Collin County Commissioners Court voted to hold for one week consideration of a proposed $46,500 purchase of a ballot-redaction tool from Seveira after public commenters raised security and political-affiliation concerns and staff described an initial vendor setup that would require sending sample ballots for configuration.

The issue drew two public comments. Lee Moore, an election judge, said, "This tool doesn't solve the actual problem; it merely acts as a band aid that actually increases visibility of the unredacted ballots not to the citizens but to another third party company." Moore also said Seveira's online materials and staff backgrounds warranted additional vetting, noting the vendor's headquarters is in Massachusetts and that the company "proudly claims that they are the trusted partner for reporting past election results for 10 U.S. States."

Chuck Reynolds, a Collin County citizen, urged the court to halt moving forward with third-party tools that could introduce unknown security risks, saying, "As a Collin County citizen, I request that we halt moving forward on the additional third party tools that bring unknown security risk to our county." Reynolds also advocated spending on hand-marked paper ballots instead of third-party services.

Elections staff described how the vendor's product would be used. Breaux, an elections staff member, said the county would initially send a batch of ballots to Seveira to set formatting and redaction rules, but that once configured the tool would be used in-house: "Not on an ongoing basis. They redact it and send it back to us." Staff also noted that neighboring Tarrant County uses the vendor's suite.

Commissioners and staff discussed options for reducing public concerns, including providing mock or sample ballots (for example with "Jane Doe" and made-up serial numbers) for vendor setup rather than real, identifiable ballots. The court agreed to hold the item for additional discovery and bring it back for decision the following week.

The Secretary of State's directive to redact certain ballot data was cited during public comment and staff discussion as the regulatory reason the county is pursuing a redaction process. Staff emphasized the county's obligation to follow state directives when administering elections.

The court's action was procedural: the item was held for further review and will return to a future meeting after staff follows up on vendor vetting and possible use of mock ballots for setup.