Election audits

Election Audits: Definition, Example, and FAQs

An election audit is a formal, independent review of election processes and results conducted after an election concludes. Its primary purpose is to verify the accuracy of vote counts and ensure that established procedures, laws, and policies were followed, contributing to governance and oversight in democratic systems. Election audits are crucial for promoting public trust, transparency, and the overall integrity of electoral outcomes³⁹.

These audits can involve examining various aspects of the election ecosystem, from voter registration and ballot management to the performance of voting systems and the accuracy of vote tabulation³⁸,³⁷. They serve as a vital mechanism for accountability, helping to detect errors—whether accidental or intentional—and providing evidence that the election accurately reflects the will of the voters.

#³⁶# History and Origin

The concept of verifying election results is as old as democratic elections themselves, but formal, systematic election audits gained prominence with the advent of mechanical and electronic voting machines. The need for independent verification grew as vote tabulation became less transparent than traditional hand counts. One of the earliest mandates for post-election tabulation audits in the United States dates back to 1965, when California required election officials to hand count ballots in a percentage of precincts using voting systems to verify machine accuracy. As modern voting technologies became more widespread, the practice of routine post-election audits gradually expanded across states, though broad adoption took several decades.

T³⁵oday, the framework for election audits continues to evolve, incorporating new methodologies and responding to advancements in election technology and the ongoing public discourse around election integrity.

Key Takeaways

Election audits are independent, post-election reviews verifying vote counts and procedural compliance.
They are essential for upholding data integrity and fostering public confidence in election results.
Audits vary in scope, from focusing on tabulation accuracy to reviewing broader election processes.
Risk-limiting audits (RLAs) are a modern type designed to provide a statistical level of confidence in the outcome with fewer ballots.
Discrepancies found in audits can lead to further investigation or, in some cases, a full recount.

Interpreting Election Audits

Interpreting the results of election audits involves assessing the reported discrepancies against established auditing standards and statistical thresholds. The goal is to determine if any errors or irregularities found are significant enough to call into question the election's outcome or if they fall within expected margins of error for a large-scale process.

A³⁴ successful election audit, which confirms the initial results with minimal or explainable discrepancies, strengthens confidence in the electoral process. Conversely, an audit revealing significant unexplainable disparities may necessitate further action, such as a broader investigation or a full recount. The findings also inform continuous improvement efforts, identifying areas where internal controls or procedures can be enhanced for future elections.

#³³# Hypothetical Example

Imagine a local county election for a critical bond measure, "Measure A." On election night, the machine-tabulated results show Measure A passing by a narrow margin of 5,000 votes out of 100,000 total votes cast.

To ensure compliance and verify accuracy, the county's election board initiates a fixed-percentage post-election audit. They randomly select 3% of the precincts for a hand count. This involves bipartisan teams manually tallying the votes for Measure A on the paper ballots from these selected precincts.

Step 1: Random Selection: The election board publicly draws 3 out of 100 precincts.
Step 2: Hand Count: In each of the selected precincts, two-person teams (one from each major party) manually count the votes for Measure A.
Step 3: Comparison: The hand-counted totals for Measure A in the audited precincts are compared to the machine-tabulated totals for those same precincts.
Step 4: Discrepancy Analysis: If, for example, the machine count for one precinct was 1,000 "Yes" votes and the hand count was 995 "Yes" votes, a minor discrepancy of 5 votes would be noted. The audit report would detail these findings.
Step 5: Conclusion: If the cumulative discrepancies across all audited precincts are small and do not indicate a systemic error or affect the overall outcome of the bond measure, the audit would confirm the initial results, reinforcing regulatory oversight and validating the election's integrity.

This example illustrates how election audits provide an important layer of verification, ensuring the final results are accurate and transparent.

Practical Applications

Election audits are a cornerstone of modern election administration, applied across various facets to ensure the integrity and accuracy of the electoral process.

Vote Tabulation Verification: The most common application involves post-election tabulation audits, which verify that voting machines accurately counted ballots. Th³²ese often use statistical sampling of paper ballots to compare hand counts against machine totals, particularly through methods like Risk-Limiting Audits (RLAs). Th³¹e U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) provides resources and information on different types of audits states conduct to ensure election integrity.
³⁰ Procedural Compliance: Audits also assess whether election officials followed proper procedures, from voter registration and ballot handling to election night reporting. This due diligence ensures adherence to election laws and policies. Th²⁹e National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) tracks and reports on state laws governing election audits, highlighting the varied approaches states take to procedural and results-based verification.
²⁸ Improving Election Administration: Findings from election audits identify areas for improvement in processes, risk management, and technology, leading to enhanced security and efficiency in future elections. Th²⁷e Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) also emphasizes the role of audits in overall election security, contributing to robust and resilient election systems.
Building Public Confidence: By providing an independent review, audits contribute significantly to public trust in the legitimacy of election outcomes.

#²⁶# Limitations and Criticisms

Despite their critical role in ensuring election integrity, election audits face certain limitations and criticisms. One primary concern is the potential for misinterpretation or politicization of audit results, which can undermine rather than enhance public trust. For instance, some examinations, while labeled "audits," may not adhere to established auditing standards or best practices, leading to unsubstantiated claims and eroding confidence. A ²⁵Reuters fact-check, for example, addressed how certain audit claims after the 2020 U.S. election lacked evidence of widespread fraud, illustrating how audit findings can be misrepresented [https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-usa-election-fraud-idUSL1N2T12H1/].

Another limitation is the practical challenge of conducting comprehensive audits, especially in large elections. While methods like Risk-Limiting Audits (RLAs) offer statistical assurances with a smaller sample size, they still require meticulous attention to detail and a robust chain of custody for ballots and election materials. Th²⁴e cost and logistical complexity of a full hand recount, which is the most definitive audit method, often make it impractical unless triggered by significant discrepancies or very close margins. So²³me critics also point to varying state laws and the absence of a national auditing standard as potential weaknesses, leading to inconsistencies in audit scope and rigor across the United States. Fu²²rthermore, audits rely on the integrity of the underlying paper records; if ballots themselves have been compromised, the audit's ability to verify the true outcome is diminished.

#²¹# Election Audits vs. Recounts

Election audits and recounts are both post-election processes designed to verify election results, but they differ significantly in their purpose, scope, and triggers.

Feature	Election Audits	Recounts
Purpose	Primarily a routine quality control measure to check if voting systems performed as expected and to ensure procedural accuracy, regardless of the margin of victory. They are a form of fraud detection and error correction, contributing to overall election integrity,. ²⁰ ¹⁹	Initiated due to a specific concern, typically a very close margin of victory, or a formal request from a candidate or election official. The objective is to determine the definitive outcome of a specific contest by recounting all ballots cast in that contest,. ¹⁸ ¹⁷
Scope	Often involves examining a randomly selected sample of ballots or precincts, or reviewing specific processes like voter registration or ballot handling. Audits aim to provide statistical confidence in the reported results without necessarily re-tallying every vote,. ¹⁶ ¹⁵	Generally involves re-tabulating all ballots for a particular contest or set of contests. While some recounts involve rescanning ballots, others may require a full hand count to definitively determine voter intent for every ballot,. ¹⁴ ¹³
Trigger	Typically a statutory requirement that occurs automatically after every election, or in response to a specific, predefined condition (e.g., a certain percentage of machines or precincts being audited),. ¹² ¹¹	Usually triggered by a narrow margin of victory (often defined by state law), or can be requested by a candidate or party, sometimes requiring them to bear the cost if the outcome doesn't change significantly,. ¹⁰ ⁹
Outcome	Provides evidence that the election outcome is reliable. While an audit can uncover discrepancies, it does not automatically change the certified results unless the discrepancies are significant enough to trigger a full recount or legal challenge. ⁸	Directly aims to produce a new, official vote total for the contested race. The recount results typically supersede the original results for that specific contest. ⁷

In essence, election audits are about checking the election process and a sample of the results for verification, whereas recounts are about re-tabulating all votes for a given race to resolve a close outcome or address a specific challenge,. A⁶u⁵dits can, however, lead to a recount if significant errors or discrepancies are discovered.

#⁴# FAQs

What is the primary goal of an election audit?

The primary goal of an election audit is to ensure the accuracy and reliability of election results and to verify that proper election procedures were followed. This helps to build public trust in the electoral process.

Are election audits mandatory in all states?

No, election audit requirements vary by state. While most states conduct some form of post-election audit, the specific type, scope, and timing of these audits are determined by individual state laws.

#³## Can an election audit change the outcome of an election?
An election audit itself primarily verifies the accuracy of the initial count. If an audit uncovers significant errors or discrepancies that could potentially alter the outcome of a race, it might trigger further investigation or lead to a full recount, which could then change the official results.

#²## What types of errors can an election audit detect?
Election audits can detect various types of errors, including miscounts by voting machines, human errors in ballot handling or data entry, and procedural inconsistencies. They can help identify whether voting equipment performed as expected and if officials adhered to established protocols.

#¹## How do election audits contribute to election security?
Election audits enhance election security by providing a verifiable check on vote counts and processes, deterring potential fraud or manipulation. They help ensure financial reporting of votes is accurate and provide a mechanism for continuous improvement in election administration.