In an unprecedented move, voters in three rural South Dakota counties (Gregory, Haakon, and Tripp) will head to the polls on June 2nd to decide whether to ditch machine tabulators and revert to counting ballots by hand. This decision stems from unfounded conspiracy theories that have plagued the 2020 presidential election, despite the lack of evidence to support these claims.
If approved, these counties would join a small number of jurisdictions across the country that still conduct hand counts. However, election experts caution that this method is not as accurate as machine tabulation, is more time-consuming, and requires additional staffing.
Gregory County Auditor Julie Bartling anticipates the need for more precincts and assisted voting devices for disabled voters if the measure passes. She also highlights the challenge of hiring more election workers. Barb DeSersa, Tripp County Auditor, echoes these concerns, citing the exhaustion experienced by election workers during the last hand count and the potential difficulty in finding volunteers.
Opponents of the initiative, including Republican state Rep. Rocky Blare from Tripp County, emphasize the lack of evidence of election issues in South Dakota. Secretary of State Monae Johnson expresses confidence in the tabulation machines, noting the safeguards and post-election audits in place.
Since the 2020 election, only a handful of counties have switched to hand counting. In Shasta County, California, officials initially voted to eliminate ballot tabulators, but state lawmakers later restricted hand counts to limited circumstances. Mohave County, Arizona, rejected a similar proposal due to its high cost.
Experts like David Levine from the Alliance for Securing Democracy emphasize the higher cost, lower accuracy, and increased time required for hand counting compared to machine tabulators. They also highlight human error and the impracticality of manual counting in large jurisdictions with numerous voters and races on the ballot. Hand counts are generally only conducted in areas with a small number of registered voters or as part of post-election audits to verify machine accuracy on a limited scale.
The outcome of the South Dakota vote will be closely watched as it could potentially set a precedent for other communities considering similar measures based on unfounded election fraud claims.
