§ 167.130. Post-election review of voting system and tabulation of results.

(a) Selection of test date; notice. Post-election review is not required for a hand count election. At canvass, the chief election official must select by lot the offices and precincts to be reviewed and set the date, time and place for the post-election review.

(b)

Scope and conduct of test. The post-election review must be conducted, in public, of a sample of ballots cast for at least one (1) single-seat ranked-choice voting election for city council, if applicable, and one (1) multiple-seat ranked-choice voting election for either park board or board of estimate and taxation, if applicable.

(c)

Single seat test. At canvass, the chief election official shall select, by lot, a total of two (2) precincts. Using the actual ballots cast in the two (2) precincts selected, the judges of the election shall conduct a hand count of ballots cast for the one (1) or two (2) offices of council member. Using procedures called for in section 167.100 of this chapter and accompanying rules, the judges shall count and record the ballots cast.

(d)

Multiple seat test. At canvass, the chief election official shall select, by lot, a total of two (2) precincts. Using the actual ballots cast in the two (2) precincts selected, the judges of the election shall conduct a hand count of ballots cast for either the office of park board or the office of board of estimate and taxation, also to be determined by lot. Using procedures called for in section 167.100 of this chapter and accompanying rules, the judges shall count and record the ballots cast.

(e)

Standard of acceptable performance by voting system. A comparison of the results compiled by the voting system with the results compiled by the judges of election performing the hand count must show that the results of the electronic voting system differed by no more than the applicable percentage threshold, as provided by Minnesota Statutes, Section 204C.36, from the hand count of the sample tested. Valid votes that have been marked by the voter outside the vote targets or using a manual marking device that cannot be read by the voting system must not be included in making the determination whether the voting system has met the standard of acceptable performance.

(f)

Additional review if needed. Additional review(s) may be required as follows:

(1)

Additional precinct review. If a test under clause (c) or (d) reveals a difference greater than the applicable percentage threshold, as provided by Minnesota Statutes, Section 204C.36, in at least one (1) precinct of an office, the chief election official must immediately publicly select by lot two (2) additional precincts of the same office for review. The additional precinct review must be completed within two (2) days after the precincts are selected and the results immediately reported to the county auditor.

(2)

Additional office review. If the additional precinct review also indicates a difference in the vote totals that is greater than the applicable percentage threshold, as provided by Minnesota Statutes, Section 204C.36, in at least one (1) precinct of an office, the chief election official must conduct a review of the ballots from all the remaining precincts in the office being reviewed. This review must be completed no later than two (2) weeks after the canvass.

(g)

Report of results. Upon completion of the post-election review, the chief election official must immediately report the results to the county auditor and make those results public.

(h)

Update of vote totals. If the post-election review under this section results in a change in the number of votes counted for any candidate, the revised vote totals must be incorporated in the official result from those precincts.

(i)

Effect on voting systems. If a voting system is found to have failed to record votes accurately and in the manner provided by this chapter, the voting system may not be used at another election until it has been approved for use by the county auditor, pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section 206.58. In addition, the county auditor may order the city to conduct a hand recount of all ballots cast in the election.

(j)

Penalties to voting equipment system vendor. If the voting system failure is attributable to either its design or to actions of the vendor, the vendor is liable for the cost of a hand recount ordered per section 167.130(i) and is liable for additional penalties imposed per agreement between the city and the vendor. (2008-Or-028, § 1, 4-18-08; 2009-Or-102, § 7, 10-2-09; 2013-Or-055, § 10, 5-24-13)