EXPLANATION: CAPITALS INDICATE MAT TER ADDED TO EXISTING LAW.
[Brackets] indicate matter deleted from existing law.
Underlining indicates amendments to bill.
Strike out indicates matter stricken from the bill by amendment or deleted from the law by
amendment.
*sb0313*
SENATE BILL 313
G1 5lr1805
SB 523/24 – EEE CF HB 426
By: Senator M. Washington
Introduced and read first time: January 13, 2025
Assigned to: Education, Energy, and the Environment
Committee Report: Favorable with amendments
Senate action: Adopted
Read second time: February 24, 2025
CHAPTER ______
AN ACT concerning 1
Election Law – Postelection Tabulation Audits – Risk–Limiting Audits 2
FOR the purpose of requiring the State Board of Elections, in collaboration with the local 3
boards of elections, to conduct a risk–limiting audit after each statewide election; 4
authorizing the State Board, in collaboration with the local boards, to conduct a 5
risk–limiting audit after a special general election; authorizing, rather than 6
requiring, the State Board, in collaboration with the local boards, to conduct an 7
automated software audit after a statewide election; authorizing a local board to 8
conduct a risk–limiting audit of a local contest under certain circumstances; 9
repealing a requirement to conduct a manual audit after each statewide general 10
election; and generally relating to postelection tabulation audits. 11
BY repealing and reenacting, with amendments, 12
Article – Election Law 13
Section 11–309 14
Annotated Code of Maryland 15
(2022 Replacement Volume and 2024 Supplement) 16
SECTION 1. BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF MARYLAND, 17
That the Laws of Maryland read as follows: 18
Article – Election Law 19
11–309. 20
2 SENATE BILL 313
(a) (1) In this section the following words have the meanings indicated. 1
(2) “AUTOMATED SOFTWARE AU DIT” MEANS AN AUDIT OF 2
ELECTRONIC IMAGES OF BALLOTS CAST IN AN E LECTION USING SOFTWA RE THAT IS 3
INDEPENDENT OF THE V OTING SYSTEM. 4
(3) “ELECTRONIC COUNT” MEANS THE VOTE TOTAL S PRODUCED BY 5
THE VOTING SYSTEM . 6
(4) “LOCAL CONTEST ” MEANS A CONTEST THAT : 7
(I) IS NOT A STATEWIDE C ONTEST; AND 8
(II) APPEARS ON THE BALLO T IN ALL OR PART OF A COUNTY, 9
INCLUDING A CONTEST TO REPRESENT A DISTR ICT THAT INCLUDES MORE THAN O NE 10
COUNTY. 11
[(2)] (5) “Manual [audit”] COUNT” means inspection of voter–verifiable 12
paper records by hand and eye to obtain vote totals in a contest [that are compared to the 13
vote totals produced for that contest by the electronic voting system]. 14
[(3) “Previous comparable general election” means: 15
(i) in a presidential election year, the presidential election held 4 16
years earlier; and 17
(ii) in a gubernatorial election year, the gubernatorial election held 18
4 years earlier.] 19
(6) “RISK LIMIT” MEANS THE SMALL , PREDETERMINED MAXIMU M 20
CHANCE THAT A RISK –LIMITING AUDIT WILL NOT REQUIRE A FULL M ANUAL COUNT 21
OF VOTER–VERIFIABLE PAPER REC ORDS IN AN AUDITED C ONTEST IF A FULL 22
MANUAL COUNT OF THE VOTER–VERIFIABLE PAPER REC ORDS WOULD FIND A 23
DIFFERENT OUTCOME TH AN THE OUTCOME DETER MINED BY THE ELECTRO NIC 24
COUNT. 25
(7) “RISK–LIMITING AUDIT ” MEANS A POSTELECTION AUDIT 26
PROCEDURE THAT EMPLO YS STATISTICAL METHO DS TO ENSURE A LARGE , 27
PREDETERMINED MINIMU M CHANCE OF REQUIRIN G A FULL MANUAL COUN T OF 28
VOTER–VERIFIABLE PAPER REC ORDS IN AN AUDITED C ONTEST IF A FULL MAN UAL 29
COUNT OF THE VOTER –VERIFIABLE PAPER REC ORDS WOULD FIND A DI FFERENT 30
OUTCOME THAN THE OUT COME DETERMINED BY T HE ELECTRONIC COUNT . 31
[(4)] (8) “Voter–verifiable paper record” has the meaning stated in § 32
9–102 of this article. 33 SENATE BILL 313 3
[(b) Following each statewide general election, the State Board shall conduct an 1
audit of the accuracy of the voting system’s tabulation of votes by completing: 2
(1) an automated software audit of the electronic images of all ballots cast 3
in the election; and 4
(2) a manual audit of voter–verifiable paper records in accordance with 5
subsection (d) of this section. 6
(c) Following each statewide primary election, the State Board: 7
(1) shall complete an automated software audit of the electronic images of 8
all ballots cast in the election; and 9
(2) may complete a manual audit of voter–verifiable paper records in a 10
manner prescribed by the State Board. 11
(d) (1) Following each statewide general election, the State Board shall 12
complete a manual audit of: 13
(i) at least 2% of precincts statewide, including: 14
1. at least one randomly chosen precinct in each county; and 15
2. additional precincts selected by the State Board; and 16
(ii) a number of votes equal to at least 1% of the statewide total in 17
the previous comparable general election of each of the following, including at least a 18
minimum number of each of the following in each county, as prescribed by the State Board: 19
1. early votes; 20
2. absentee votes; and 21
3. provisional votes. 22
(2) The manual audit shall be completed within 120 days after the general 23
election. 24
(3) If the manual audit shows a discrepancy, the State Board may: 25
(i) expand the manual audit; and 26
(ii) take any other actions it considers necessary to resolve the 27
discrepancy. 28
4 SENATE BILL 313
(4) Within 14 days after the conclusion of the audit, the State Board shall 1
post on its website a report that describes: 2
(i) the precincts and number of votes selected for the manual audit 3
in each county and the manner in which the precincts and votes were selected; 4
(ii) the results of the manual audit; and 5
(iii) any discrepancy shown by the manual audit and how the 6
discrepancy was resolved. 7
(5) The State Board shall allow for public observation of each part of the 8
manual audit process to the extent practicable. 9
(e) An audit under this section: 10
(1) may not have any effect on the certified election results; and 11
(2) shall be used to improve the voting system and voting process for future 12
elections.] 13
(B) (1) FOLLOWING EACH STATEW IDE ELECTION, THE STATE BOARD, IN 14
COLLABORATION WITH THE LOCAL BOARDS EACH LOCAL BOARD , SHALL AUDIT THE 15
ACCURACY OF THE VOTI NG SYSTEM’S TABULATION OF VOTE S IN EACH COUNTY BY 16
CONDUCTING A RISK –LIMITING AUDIT OF : 17
(I) AT LEAST ONE STATEWI DE CONTEST; AND 18
(II) AT LEAST ONE LOCAL C ONTEST IN EACH COUNT Y; AND 19
(III) ANY OTHER CONTESTS SELECTED FOR AUDIT B Y THE STATE 20
BOARD. 21
(2) FOLLOWING A SPECIAL G ENERAL ELECTION , THE STATE BOARD, 22
IN COLLABORATION WIT H THE LOCAL BOARDS , MAY CONDUCT A RISK –LIMITING 23
AUDIT. 24
(3) (I) SUBJECT TO SUBPARAGRA PH (II) OF THIS PARAGRAPH , THE 25
STATE BOARD SHALL SELECT THE SPECIFIC CONTESTS TO BE AUDIT ED UNDER 26
PARAGRAPH (1) OF THIS SUBSECTION . 27
(II) A CONTEST FOR AN OFFIC E FOR WHICH THE TERM BEGINS 28
IN THE MONTH OF DECEMBER MAY NOT BE S ELECTED FOR AUDIT UN LESS THE 29
ELECTION DIRECTOR FO R THE COUNTY AGREES TO AUDIT THE CONTEST. 30
SENATE BILL 313 5
(4) A RISK–LIMITING AUDIT SHALL : 1
(I) MANUALLY EXAMINE RAN DOMLY CHOSEN INDIVID UAL 2
VOTER–VERIFIABLE PAPER REC ORDS OR BATCHES OF V OTER–VERIFIABLE PAPER 3
RECORDS UNTIL THE RI SK LIMIT IS MET OR THE CORRECT ELECT ION OUTCOME IS 4
ESTABLISHED; 5
(II) BE COMPLETED BEFORE CERTIFICATION OF THE ELECTION 6
RESULTS THE BOARD OF STATE CANVASSERS TRANSMITS A CERTIFIED STATEMEN T 7
OF THE ELECTION RESU LTS TO THE STATE BOARD UNDER § 11–503(A) OF THIS 8
TITLE; AND 9
(III) BE OBSERVABLE BY THE PUBLIC TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT 10
PRACTICABLE . 11
(5) (I) IF A RISK–LIMITING AUDIT FINDS THAT THE ELECTION 12
OUTCOME DETERMINED B Y THE ELECTRONIC COU NT IS INCORRECT, THE OFFICIAL 13
RESULT OF THE ELECTION SHALL B E ALTERED TO MATCH T HE OUTCOME 14
DETERMINED BY THE RISK–LIMITING AUDIT. 15
(6) WITHIN 10 DAYS AFTER THE CONCL USION OF THE RISK –LIMITING 16
AUDIT, THE STATE BOARD SHALL POST ON T HE STATE BOARD’S WEBSITE A REPORT 17
THAT DESCRIBES THE A UDIT PROCESS AND THE RESULTS OF THE AUDIT 18
INACCURATE, THE STATE ADMINISTRATOR , IN CONSULTATION WITH THE STATE 19
BOARD, SHALL DIRECT THE REL EVANT BOARD OF CANVA SSERS TO IMMEDIATELY 20
INVESTIGATE THE MATT ER TO DETERMINE AN A CCURATE ELECTION RES ULT. 21
(II) THE BOARD OF CANVASSE RS SHALL CONCLUDE TH E 22
INVESTIGATION WITHIN 3 DAYS. 23
(III) THE BOARD OF CANVASSERS SHALL COR RECT THE 24
ELECTION RESULT IN A CCORDANCE WITH REGUL ATIONS ADOPTED BY TH E STATE 25
BOARD. 26
(6) THE STATE ADMINISTRATOR SHALL R EPORT THE RESULTS OF 27
THE RISK–LIMITING AUDIT TO TH E BOARD OF STATE CANVASSERS AND THE STATE 28
BOARD. 29
(C) IN ADDITION TO THE RISK –LIMITING AUDIT REQUI RED UNDER 30
SUBSECTION (B) OF THIS SECTION , THE STATE BOARD, IN COLLABORATION WIT H 31
THE LOCAL BOARDS , MAY CONDUCT AN AUTOM ATED SOFTWARE AUDIT AFTER A 32
STATEWIDE ELECTION . 33
6 SENATE BILL 313
(D) A LOCAL BOARD MAY COND UCT A RISK–LIMITING AUDIT OF A LOCAL 1
CONTEST AT THE DISCR ETION OF THE LOCAL B OARD. 2
[(f)] (D) (E) (1) The State Board shall adopt regulations to carry out this section. 3
(2) THE REGULATIONS ADOPT ED UNDER PARAGRAPH (1) OF THIS 4
SUBSECTION TO CARRY OUT RISK–LIMITING AUDITS IN A CCORDANCE WITH 5
SUBSECTION (B) OF THIS SECTION SHAL L INCLUDE: 6
(I) CRITERIA FOR DETERMI NING THE CONTESTS TO BE 7
AUDITED; 8
(II) THE RISK LIMIT; AND 9
(III) THE AUDIT METHOD . 10
SECTION 2. AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED, That this Act shall take effect June 11
1, 2025. 12
Approved:
________________________________________________________________________________
Governor.
________________________________________________________________________________
President of the Senate.
________________________________________________________________________________
Speaker of the House of Delegates.