Q & A For Logic and Accuracy Testing

The November election is approaching, and local election authorities will be conducting public logic and accuracy testing to ascertain that automatic tabulating equipment correctly counts votes cast for all races and on all questions. But what if the technology used to count our votes has a known limitation that prevents it from detecting and correctly counting every legally valid vote—and the testing process is insufficient and fails to expose that limitation because legally valid voter marks are omitted from the test deck, allowing an errorless result? In the coming days, the public has an opportunity to attend these tests, ask questions, and examine this critical issue for themselves.

The following Q&A explains what Missouri law requires and how you can engage with local election officials to assess whether testing procedures are adequate to verify that all legally valid voter marks are detected and correctly counted. Every voter deserves an election conducted in accordance with the law, with their intended selection accurately recorded and every legally valid vote counted.

What is the problem with using automatic tabulating equipment to count votes?

Automatic Tabulating Equipment (ATE) used to count votes in Missouri elections does not detect and count all legally valid votes cast.

What is a legally valid vote?

Missouri law requires votes to be counted according to voter intent, including circled candidate names, corrective marks or text, and any other distinguishing marks that clearly indicate the voter’s selection. (RSMo § 115.456; 15 CSR 30-9.020)

Why are legal voter marks not being detected and counted?

Missouri’s automatic tabulating equipment relies on programmed configurations, mark-recognition parameters, ballot position, printing, alignment, and other technical factors to determine which marks are detected and counted. As configured and used today, the technology cannot reliably detect and correctly count all voter-intent marks permitted under Missouri law.

Is this a known technological limitation?

Yes. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) documented a study where NIST identified and examined the known vote tabulating limitation, which traces back to the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG) 1.0 (2005) technical standards developed by the US Election Assistance Commission (EAC). The study establishes the failure of the technology to reliably classify certain marginal marks as valid votes. Federal EAC and Missouri SoS records confirm that Missouri qualified voting systems remain primarily certified to VVSG 1.0 standards.

Isn’t Missouri required to test the equipment to ensure it complies with legal requirements?

Yes. Local election authorities are legally required to supervise logic and accuracy testing to ascertain that the equipment correctly counts votes cast for all offices and on all questions.

Do election authorities sufficiently test the equipment?

No. The test deck includes only ballots with machine-readable marks that conform to the equipment’s programmed ballot-position and mark-detection parameters, while omitting ballots with examples of voter intent that Missouri law requires to be counted. The accuracy certification team has the authority to add, subtract, or change test ballots. (15 CSR 30-10.040(7)(D)). But the law does not expressly require the deck to include the full range of legally valid voter-intent marks. This creates a testing gap that can conceal the very failure being examined.

What happens if the ATE fails to correctly count legally valid voter marks during testing?

Under 15 CSR 30-10.140(6)(D), the accuracy certification team compares tabulator results with manual paper-ballot counts. If a counting error is found, the ATE programming shall be corrected until an errorless count is achieved, and the unit shall not be used on Election Day until then. Under 15 CSR 30-10.140(6)(F), a unit failing diagnostic or L&A testing shall not be used until repaired, reprogrammed, inspected, verified to function properly, and successfully retested. Intentionally limiting tests to ballots with filled-in ovals to accommodate technological limitations and achieve errorless results circumvents the legal obligation to ascertain that the equipment is in compliance with the law and that it correctly counts the votes cast for all offices and on all questions. Requiring voters to fill in ovals simply to accommodate technological limitations, rather than implementing the legally required remedy to correct the ATE programming, constitutes an acknowledgment of the known failures. Post-casting safeguards, such as spoiling rejected ballots and instructing voters to recast them strictly according to ballot instructions, or using manual recounts of 5% of precincts to validate the broader vote count, do not diminish or replace the legal obligation that the ATE correctly counts every vote cast.

Why does it matter?

This limitation is inherent in the ATE technology that manufacturers provide for Missouri elections. Its continued use has institutionalized the exclusion of legally valid voter marks from machine counts and certified election results.

Who is responsible for fixing this?

Accountability exists at each stage of the process. Missouri law assigns the equipment manufacturer, Secretary of State, and local election authority responsibilities for certifying, approving, testing, and ensuring that ATE complies with applicable law and correctly counts all votes cast. Final responsibility for administering elections rests with the county election clerk or board of election commissioners, as applicable in each jurisdiction. Under RSMo § 115.023, each election authority shall conduct all public elections within its jurisdiction. RSMo § 115.043 authorizes each election authority may make all rules and regulations, consistent with statutory requirements, necessary for the registration of voters and the conduct of elections.
“Every voter deserves an election conducted in accordance with the law”

Take action before the November election. Contact your county election clerk or board of election commissioners and ask for the date, time, and location of the upcoming logic and accuracy testing. Attend-even for a short period, observe the process, and ask questions that deserve clear answers. These are reasonable questions about election administration, legal compliance, and public accountability. You do not have to take anyone’s word for it; you can observe and seek answers directly from the officials responsible for conducting your election. A legally compliant election and a correct count of every voter mark are not a partisan issue, they are matters of public concern. Make your voice heard before the votes are cast—not after the results are certified.

Tags:

Q & A For Logic and Accuracy Testing

The November election is approaching, and local election authorities will be conducting public logic and accuracy testing to ascertain that automatic tabulating equipment correctly counts votes cast for all races and on all questions. But what if the technology used to count our votes has a known limitation that prevents it from detecting and correctly counting every legally valid vote—and the testing process is insufficient and fails to expose that limitation because legally valid voter marks are omitted from the test deck, allowing an errorless result? In the coming days, the public has an opportunity to attend these tests, ask questions, and examine this critical issue for themselves.

The following Q&A explains what Missouri law requires and how you can engage with local election officials to assess whether testing procedures are adequate to verify that all legally valid voter marks are detected and correctly counted. Every voter deserves an election conducted in accordance with the law, with their intended selection accurately recorded and every legally valid vote counted.

What is the problem with using automatic tabulating equipment to count votes?

Automatic Tabulating Equipment (ATE) used to count votes in Missouri elections does not detect and count all legally valid votes cast.

What is a legally valid vote?

Missouri law requires votes to be counted according to voter intent, including circled candidate names, corrective marks or text, and any other distinguishing marks that clearly indicate the voter’s selection. (RSMo § 115.456; 15 CSR 30-9.020)

Why are legal voter marks not being detected and counted?

Missouri’s automatic tabulating equipment relies on programmed configurations, mark-recognition parameters, ballot position, printing, alignment, and other technical factors to determine which marks are detected and counted. As configured and used today, the technology cannot reliably detect and correctly count all voter-intent marks permitted under Missouri law.

Is this a known technological limitation?

Yes. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) documented a study where NIST identified and examined the known vote tabulating limitation, which traces back to the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG) 1.0 (2005) technical standards developed by the US Election Assistance Commission (EAC). The study establishes the failure of the technology to reliably classify certain marginal marks as valid votes. Federal EAC and Missouri SoS records confirm that Missouri qualified voting systems remain primarily certified to VVSG 1.0 standards.

Isn’t Missouri required to test the equipment to ensure it complies with legal requirements?

Yes. Local election authorities are legally required to supervise logic and accuracy testing to ascertain that the equipment correctly counts votes cast for all offices and on all questions.

Do election authorities sufficiently test the equipment?

No. The test deck includes only ballots with machine-readable marks that conform to the equipment’s programmed ballot-position and mark-detection parameters, while omitting ballots with examples of voter intent that Missouri law requires to be counted. The accuracy certification team has the authority to add, subtract, or change test ballots. (15 CSR 30-10.040(7)(D)). But the law does not expressly require the deck to include the full range of legally valid voter-intent marks. This creates a testing gap that can conceal the very failure being examined.

What happens if the ATE fails to correctly count legally valid voter marks during testing?

Under 15 CSR 30-10.140(6)(D), the accuracy certification team compares tabulator results with manual paper-ballot counts. If a counting error is found, the ATE programming shall be corrected until an errorless count is achieved, and the unit shall not be used on Election Day until then. Under 15 CSR 30-10.140(6)(F), a unit failing diagnostic or L&A testing shall not be used until repaired, reprogrammed, inspected, verified to function properly, and successfully retested. Intentionally limiting tests to ballots with filled-in ovals to accommodate technological limitations and achieve errorless results circumvents the legal obligation to ascertain that the equipment is in compliance with the law and that it correctly counts the votes cast for all offices and on all questions. Requiring voters to fill in ovals simply to accommodate technological limitations, rather than implementing the legally required remedy to correct the ATE programming, constitutes an acknowledgment of the known failures. Post-casting safeguards, such as spoiling rejected ballots and instructing voters to recast them strictly according to ballot instructions, or using manual recounts of 5% of precincts to validate the broader vote count, do not diminish or replace the legal obligation that the ATE correctly counts every vote cast.

Why does it matter?

This limitation is inherent in the ATE technology that manufacturers provide for Missouri elections. Its continued use has institutionalized the exclusion of legally valid voter marks from machine counts and certified election results.

Who is responsible for fixing this?

Accountability exists at each stage of the process. Missouri law assigns the equipment manufacturer, Secretary of State, and local election authority responsibilities for certifying, approving, testing, and ensuring that ATE complies with applicable law and correctly counts all votes cast. Final responsibility for administering elections rests with the county election clerk or board of election commissioners, as applicable in each jurisdiction. Under RSMo § 115.023, each election authority shall conduct all public elections within its jurisdiction. RSMo § 115.043 authorizes each election authority may make all rules and regulations, consistent with statutory requirements, necessary for the registration of voters and the conduct of elections.
“Every voter deserves an election conducted in accordance with the law”

Take action before the November election. Contact your county election clerk or board of election commissioners and ask for the date, time, and location of the upcoming logic and accuracy testing. Attend-even for a short period, observe the process, and ask questions that deserve clear answers. These are reasonable questions about election administration, legal compliance, and public accountability. You do not have to take anyone’s word for it; you can observe and seek answers directly from the officials responsible for conducting your election. A legally compliant election and a correct count of every voter mark are not a partisan issue, they are matters of public concern. Make your voice heard before the votes are cast—not after the results are certified.

Tags: