The Committee on Government Organization heard testimony and technical explanation on Committee Substitute Senate Bill 5 93, which would require county election officials to electronically provide the Secretary of State with the cast‑vote record and ballot‑image files, organized by precinct, and would direct the Secretary of State to publish that information on a managed website. After questions from senators and witnesses about costs, timelines and voter anonymity, the committee laid the bill over for further drafting.

Why it matters: backers say saving and publishing ballot images alongside the cast‑vote record would create an additional layer for post‑election audits and help resolve disputed contests; critics raised concerns about voter privacy in small precincts, the risk of doctored images outside the official system, and operational burdens for county clerks.

Technical and cost issues: Dean Kersey, chief of staff at the Secretary of State’s office, described the practical steps counties would need to follow: machines aggregate totals into a non‑network election management computer, a report containing the cast‑vote record and ballot images would be exported to a thumb drive, and the file would then be uploaded to the Secretary of State. Kersey said some features exist in current voting systems and that the configuration is done before the election, but that the work would be a new task for clerks between election day and canvas. He said the office had requested a fiscal note and that the Secretary of State’s office estimated a cost of approximately $90,000 to the state for thumb drives and related secure transfer support; he also provided statewide vote‑count estimates mentioned to the committee (approximately 750,000 votes in a general election and about 450,000 in a typical primary).

Privacy and misuse questions: Michelle Holly, Fayette County Clerk and vice president of the County Clerk’s Association, said the current software does not add a timestamp or date stamp to the published images and noted a privacy risk in very small precincts where a few absentee ballots combined with public voter history might make ballots potentially identifiable. Holly suggested possible mitigations such as combining small precincts into a single posted file or randomizing the order of images, and she said the additional processing would add some time on election night but should not be a large burden if handled consistently.

Proponent testimony and other concerns: Linda Grindley of Citizens for Election Integrity supported the bill and told senators ballot images provide a backup for audits and can be useful if physical ballots are damaged. Kersey warned that while posted images would be authentic, anyone could download and alter images and then publish doctored material, which could be used by bad actors on social media. He told senators there is no statutory mechanism that gives a private citizen standing to force a statewide recount based solely on a self‑conducted hand count of posted images; recounts and contests remain governed by existing statutory timelines and procedures.

Committee action: Senator from Summers moved to lay the bill over to a future session to allow further work on language addressing the committee’s concerns. The motion carried by voice vote.

Next steps: the committee asked stakeholders — the Secretary of State’s office, county clerks and the bill’s proponents — to work on language to address anonymity protections, technical timeframes, and any necessary statutory deadlines before the bill returns to committee.