2005 Minnesota Statutes

     204C.50 Postelection security and certification review. 

    Subdivision 1.    Selection for review; notice.  (a) 
 Postelection review under this section must be conducted only on 
 the election for president, senator or representative in 
 Congress, constitutional offices, and legislative offices. 

    (b) The Office of the Secretary of State shall, within 
 three days after each state general election beginning in 2006, 
 randomly select 80 precincts for postelection review as defined 
 in this section.  The precincts must be selected so that an 
 equal number of precincts are selected in each congressional 
 district of the state.  Of the precincts in each congressional 
 district, at least five must have had more than 500 votes cast, 
 and at least two must have had fewer than 500 votes cast.  The 
 secretary of state must promptly provide notices of which 
 precincts are chosen to the election administration officials 
 who are responsible for the conduct of elections in those 
 precincts. 

    (c) One week before the state general election beginning in 
 2006, the secretary of state must post on the office Web site 
 the date, time, and location at which precincts will be randomly 
 chosen for review under this section.  The chair of each major 
 political party may appoint a designee to observe the random 
 selection process. 

    Subd. 2.    Scope and conduct of review.  Each review is 
 limited to federal and state offices and must consist of at 
 least the following: 

    (a) The election officials immediately responsible for a 
 precinct chosen for review must conduct the following review and 
 submit the results in writing to the State Canvassing Board 
 before it meets to canvass the election: 

    (1) a hand tally of the paper ballots or electronic ballot 
 marker record, of whatever kind used in that precinct, for each 
 contested election; 

    (2) a recount using the actual machine and software used on 
 election day, if a precinct-count or central-count automated 
 voting system was used; and 

    (3) a comparison of the hand tally with the reported 
 results for the precinct in the county canvassing board report, 
 as well as the actual tape of any automated tabulation produced 
 by any precinct-count or central-count optical scan equipment 
 that may have been used to tabulate votes cast in that precinct. 

    (b) The staff of the Office of the Secretary of State shall 
 conduct or directly supervise a review of the procedures used by 
 the election officials at all levels for a precinct chosen for 
 review, including an inspection of the materials retained for 
 the official 22-month retention period, such as the rosters, the 
 incident log, and the ballots themselves.  The staff must submit 
 a written report to the secretary of state before the next 
 regularly scheduled meeting of the State Canvassing Board. 

    Subd. 3.    Standard of acceptable performance by 
 tabulating equipment.  Each comparison of the precinct-count 
 or central-count tabulating equipment system with the review 
 described in subdivision 2, paragraph (a), must be accurate to 
 within one-half of one percent variation for each contested 
 election.  If any review conducted under subdivision 2, 
 paragraph (a), reveals a discrepancy greater than one-half of 
 one percent, the Office of the Secretary of State shall as soon 
 as practicable conduct an additional review of at least ten 
 percent of the tabulating equipment used in the jurisdiction of 
 the election for which the discrepancy was discovered.  If this 
 review results in a discrepancy greater than the one-half 
 percent standard, the Office of the Secretary of State must 
 conduct a complete audit of the election for which the 
 discrepancy was discovered.  If a complete audit must be 
 conducted, the results of the audit must be used by the 
 canvassing board in making its report and determinations of 
 persons elected and propositions rejected or approved.  If a 
 voting system is found to have failed to record votes in a 
 manner that indicates electronic operational failure, the 
 canvassing board must use the voter-verifiable audit records to 
 determine the votes cast on the system, unless the audit records 
 were also impaired by the operational failure of the voting 
 machine.  Notwithstanding section 204C.33, subdivision 3, the 
 result of any election subject to this audit must not be 
 declared until the audit is completed. 

    Subd. 4.    Standard of acceptable performance by election 
 judges and administrators.  Each comparison of materials and 
 documents generated in the course of the election in the 
 selected precinct is expected to reveal no substantive errors 
 and a minimum of technical issues by election judges and 
 administrators. 

    Subd. 5.    Failure to meet standards.  (a) If a voting 
 system fails to meet the standard set forth in subdivision 3, 
 the manufacturer of the model of machine in question must obtain 
 recertification pursuant to section 206.57 and rules adopted 
 under that section, and is liable for penalties under section 
 206.66. 

    (b) If election judges or administrators fail to meet the 
 standard in subdivision 4, the judges and administrators for the 
 county where the precinct is located must attend training 
 designed to eliminate the errors causing the failure.  The 
 Office of the Secretary of State must consider whether those 
 errors or issues warrant inclusion in the statewide training 
 programs conducted by the Office of the Secretary of State. 

    Subd. 6.    Costs of review.  The costs of conducting 
 the review required by this section must be allocated as follows:

    (a) The county or municipality responsible for each 
 precinct selected for review must bear costs incurred under 
 subdivision 2, paragraph (a).  

    (b) The secretary of state must bear the costs incurred 
 under subdivision 2, paragraph (b), and subdivision 3, including 
 travel, expenses, and staff time of the Office of the Secretary 
 of State. 

    Subd. 7. Repealed, 2005 c 156 art 6 s 68 

    HIST: 2004 c 293 art 2 s 30; 2005 c 156 art 6 s 49,50