The Collin County Commissioner’s Court delayed action on a proposed $46,500 purchase of a ballot‑redaction tool after public commenters and commissioners pressed staff for more information about the vendor and how ballot data would be handled.

The tool, identified in the meeting as Seviara, was the subject of two public comments opposing the purchase. Lee Moore, who identified herself during public comment as an election judge, said she “strongly oppose[d] this purchase for 2 key reasons,” arguing the product “doesn't solve the actual problem” and that turning over ballot images to a third party increases the number of people who see unredacted ballot information. Moore also raised concerns about the vendor’s background and political ties, saying the company “is in Massachusetts not Texas” and that its marketing materials reference “election conspiracy theorists.”

Another speaker, identified as a Collin County citizen, said the county should instead prioritize ‘‘the already well established foundational weakness in our current county election process’’ and urged officials to ‘‘halt moving forward on the additional third party tools that bring unknown security risk to our county.’’

County staff responded to questions about how the tool would be used. A staff member described an initial process in which the vendor would receive a batch of ballots to set formatting and the redaction process, then the county would perform redaction in‑house on an ongoing basis: “I believe when we first met with Severe, initially, we would send a batch of ballots for them to, redact, redact, to get our processes down… and eventually their service turns into a tool they were able to use in house.”

Commissioner Fletcher asked whether the vendor could work from mock or sample ballots so no actual personal data would be exposed. Fletcher suggested sending mock ballots that used placeholders such as “Jane Doe,” fabricated serial numbers and a notation where a judge’s signature would appear. The staff member said that mockups could be feasible and promised to “visit with a vendor about that” and explore the idea.

County staff also described limits in the county’s existing public tests: logic and accuracy test ballots are marked as demonstration and do not include judge signatures; mail ballots print with clerk initials. The staff member cautioned that handling of ballots that leave county custody, such as returned mail ballots, raises additional legal complexity under Attorney General and Secretary of State guidance.

After discussion, the presiding County Judge said, “Let's hold this item for a week, and we'll hold it over for for more discovery, and we'll bring it back,” and the court moved the item off the agenda for further review.

Votes and formal actions on the item: The court postponed consideration of the Seviara redaction tool for one week to allow additional vendor vetting and exploration of sending mock/sample ballots for setup. No purchase was approved at the meeting.

Background and context: Several speakers framed their concerns around a broader policy choice about precinct voting versus redaction. Moore told the court that returning to precinct‑level voting would address some ballot‑secrecy concerns she said redaction attempts to fix. County staff repeatedly noted that the Secretary of State has mandated ballot redaction for some requested images, which drives the county’s need to process and deliver redacted ballots on public‑records requests.

Next steps: Staff will follow up with the vendor on whether mock ballots or a controlled test set can be used for initial setup and will return with additional information when the court reconvenes the item.