New election system up for vote
The Burnet County Commissioners Court will vote on the purchase of new election equipment during a special meeting March 17. If approved, the Hart InterCivic Ballot on Demand voting system will replace the county’s direct-recording electronic machines with a paper-based process.
The meeting takes place at 9 a.m. Monday in the second-floor courtroom of the Burnet County Courthouse, 220 S. Pierce St. in Burnet. It is open to the public.
Also regarding elections, commissioners passed a resolution at their March 11 regular meeting in support of countywide voting, which is potentially under threat in the Texas Legislature. This method allows registered voters to cast their ballot at any county site, regardless of precinct.
VOTING SYSTEM
The purchase of new election equipment has been a key topic in recent Commissioners Court meetings due to Texas Senate Bill 1 mandating all voting systems in the state provide a voter-verifiable paper trail by September 2026.
Burnet County Elections Administrator Doug Ferguson explained how the transition to the Hart InterCivic system could save money and ensure government compliance.
“This system is significantly less expensive than alternatives in long-term maintenance,” Ferguson told DailyTrib.com. “And because voters will now mark paper ballots by hand before scanning them, we’ll need far fewer machines at each location, reducing equipment costs.”
The Hart InterCivic system has an upfront cost of $856,756, with annual licensing and support fees at $38,546. The only other vendor meeting state requirements, Election Systems & Software, has an upfront cost of $668,000 and would require an additional $188,756 in parts and equipment, bringing the total initial investment to $856,756. However, ES&S has higher annual licensing and support fees of $68,610, according to Ferguson.
Burnet County was prepared for the purchase, earmarking $900,000 for a new system in the 2024-25 fiscal year budget.
Ferguson said it would be best to replace the current machines sooner rather than later, as waiting too long could delay delivery and training and make the 2026 primary election more difficult to manage.
“I’d like to have at least two elections under our belt with the new equipment before the primary,” he said. “This would give our staff a chance to get comfortable with the system before the biggest election cycle.”
HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS
Under the Hart InterCivic system, voters receive a paper ballot upon check-in, mark their selections manually, and feed their completed ballot into a scanner. Under the current system, voters do almost everything electronically, using a screen to make their selections.
Each polling site will still have at least one ADA-compliant ballot-marking device for voters needing accessibility assistance.
“This is probably the least expensive way to incorporate both paper ballots and electronic verification into an election,” Ferguson said.
COUNTYWIDE VOTING
At their Tuesday meeting, Burnet County commissioners approved a resolution opposing any legislative attempts to eliminate countywide polling places. The resolution argues that precinct-based voting would increase election costs, reduce turnout, and disenfranchise voters, especially those with disabilities.
Burnet County has used countywide voting since 2020, allowing residents to cast their ballots at any polling location instead of being limited to a single precinct.
“We know that more and more people are voting outside of their home precincts every election,” Ferguson said. “Without countywide voting, those voters could face long delays or even be turned away.”
During the meeting, a challenge to the security of countywide voting was left anonymously among public documents for distribution in the courtroom. An affidavit from Barry Wernick, a candidate in a 2024 Dallas County election, claims countywide voting violates voter privacy because, in some cases, election reports allow ballots to be traced back to individual voters.
Ferguson disputed this claim, explaining that Texas House Bill 5180 requires election officials to redact all personally identifiable information before making ballots publicly available.
“Our procedures ensure voter privacy by removing any connection between a person’s name and their ballot,” he said. “Unless you’re observing a recount in real time, there’s no way to match a ballot to a voter.”
1 thought on “New election system up for vote”
Comments are closed.
“REDACTION — EXERCISE IN FUTILITY
BALLOT SECRECY VIOLATED AT INCEPTION
By Barry Wernick
Redating Information Is Not A Temporary Fix Or Band-Aid. It Does Not Preserve Ballot Secrecy. It Makes Elections Even More Unauditable. Countywide Voting Is Unlawful. Covering Up A Crime Is Unlawful. Covering Up A Crime By Redacting Is Unlawful.
In order to protect the secret ballot, ‘[p]ublic policy requires that the veil of secrecy should be impenetrable, unless the voter himself voluntarily determines to lift it[.]’ Carroll v. State, 61 SW2nd 1008 (Tex. Crim. App 1933).
But redacting information from the public is not the solution because it does not allow for the ability for the public to audit as is legally required by federal and state law. Further, the redactors from the elections department are left being the only ones who retain the ability to audit. We shouldn’t allow the elections departments in any county to be the only ones to audit themselves. Would the IRS allow us to audit ourselves?
In terms of redaction, it is clear on its face that regardless of how much or how little redacting of information there is, or how much or how little the Secretary of State or Attorney General rules is permissible, it doesn’t eliminate the ability of the ‘redactors’ from knowing a citizen’s ballot. This means that the inherent flaw in Countywide Voting is that it can never provide for ballot secrecy. It’s simply impossible. As a result, countywide voting is, in and of itself, unconstitutional because there is no way for it to ever provide ballot secrecy.
What is worse is the only ones who are privy to the information being redacted are those whose jobs the public has created and whose salaries the public pays – elected and non-elected government entities including the election department and even the third party vendors whose electronic voting systems are used to administer such information. This is not only unjust. It is tyranny.”