to establish a “risk limit,” the largest chance that an incorrect reported tabulation outcome of a contest will not be corrected by the audit. In Colorado this risk limit is set by the secretary of state’s office before the election. A risk limit of 10% means that there is a 90% chance that the audit will correct a wrong outcome. The smaller the risk limit, the greater the number of ballots to initially audit. The audits are managed centrally at the secretary of state’s office, but conducted locally by a bipartisan audit board at the county election official’s office.

RLAs conclude in one of two ways. The audit either (a) stops when it finds strong evidence that the reported outcome is correct, or (b) fails to find strong evidence that the outcome is correct and evolves into a full hand count of ballots. For more details, see this blog from Colorado election officials in preparation for the first RLA in 2017.

Tiered post-election audit: New Mexico

New Mexico has a tiered traditional post-election. This means that a greater number of precincts are audited if the margin of victory is narrower. An independent auditor, hired by the secretary of state, oversees the audit and assists counties with its conduct. A table in statute instructs the auditor how many precincts, out of all precincts, should be selected according to the winning margin between the top two candidates for a given race. At the low end, if the margin of victory is greater than 15% no precincts are tested for that office. At the high end, if the margin is 0.5% or less, 165 precincts are tested.

Similar to a risk-limiting audit, precincts are randomly selected “in a process that will ensure, with at least 90 percent probability for the selected offices, that faulty tabulators would be detected if they would change the outcome of the election for a selected office” (N.M. Stat. Ann. §1-14-13.2).

A hand count is conducted for all federal offices, the governor and the statewide office unofficially won by the smallest margin in the selected precincts. If there is a high error rate between the difference of the hand counts and the original vote totals reported by the voting machines, another sample may be selected. If the error rate between the first and the second samples is more than 90%, a full recount is ordered.

Electronic post-election audit: Connecticut

At least 5% of all voting districts used in the election are randomly selected for a post-election audit in Connecticut. The races included in the audit vary by the type of election, and the audit must be completed no later than two business days before the canvass.

The secretary of state partners with the University of Connecticut’s Center for Voting Technology Research (VoTeR Center) to conduct post-election audits. The two organizations jointly developed a semi-automated audit to augment the hand count audit. The option to conduct audits using either a manual audit or electronic equipment was enacted in 2015 (SB 1051).

A VoTeR Center report on Computer Assisted Post Election Audits explains that the semi-automated approach was developed because hand-counted audits are “expensive, time-consuming, labor-intensive and error-prone.” According to the report, “It takes two auditors up to five hours to examine 1,000 ballots, while it was observed that hand counted audit returns routinely show up to 2% error.” The report also notes that fully automated audits have associated risks and do not adequately provide confidence in election outcomes, so a combination of the two approaches was desirable.

With the help of a grant from the U.S. Elections Assistance Commission, the VoTeR Center developed a computer “audit station” that presents scanned ballot images on a projector. This allows those auditors to examine the ballot more fully than if they handled the paper ballots themselves, and also offers more transparency since the public can also see what the auditors are seeing. The system identifies whether a given ballot has questionable votes or marks or if the voter’s intent appears to be unclear. It then allows the human auditors to make the final decision on how the marks on the ballot should be interpreted—i.e. who the voter intended to select. The audit is conducted in small batches so that auditors can easily pull a problematic ballot and examine the physical ballot more closely.

Table 1: How Audits Work
State	Statute(s)	Audit Type	Scope and Method	Timing	What Happens if a Discrepancy is Found?
Alabama	N/A	None, though the legislature passed HB 116 in 2021, which allows the secretary of state to pilot a traditional post-election audit in three counties in 2022.	N/A	N/A	N/A
Alaska	Alaska Stat. §15.15.420 §15.15.430 §15.15.440 §15.15.450 §15.10.170	Traditional	One randomly selected precinct from each house district that accounts for at least 5% of ballots cast in that district.	Before the canvass. Begins no later than 16 days after the election and continues until completed.	If discrepancies of more than 1% are found by local officials, the state election director hand counts all the ballots from that precinct by hand. The director certifies in writing and publishes online any changes resulting from this count.
Arizona	Ariz. Rev. Stat. §16-602 State of Arizona Elections Procedures Manual	Traditional	2% of precincts in a county or two precincts (whichever is greater). For counties that use vote centers, 2% of vote centers or two vote centers (whichever is greater). 1% or 5,000 early ballots in the county (whichever is less) are also included in the audit.	Before the canvass. Begins within 24 hours after the polls close, and completed before the canvass.	Before the election a committee (made up of persons with expertise in math, statistics or voting systems) establishes margins for each contest to be used during the audit to determine when the audit should be expanded.
Arkansas	AR Code § 7-4-121	Traditional	A sufficient number of counties, polling sites, early voting locations and vote centers are selected by lot to obtain a meaningful sample. Temporary language in SB 524 (2019) created a pilot program to inform a more comprehensive plan to audit the state’s elections.	No less than 60 days after the general election.	A report is filed that has no legal effect on the outcome of any election subject to the audit.
California	Cal. Elec. Code §336.5 §15360 §15365 et seq.	Traditional, with an option to conduct a risk-limiting audit instead beginning in 2020.	Traditional audit: 1% of the precincts, randomly selected, and 1 precinct for each race not included in the randomly selected precincts. Risk-limiting audit: each contest fully contained within the county’s borders, and partial risk-limiting audits for each cross-jurisdictional contest. A ballot-level comparison audit or ballot polling audit is conducted with a 5% risk limit. The Secretary of State shall adopt regulations to implement the risk-limiting audit requirements.	During the canvass.	Traditional audit: discrepancies are required to be reported, though no additional action is mandated. The elections official conducting the risk-limiting audit shall publish a report on the results of the risk-limiting audit in the certification of the official canvass of the vote.
Colorado	Colo. Rev. Stat. §1-7-515 Colo. Sec. of State Election Rule 25 on risk-limiting audits. Colo. Sec. of State Election Rule 8 on watchers.	Risk-limiting	The secretary of state selects the “risk limit” that applies for that election before the election. Different risk limits may be established for comparison audits and ballot polling audits. (See Colorado case study for additional information.)	Before the canvass. Audit reports must be submitted to the secretary of state’s office by 5 p.m. one day before the canvass deadline.	The RLA will continue until the risk limit for the target contests is met or until a full hand count results. The audit report submitted to the secretary of state must include any discrepancies found and the corresponding ballot images.
Connecticut	Conn. Gen. Stat. §9-320f	Traditional	At least 10% of randomly selected voting districts. May be conducted by a hand count or electronic count.	Before the canvass. Between the 15th day after the election and two business days before the canvass.	A re-canvass is ordered if the difference between the manual and machine counts is more than 0.5% and cannot be resolved through other means.
Delaware	Del. Code. Title 15 § 5012A	Traditional	Within 48 hours of certification of results, one randomly selected voting device in each county and one randomly selected election district in the City of Wilmington. Within 60 days of certification, one randomly selected statewide race in one randomly selected election district in each county and one randomly selected election district in the City of Wilmington, different from the previously selected districts.	Within 48 hours after the certification of results for the first audit, and within 60 days of the certification of results for the second audit.	A report containing the results of the audit must be published within 60 days of the audit and the department of elections shall develop procedures if an audit reveals a discrepancy, including the threshold that triggers specific action and what corrective actions need to be taken.
District of Columbia	D.C. Code Ann. §1-1001.09a	Traditional	At least 5% of precincts with precinct-level vote tabulation machines and at least 5% of the voter-verifiable records that are tabulated centrally. At least three contests are examined: one district-wide contest and at least two ward-wide races.	Before the election is certified. Date is announced no later than three business days after tabulation has been completed, but no fewer than 24 hours in advance of the audit.	If there is a discrepancy with an error rate greater than 0.25% or 20% of the margin of victory, whichever is less, and the discrepancy is not attributed to marking errors, a second count shall be conducted. If the s econd count confirms the discrepancy, another precinct in each ward where the contest appeared and an additional 5% of centrally tabulated ballots are audited. If the discrepancy is still there, all ballots with that contest are recounted.
Florida	Fla. Stat. Ann. §101.591	Traditional	Two options: 1) manual audit of votes for one randomly selected race in 2% of precincts containing that race, or 2) public automated tally of the votes cast across every race that appears on the ballot in at least 20% of randomly-chosen precincts.	Immediately following certification of the election. Results must be made public no later than seven days after certification and reported to the department of state within 15 days after certification.	The audit report to the department of state must contain a description of discrepancies, the likely cause, and recommended corrective action to avoid or mitigate such circumstances in future elections.
Georgia	Ga. Code Ann. §21-2-498	Traditional, with a pilot program for risk-limiting audits.	Manual inspection of random samples of paper ballots, including those cast in person, by absentee ballot, early voting and provisional ballots.	Before the final certification of the contest.	Not specified.
Hawaii	Hawaii Rev. Stat. §16-42, Haw. Admin. Rules § 3-172-102	Traditional	Ten% of precincts using the electronic voting system.	Before the election is certified.	If discrepancies occur, the chief election official conducts an expanded audit and to the extent possible resolves misreporting problems.
Idaho	Idaho Code § 34-1203A, Idaho Secretary of State's 2022 Postelection Audit Directive	Traditional	The secretary of state shall select by lot the counties and precincts for the audit; the precincts selected shall not exceed 5% of the precincts in the county or one precinct, whichever is greater. The audit is conducted after all general and primary elections, covers Election Day, early and absentee ballots, and may be ordered for at least one of the following elections: federal races, governor, the statewide office with the narrowest percentage margin of votes, the statewide ballot question with the narrowest percentage margin of votes or one legislative office within the county. The counting method is not specified in statute.	Procedures must be issued at least 60 days before the election; the secretary of state’s audit directive requires the audit to take place three days after the random draw of counties and precincts; reports are due no later than the day on which the state board meets to certify the canvass.	The secretary of state must publish an audit report and may order additional post-election audits if it is determined that such action is warranted by the findings of the report.
Illinois	10 ILCS 5/24A-15, 5/24B-15, 5/24C-15	Traditional	Where in-precinct counting equipment is used, 5% of precincts and 5% of voting devices used in early voting.	Before the canvass.	If any error is detected, the cause shall be determined and corrected, and an errorless count shall be made prior to the official canvass. If an errorless count can’t be conducted, a written report explaining the errors is made available for public inspection.
Indiana	Ind. Code §3-11-13-38, 3-12-3.5-8, 3-12-13	Other; procedural and/or traditional post-election audits may be authorized in some circumstances, with a pilot program for risk-limiting audits.	A risk-limiting pilot program has been authorized. The secretary of state may order an audit of DRE voting machines if a discrepancy exceeds the “audit threshold,” and county chairs of political parties may request an audit of optical scan ballots. The secretary of state may also order a procedural audit if there is an investigation or a recount.	Varies by type; audits of optical scan ballots must be requested no later than the Thursday after an election and results must be certified within 12 days of the election. Audits of DRE voting machines must be certified within 30 days of the election.	Not later than 90 days after each election in which an audit was conducted, the secretary of state shall publish a report stating whether the results of each audit indicate that the discrepancy was the result of human error, intentional violations of election laws, unknown causes or a combination of these factors.
Iowa	I.C.A. § 50.51	Traditional	Number of counties and precincts to be audited are determined by the state commissioner and selected by lot.	The audit report must be transmitted to the state commissioner of elections no later than 20 days after the election. The results of an audit do not change the results of an election.	An administrative recount may be ordered if the results of the audit require an administrative recount, for example if the commissioner suspects that voting equipment used in the election malfunctioned or that programming errors may have affected the outcome of the election.
Kansas	K.S.A. 25-3009	Traditional	1% of all precincts, randomly selected, with a minimum of one precinct within each county. The audit includes a manual review of all paper ballots and the races examined differ depending on if it is a presidential election year or not.	Before certification of the election.	If a discrepancy is reported between the audit and the unofficial returns and cannot be resolved, the county election officer or the secretary of state may require audits of additional precincts. Once the audit has been completed, the results of the audit shall be used by the county board of canvassers when certifying the official election results.
Kentucky	Ky. Rev. Stat. §117.383 §117.305 §117.275(9)	Traditional, with a pilot program for risk-limiting audits.	Randomly selected precincts representing 3-5% of the total ballots cast in each election. Note that some counties in Kentucky use DREs with no paper trail, making a manual audit in these counties impossible.	Part of the canvass.	If a discrepancy is discovered, a re-canvass is required and errors corrected.
Louisiana	La. R.S. § 18:1353(C)(5) Added by HB 924 (2022)	Traditional, beginning 2023 (implementation depends on the procurement and implementation of a new voting system)	The secretary of state is required to adopt and implement uniform policies and procedures for the conduct of post-election tabulation audits of paper ballots and related records.	Not yet specified.	Not yet specified.
Maine	N/A	None; in 2022, however, Maine passed HP 1482, which will require an RLA pilot after the 2024 general election and allow them statewide starting in 2025.	N/A	N/A	N/A
Maryland	Code of Md. Regs. §33.08.05.00 et seq., Md. Election Law §11-309	Traditional	A procedural audit is conducted on the local level. The greater of three precincts with at least 300 registered voters, or 5% of all precincts used in the election are audited by comparing voting machine results with those reported in the election management system. Following each statewide general election, the state board shall conduct an automated software audit of the electronic images of all ballots cast (required for primaries too) and a manual audit of voter-verifiable paper records (optional for primaries). The manual audit includes at least 2% of precincts statewide, including one randomly chosen precinct in each county, and at least 1% of the statewide total of early votes, absentee votes and provisional votes in the previous comparable election.	Procedural audit is conducted before local election officials certify the election. The manual audit by the state board must be completed within 120 days after the election. It does not have any effect on certified results, but shall be used to improve the voting system and process for future elections.	For the procedural audit, if there is a discrepancy of five or more between the number of voters checked in to vote and the number of ballots cast, local officials must hand count signed voter cards and review other materials to determine the cause of the difference. Discrepancies discovered during the procedural audit must be resolved and the resolution approved by the state administrator. If a discrepancy is discovered by the manual audit, the state board may expand it or take any other actions necessary to resolve the discrepancy.
Massachusetts	ALM GL ch. 54, § 109A	Traditional	Three% of all precincts in the commonwealth. Note that an audit is only conducted after a presidential election.	The audit must be completed no later than 14 days after a presidential election.	If there is a discrepancy that reasonably leads to doubt about the outcome of the election or systemic failure to accurately count ballots, the secretary of state may order audits of additional precincts, offices or ballot questions as necessary to ensure that the outcome of the election is accurate and that the cause of the systemic failure is identified.
Michigan	M.C.L.A. § 168.31a Post-Election Audit Manual (2018)	Traditional (authorized not required) and procedural, with a pilot program for risk-limiting audits.	An extensive procedural audit is conducted. It is required to include an audit of the results in at least one race in each precinct randomly selected for audit and at least one statewide race or ballot question for statewide elections. The audit reviews procedures performed before, during and after the conduct of an election.	After the canvass. The audit does not change any certified election results.	Discrepancies discovered as part of the procedural audit will be used to develop training for the future. The audit of voted ballots will reinforce accuracy and security of the voting system.
Minnesota	Minn. Stat. Ann. §206.89	Traditional	Depends on county size. At least two precincts for smaller counties. For larger counties, four precincts or 3% of precincts (whichever is greater).	Before the canvass (no later than two days before the state canvassing board meets to certify the election).	If there’s a difference greater than 0.5% (or greater than two votes in a precinct where 400 or fewer ballots were cast) an additional review of at least three precincts is conducted. If there is still a discrepancy of the sort listed above, all precincts must be reviewed within that district. If the audit results show an error in 10% of the total votes cast in the election in one or more counties, a manual recount of all districts where the error occurred is ordered.
Mississippi	N/A	None	N/A	N/A	N/A
Missouri	15 Mo. Code of State Regs. §30-10.090 §30-10.110	Traditional	At least 5% of precincts.	Before certification of results.	If results differ by more than 0.5%, discrepancies are investigated and resolved.
Montana	Mont. Code Ann. §13-17-501 - §13-17-509	Traditional	At least 5% of the precincts in each county or a minimum of one precinct in each county, whichever is greater; and the audit must include an election for one federal office, one statewide office, one legislative office and one ballot issue.	Before the canvass.	If there is a discrepancy of more than 0.5% of total ballots cast or five ballots (whichever is greater) and the discrepancy is due to machine error and not administrative or user error, the machine involved in the discrepancy may not be used in another election until it has been examined and tested by a computer software expert in consultation with a voting system vendor and approved by the secretary of state. At least three additional precincts must be audited.
Nebraska	Source: Nebraska Secretary of State's Office	Other	A post-election audit is not required by statute, but may be conducted at the discretion of the secretary of state. A minimum of two percent of precincts are randomly selected, and the audit includes one each of federal, statewide and local races.	Not specified	Any discrepancies are checked and noted in a report provided to the secretary of state’s office.
Nevada	NRS 293.247, 293.394 Nev. Admin. Code 293.255	Traditional, with a pilot program for risk-limiting audits that began. Risk-limiting audits will be required statewide in 2024.	Traditional audits: If a county population is greater than 100,000, the audit looks at 2% of the machines. If the county population is less than 100,000, 3% of the machines are audited. Risk-limiting: The secretary of state adopts regulations on procedures and scope.	Traditional audits: Before the canvass. Results must be sent to the secretary of state within seven working days after the election.	Not specified.
New Hampshire	N/A	None	N/A	N/A	N/A
New Jersey	N.J. Stat. Ann. §19:61-9	Traditional, with a pilot program for risk-limiting audits.	At least 2% of election districts. Note: The statutes referenced here are dependent on implementation of new voting systems that produced voter-verifiable paper records. As of May 2018 those machines have not yet been purchased. The current voting system uses paperless DRE machines that produce no auditable record, so post-election audits are currently not being conducted in New Jersey.	Before certification of election. Within a “reasonable period of time after the final vote count.”	If a discrepancy is discovered, the audit is expanded to include additional districts or audit units. Criteria to be employed to trigger an expansion of the audit are established before the election.
New Mexico	N.M. Stat. Ann. §1-14-13.2 et seq., N.M. Admin. Code 1.10.23	Traditional, with a tiered system based on the margin of victory.	Audit of electronic voter tabulators in randomly selected precincts is conducted for all federal offices, government and statewide elective offices. The number of precincts to be tested depends on the winning margin for each office.	A random sample of precincts is selected by the independent auditor no later than 12 days after the election. The clerks shall report their results to the auditor within ten days of being notified which precincts to audit.	If there is a high error rate between the difference of the hand counts and the original vote totals reported by the voting machines, another sample may be selected. If the error rate between the first and the second samples is more than 90%, a full recount is ordered.
New York	N.Y. Election Law § 9-211 9 N.Y. Comp. Rules & Regs. 6210.18	Traditional	Random selection of 3% of machines.	Within 15 days of each general or special election and within seven days of every primary or village election.	If there is an unresolved discrepancy of even a single vote, the manual count is conducted again. An expanded audit is required if discrepancies would alter the vote share by 0.1% or if discrepancies are found in at least 10% of the machines audited. When an expanded audit is required, an additional 5% of machines are audited, then an additional 12% if the discrepancy still exists, and if the discrepancy is still found, a full manual recount.
North Carolina	N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. §163-182.1	Traditional	Manual count of the paper ballots or paper records of a statewide ballot item in every county; precincts are randomly selected. The size of the sample of each category shall be chosen to produce a statistically significant result and shall be chosen after consultation with a statistician.	Selection of precincts to be audited must take place at the latest 24 hours after polls close. A deadline for the audit is not specified.	In case of a discrepancy, the hand count shall control, except where paper ballots have been lost or destroyed or where there is another reasonable basis to conclude that the hand count is not the true count. If the discrepancy between the hand-to-eye count and the mechanical or electronic count is significant, a complete hand-to-eye count shall be conducted.
North Dakota	N.D. Cent. Code 16.1-06-15	Other	Random testing of the voting system programming for one precinct in each county in the state according to logic and accuracy testing procedures.	Before the canvass.	Not specified.
Ohio	ORC Ann. 3505.331 Secretary of State Directive 2017-14	Traditional, with risk-limiting audits optional and recommended.	Audit of at least three contests: the “top of the ticket” contest (i.e., President or Governor); at least one other statewide contest to be selected at random by the secretary of state’s office after Election Day; and at least one non-statewide candidate contest to be selected by the board of elections. Board of elections determine the “units to be audited,” either by precinct, by polling location or by individual voting machine but are encouraged to audit the smallest unit available to the board. A sufficient number of units must be audited so that the number of votes cast on all selected units equals at least 5% of the total number of votes cast in the county. This includes all categories of ballots.	No sooner than six business days after the local election board certifies election results, and no later 21 days after certifying the official results of the election, unless a recount must be conducted. If a recount is conducted, the post-election audit must be completed no later than 14 days after certification of recount results.	A county is required to escalate the audit if its accuracy rate is less than 99.5% in a contest with a certified margin that is at least 1% (calculated as a percentage of ballots cast on which the contest appeared), or less than 99.8% in a contest with a certified margin that is less than 1%. Escalation entails drawing a second random sample of at least 5% of votes cast, selected from units that were not audited in the original sample, and auditing the ballots using the same procedures. If, after the second round of auditing, the accuracy rate from the two samples is below 99.5%, the county shall investigate the cause of the discrepancy and report its findings to the secretary of state’s office. In such cases, the secretary of state’s office may require a 100% hand-count.
Oklahoma	26 Okl. St. § 3-130	Traditional (authorized not required)	Manual or electronic examination of a limited number of ballots.	Timing shall be determined by the secretary of the state election board.	Procedures shall be determined by the secretary of the state election board.
Oregon	Or. Rev. Stat. §254.529 §254.535	Traditional, with a tiered system based on the margin of victory. Risk-limiting audits are optional.	Counties may choose to conduct a traditional hand count post-election audit that depends on margin of victory: if margin of victory is less than 1% of the total votes cast, 10% of all precincts are hand counted; if margin of victory is between 1% and 2%, 5% of all precincts; margin of victory 2% or greater, 3% of all precincts are hand counted. Or a risk-limiting audit.	Traditional audits: begin no later than the 21st day after the election and completed by the 30th day after the election. Risk-limiting: before an election contest is certified.	Traditional audits: If there is a discrepancy of greater than 0.5%, the sample is audited again. If the second audit show a discrepancy of 0.5%, all ballots for that system are audited. Risk-limiting: rules and procedures to be determined by the secretary of state.
Pennsylvania	Pa. Cons. Stat. tit. 25 §3031.17 §2650	Traditional hand count or electronic, with a pilot program for risk-limiting audits.	Recount of random sample of the lesser of 2% of votes cast in each county, or 2,000 ballots.	Part of the canvass.	Not specified.
Rhode Island	§ 17-19-37.4	Risk-limiting	The state board shall determine what local, statewide and federal contests are subject to a risk-limiting audit. A risk-limiting audit shall begin with a hand tally of the votes in one or more audit units and shall continue to hand tally votes in additional audit units until there is strong statistical evidence that the electoral outcome is correct.	Before certification of results.	In the event that counting additional audit units does not provide strong statistical evidence that the electoral outcome is correct, the audit shall continue until there has been a full manual tally to determine the correct electoral outcome of the audited contest.
South Carolina	Description of Election Audits in South Carolina	Other	The audit process compares the tabulated results of the election with the raw data collected in the electronic audit files by each voting machine on a flash card. The state election commission has developed a series of computer applications that compare the tabulated returns reports with the raw audit data. If the audit application detects an anomaly it lists it in one or more audit report.	Before the county certifies the election, the county assures that all ballots have been counted, including accepted provisional ballots. A second audit is completed before the state election commission certifies the election.	Not specified
South Dakota	N/A	None	N/A	N/A	N/A
Tennessee	Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-20-103	Traditional	Automatic audit of at least one precinct for small counties and at least five precincts for large counties.	Begins before 1:00 p.m. on the day after the election.	If after the automatic audit there is a variance of more than 1% between the unofficial election results of the top race and the automatic audit, a hand count of 3% of the precincts is conducted.
Texas	Tex. Election Code Ann. §127.201 (Vernon 2015) Election Advisory No. 2012-03	Traditional, with a pilot program for risk-limiting audits.	Not more than three races in 1% of precincts or three precincts, whichever is greater; does not apply to tabulation of DRE machines.	Begins within 72 hours after the polls close and completed no later than the 21st day after the election.	If there are discrepancies in the audit, the election official shall continue the audit until it determines the cause of the discrepancy.
Utah	U.C.A. 1953 § 20A-3a-202(9); although the statute concerns auditing signatures, Utah counties also audit results as found in the Utah Election Policy Directive issued by the Office of the Lieutenant Governor	Traditional	Vote-by-mail counties audit 1% or 1,000 mail ballots, whichever is less. Batches to be audited are randomly selected by the lieutenant governor's office. One accessible voting machine (DRE) per 100 deployed in every Utah House District, selected randomly by the lieutenant governor's office are also audited.	Before the canvass.	Election officials should ascertain and record the reasons for any differences.
Vermont	17 Vt. Stat. Ann. §2493 §2581 - §2588	Traditional	Determined by secretary of state, with a mix of electronic and hand count auditing.	Within 30 days of the election.	Not specified.
Virginia	Va. Code § 24.2-671.1	Risk-limiting	Virginia’s audit requires a hand count of randomly sampled printed ballots. Different contests are required to be audited in different election years: in years of general election for members of the U.S. House of Representatives, a risk-limiting audit of at least one randomly selected contested race for such office must be conducted; in years of a general election for members of the General Assembly, a risk-limiting audit of at least one randomly selected contested race for such office must be conducted; in any year in which there is no general election for a statewide office, a risk-limiting audit of at least one randomly selected contested race for a local office, including constitutional offices; and, in any year, any other risk-limiting audit of a contested race that is necessary to ensure that each locality participates in a risk-limiting audit of an office within its jurisdiction at least once every five years.	Audits must be performed after an election and before the certification of election results. Results must be certified by the first Monday in December.	The local jurisdiction issues a report, and the state board publishes the results. If an audit escalates to a full hand count of all ballots cast, then the hand count is used to certify the election in lieu of the original unofficial results.
Washington	Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §29A.60.185, §29A.60.170, Wash. Admin. Code 434-262-105	Traditional, with option of conducted a risk-limiting audit.	County auditors choose (at a minimum) one of the following methods to audit duplicated ballots: 1) audit of DREs or ballot marking devices when at least 10 votes have been cast on all devices. Up to 4% of devices are selected by lot. 2) a random check 3) a risk-limiting audit whereby the scope and "risk limit” (the largest statistical probability that an incorrect reported tabulation outcome is not detected) are set by the secretary of state.	Before the certification of the election.	For each audit method, the secretary of state must adopt procedures for expanding the audit to include additional ballots when audit results in a discrepancy, under what circumstances the discrepancy leads to an audit of additional ballots, the method to determine how many additional ballots will be selected, and how to investigate the cause of any discrepancy found during an audit.
West Virginia	W. Va. Code, §3-4A-28	Traditional	At least 3% of precincts, chosen at random.	During the canvass, before certification.	If there is a discrepancy of more than 1% or that would result in a different outcome, it is immediately disclosed to the public and a full manual recount is ordered.
Wisconsin	Wis. Stat. Ann. §7.08(6) Wisconsin Elections Commission 2018 Post-Election Voting Equipment Audit	Traditional	At least 5% of statewide reporting units (a minimum of 183 total reporting units). No more than two reporting units will be chosen per municipality, and municipalities selected as part of the audit will be chosen randomly. At least one audit will be conducted in each of Wisconsin’s 72 counties. Reporting units will be selected to include a sample from each piece of voting equipment that records and tabulates votes.	No later than 2 weeks after certification of results.	Discrepancies are reported to the WEC. If the discrepancy cannot be reasonably explained, WEC staff will request that the voting equipment manufacturer investigate and explain the reasons for differences between the machine tally and the paper record tally. Should the vendor fail to provide a sufficient written explanation, including recommendations for preventing future occurrences, within 30 days of notification, WEC staff will suspend approval of the affected voting system in Wisconsin.
Wyoming	W.S. 22-11-104, Wyo. Admin. Rules Secretary of State Election Procedures Chapter 25	Other	The pre-election logic and accuracy testing is repeated after the election. A random audit of ballots is conducted by processing the pre-audited group of test ballots on 5% of the automated tabulating machines for that county.	Within 30 days of the election.	If a voting machine fails the post election audit test, the county clerk notifies the secretary of state in writing of the audit problem.

Table 2: Who Has a Role in Auditing
State	Statute(s)	Who Conducts the Audit?	Who Can Observe?
Alabama	N/A	N/A	N/A
Alaska	Alaska Stat. §15.15.420 §15.15.430 §15.15.440 §15.15.450 §15.10.170	Local election officials and state review board members, with oversight from the state election director.	Appointed representatives from political parties are required to observe; other observers may be present as well.
Arizona	Ariz. Rev. Stat. §16-602 State of Arizona Elections Procedures Manual	County election officials and party representatives appointed by the county party chairperson, with oversight from the secretary of state.	Audits are conducted publicly, but political party observers have additional access to the process.
Arkansas	AR Code § 7-4-121	State board of elections.	Not specified.
California	Cal. Elec. Code §336.5 §15360 §15365 et seq.	Local election officials, with oversight from the secretary of state.	Audits are conducted publicly.
Colorado	Colo. Rev. Stat. §1-7-515 Colo. Sec. of State Election Rule 25 on risk-limiting audits. Colo. Sec. of State Election Rule 8 on watchers.	County election officials, with oversight from the secretary of state. The secretary of state selects the “target contest” for the RLA, including at least one statewide contest and one other contest.	At least two members of the canvass board of the county observe the audit, and members of the canvass board may serve as members of the audit board. Eligible watchers may also observe the post-election audit. Members of the public have explicit access to certain parts of the process, and may observe the entire process at the discretion of state and local election officials.
Connecticut	Conn. Gen. Stat. §9-320f	Local registrars of voters. The secretary of state randomly selects offices to be audited.	Audits are conducted publicly. Audit reports are filed with the secretary of state and subsequently analyzed by the University of Connecticut, and are also open to the public.
Delaware	Del. Code. Title 15 § 5012A	State Department of Elections	Audits are conducted publicly.
District of Columbia	D.C. Code Ann. §1-1001.09a	Board of elections.	Audits are conducted publicly. Results of the audit are also made publicly available before the election is certified.
Florida	Fla. Stat. Ann. §101.591	County canvassing board or local board responsible for certifying the election.	Audits are conducted publicly and results are made available to the public.
Georgia	Ga. Code Ann. §21-2-498	Local election superintendents	Conducted in public view and details of the audit are made public within 48 hours of completion.
Hawaii	Hawaii Rev. Stat. §16-42, Haw. Admin. Rules § 3-172-102	Chief election official and bipartisan audit team.	Not open to the public, but “observers may request to conduct a manual audit.”
Idaho	Idaho Code § 34-1203A, Idaho Secretary of State's 2022 Postelection Audit Directive	Conducted by the secretary of state and facilitated by county clerks.	Open to the media. If a candidate, political party or political committee that spent money on a ballot question is subject to the audit, they can appoint a designated observer.
Illinois	10 ILCS 5/24A-15, 5/24B-15, 5/24C-15	County election officials, with oversight from the state board of elections, which also conducts the random selection of precincts.	The state board of elections, the state's attorney and other appropriate law enforcement agencies, the county chairman of each established political party and qualified civic organizations may observe the audit. Audit results are made public.
Indiana	Ind. Code §3-11-13-38, 3-12-3.5-8, 3-12-13	County election officials. The secretary of state designates risk-limiting audit pilot counties and supervises the procedural audit in cases of an investigation or recount.	The public is notified of the time and place of a an audit at least 48 hours before it begins.
Iowa	I.C.A. § 50.51	The state commissioner of elections, with the cooperation of the county commissioners.	A representative selected by each of the two political parties whose candidates received the highest number of votes statewide in the preceding general election.
Kansas	K.S.A. 25-3009	County election officials.	The audit is conducted publicly. Any candidate or entity who is authorized to appoint a poll agent may appoint a poll agent for the audit.
Kentucky	Ky. Rev. Stat. §117.383 §117.305 §117.275(9)	State board of elections.	Representatives of candidates, political parties and members of the news media may be authorized to observe.
Louisiana	La. R.S. § 18:1353(C)(5) Added by HB 924 (2022)	The secretary of state.	Not yet specified.
Maine	N/A	N/A	N/A
Maryland	Code of Md. Regs. §33.08.05.00 et seq., Md. Election Law §11-309	Local election official and board of canvassers conduct the procedural audit. The state board of elections conducts the audit of ballot images and the manual audit of paper records.	The manual audit conducted by the state shall allow for public observation to the extent practicable.
Massachusetts	ALM GL ch. 54, § 109A	Board of registrars or election commission. The secretary of state selects the precincts to be audited.	Audits are conducted publicly and results made public.
Michigan	M.C.L.A. § 168.31a Post-Election Audit Manual (2018)	Counties and state-level election staff.	The audit takes place in a public location.
Minnesota	Minn. Stat. Ann. §206.89	County election officials, with oversight from the secretary of state. The county canvassing board randomly selects precincts to be audited.	Audits are conducted publicly.
Mississippi	N/A	N/A	N/A
Missouri	15 Mo. Code of State Regs. §30-10.090 §30-10.110	Local election officials, with oversight from the secretary of state, who also randomly selects precincts to be audited.	Random selection of precincts is open to the public, and results of the audit are public. No other guidance for observers is provided.
Montana	Mont. Code Ann. §13-17-501 - §13-17-509	County audit committee, with oversight from the secretary of state. The state board of canvassers selects the precincts to be audited.	Audits are conducted publicly, and results are made public.
Nebraska	Source: Nebraska Secretary of State's Office	Secretary of state’s office.	Not specified.
Nevada	NRS 293.247, 293.394 Nev. Admin. Code 293.255	County clerks, with oversight from the secretary of state. The secretary of state sets regulations for post-election audits, including risk-limiting audits.	“Any member of the public who observes the postelection certification audit shall not interfere with the conduct of the audit.”
New Hampshire	N/A	N/A	N/A
New Jersey	N.J. Stat. Ann. §19:61-9	Local election officials, with oversight from an independent, professional audit team appointed by the attorney general.	Audits are conducted publicly and results of the audit are published.
New Mexico	N.M. Stat. Ann. §1-14-13.2 et seq., N.M. Admin. Code 1.10.23	County clerks, with assistance and oversight from an independent auditor hired by the secretary of state.	The selection of the sample to be audited is conducted publicly and audit data is reported to the public. Accredited county canvass observers may be present during the audit process.
New York	N.Y. Election Law § 9-211 9 N.Y. Comp. Rules & Regs. 6210.18	County board of elections, with oversight from the state board of elections.	Each candidate, political party or independent body entitled to appoint watchers to a polling place is entitled to appoint watchers to observe the audit.
North Carolina	N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. §163-182.1	County election officials, with oversight from the state board of elections, which also selects the random sample.	Not specified.
North Dakota	N.D. Cent. Code 16.1-06-15	County election official.	Not specified.
Ohio	ORC Ann. 3505.331 Secretary of State Directive 2017-14	Local election boards	The post-election audit must be open to the public, the media and to duly appointed observers.
Oklahoma	26 Okl. St. § 3-130	County election boards, supervised by the secretary of the state election board.	Not specified, but a report of the findings is available to the public.
Oregon	Or. Rev. Stat. §254.529 §254.535	County clerks, with oversight from the secretary of state.	Audits are conducted publicly and results made public.
Pennsylvania	Pa. Cons. Stat. tit. 25 §3031.17 §2650	County board of elections.	Candidates and their appointed watchers and attorneys.
Rhode Island	§ 17-19-37.4	State board of elections in conjunction with local board of elections.	Not specified.
South Carolina	Description of Election Audits in South Carolina	County election officials or staff of the state election commission.	Not specified
South Dakota	N/A	N/A	N/A
Tennessee	Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-20-103	County election commissions.	Audits are conducted publicly.
Texas	Tex. Election Code Ann. §127.201 (Vernon 2015) Election Advisory No. 2012-03	Local election officials, with oversight from the secretary of state.	Candidates or their appointed representatives
Utah	U.C.A. 1953 § 20A-3a-202(9); although the statute concerns auditing signatures, Utah counties also audit results as found in the Utah Election Policy Directive issued by the Office of the Lieutenant Governor	Local election officials, with oversight from the office of the lieutenant governor.	Appointed poll watchers.
Vermont	17 Vt. Stat. Ann. §2493 §2581 - §2588	Secretary of state.	The public may observe the process, and results are made public.
Virginia	Va. Code § 24.2-671.1	Local board of registrars, with procedures provided by the state department of elections.	Must be conducted in a place and manner that is open to the public.
Washington	Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §29A.60.185, §29A.60.170, Wash. Admin. Code 434-262-105	County auditors, with oversight from the secretary of state.	Appointed observers.
West Virginia	W. Va. Code, §3-4A-28	Board of canvassers	Audits are conducted publicly.
Wisconsin	Wis. Stat. Ann. §7.08(6) Wisconsin Elections Commission 2018 Post-Election Voting Equipment Audit	Local election officials, with oversight from the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC).	Audits are conducted publicly.
Wyoming	W.S. 22-11-104, Wyo. Admin. Rules Secretary of State Election Procedures Chapter 25	County election officials.	The county clerk shall notify each political party of the time and date of the post election audit. Other witnesses may also be present.

Related Resources

Updated May 05, 2023

2024 State Primary Election Dates

This page provides state primary and presidential election dates for 2024 when legislative, congressional, gubernatorial, statewide office and presidential primary contests will be on the ballots in 46 states.

Elections

Table

Updated May 05, 2023

Eligibility Requirements to Run for the State Legislature

Each state has basic requirements that must be met to serve in the legislature. Candidates must meet the requirements, which are usually listed in each state’s constitution, before they are eligible to serve in the legislature.

Elections

Table

Updated May 05, 2023

Paperwork Requirements to Run for the State Legislature

Every state requires candidates for office to file paperwork notifying the state that the filer intends to run and is completing or has completed the necessary steps to have their name placed on the ballot. The paperwork also notifies the state campaign finance regulator that the new candidate will be submitting finance reports.

Elections

Table

Contact NCSL
For more information on this topic, use this form to reach NCSL staff.
Email
Full Name
What is your role?
Message
Captcha
Admin Email

Report Post-Election Audits

Introduction

Why Do a Post-Election Audit?

Types of Post-Election Audits

Traditional Post-Election Audits

Risk-Limiting Audits

Considerations for Legislators

Other Post-Election Options

Procedural Audits