Performance audits would improve NC elections

A bill working its way through the General Assembly would enact a host of election reforms, including one that puts the governor and the state auditor at odds. If that reform becomes law, officials will be able to better identify and address systemic problems in how elections are run in North Carolina.

House Bill 958 would give election officials more time to process absentee and provisional ballots, expand the ban on electioneering by boards of elections members, and clarify ID requirements for military and overseas voters. An amended version of the bill would set rules for “post-election audits of election system[s] and controls.” Those post-election audits, known as “performance” or “procedural” audits, are not just retabulating ballots to see if the count is about the same as the original tabulation but, as explained by the National Conference of State Legislatures, are for “ensuring the correct process and procedures were followed during the course of the election.”

The inclusion of performance audits led to some social media sniping between Gov. Josh Stein and State Auditor Dave Boliek. In an apparent reference to the performance audit provision, Stein stated that HB 958 “invites the Auditor and State Board to sow mistrust in elections.” Boliek fired back, asserting, “An audit by the North Carolina Office of the State Auditor examining the processes and procedures of elections would bring transparency and accountability to voters.”

(I am a volunteer member of the Modernization of Election Data Systems Commission, which Boliek chairs.)

So, what would those audits do?

First, here is what they would not do: alter the outcome of any election. The bill’s language states that the performance audit would not begin until “after the election is certified” and that it would not supersede or replace the audits that election officials already conduct. If that is not clear enough, the bill also spells it out: “No findings in audits under this section shall be used as grounds to challenge the final result of an election.”

Instead, the performance audits would have auditors inspect the entire election process to ensure that the correct processes and procedures were followed. According to the bill, here are some of the things they would examine:

• “The accuracy of voter rolls and compliance with list maintenance requirements in State and federal law”
• “Procedures for testing voting equipment before counting ballots, including the ballots used for testing the equipment and the storage and maintenance of the equipment”
• “Records of ballots distributed, ballots voted, poll book records, and ballots tabulated”
• “Compliance with all State and federal laws regarding contact with voters and voter assistance”

In short, the performance audits would help provide what a 2020 article in the Georgetown Law Review calls “affirmative evidence” that the election results reported to the public are “a trustworthy record of voter intent.”

With the governor’s pushback against the audit proposal, it is worth noting that the Office of the State Auditor already has the authority to direct election performance audits. State law makes it clear that “It is the intent of this Article that all State agencies, and entities supported, partially or entirely, by public funds be subject to audit and investigation under the policy guidance of the Auditor.” So, why pass a law giving the Auditor the authority to do what he already has the authority to do?

First, the law would clarify the roles of officials at the State Board of Elections, county boards of elections, and the Division of Motor Vehicles in cooperating with audits and stipulate that election officials will be present during the audit process to maintain a chain of custody of voting equipment and other materials. It would also provide election officials with a role in drafting plans to correct any errors found during the audit.

Finally, it would ensure that performance audits are conducted regularly, no matter who the state auditor is. That would help establish those audits as part of a cycle of continuous improvement for North Carolina elections.

An election performance audit would not break new ground. A 2021 Election Assistance Commission report found that 15 states use them. Other states, such as Utah and Texas, have since joined them.

Additionally, there is already a precedent in state law for requiring the State Auditor to conduct an annual performance audit of the Department of Motor Vehicles.

To help improve our elections, North Carolina should join the growing number of states that use performance audits.

“Performance audits would improve NC elections” was originally published on www.carolinajournal.com.