HF4505 (Legislative Session 94 (2025-2026))
Election judges required to transfer the record of results from a precinct to a central reporting location using a physical means of communication, and postelection review procedures required to separately review absentee and early voted ballots from ballots cast in a precinct on election day.
AI Generated Summary
Purpose
- To modify Minnesota election procedures regarding how precinct results are transmitted, how postelection reviews are conducted, and how the performance of voting systems is evaluated. The bill aims to increase transparency by requiring a public postelection review and by separating the review of absentee/early ballots from on‑site election day ballots.
Main Provisions
Transmission of precinct results
- After polls close, the head election judge must create a printed record of precinct results.
- If the precinct uses automatic tabulating equipment, the head election judge may transmit the accumulated tally for each device to a central reporting location via a telephone modem, Internet, or other electronic connection.
- During the canvassing period, results transmitted electronically are unofficial until the canvassing board completes a full reconciliation.
- The head election judge must transfer the precinct’s results by disk, tape, or other physical means of communication to the central reporting location.
Postelection review (public review of votes)
- The county canvassing board appoints a postelection review official (as defined in the bill) to conduct the review.
- The review must be conducted for the votes cast for president or governor, United States senator, and United States representative; the official may also review additional offices.
- The review must be conducted in public at the location where voted ballots are securely stored after the general election, or another location chosen by the county canvassing board.
- The postelection review official for each precinct selected must conduct the review, and may be assisted by election judges designated by the reviewer.
- The party balance requirement applies to election judges designated for the review.
Conduct and timing of the postelection review
- The review must be a manual count of the ballots used in the selected precincts.
- The review must be conducted in the manner provided for recounts.
- The review must separately count absentee and early voted ballots from ballots cast in the precinct on election day.
- The review must be completed no later than one day before the state canvassing board meets to certify the election results.
Standards for voting systems
- A comparison between the voting system’s results and the postelection review results must show the electronic results differ from the manual count by no more than:
- 2 votes in a precinct with fewer than 1,200 voters,
- 3 votes in a precinct with 1,200 to 1,599 voters,
- 4 votes in a precinct with 1,600 to 1,999 voters,
- 5 votes in a precinct with 2,000 or more voters.
- The performance of the system for absentee and early voted ballots must be reviewed separately from the on‑site ballots, with each system evaluated using its own standard based on the number of ballots processed.
- Votes marked outside vote targets or on a manual marking device not readable by the voting system must not be included in determining whether the system met the standard for any precinct.
Significant Changes to Law
- Introduces a mandatory, public postelection review of selected offices with a formal count and separate review of absentee/early ballots.
- Requires a physical (non-electronic) transfer of precinct results to a central reporting location in addition to any electronic transmission.
- Establishes explicit timing (completed by one day before the state canvassing board meeting) for the postelection review.
- Tightens the standard for acceptable performance of voting systems, with turnout-based thresholds and separate evaluations for different ballot types.
Practical Implications
- Increased transparency through a public, manual postelection review.
- Clear separation and separate evaluation for absentee/early votes versus election-day ballots.
- Added safeguards around how results are transmitted and reconciled before final certification.
- Potentially more administrative steps and coordination for counties and canvassing boards.
Relevant Terms - head election judge - printed record of the results - central reporting location - accumulated tally - electronic transmission (telephone modem, Internet, or other electronic connection) - unofficial results - canvassing period - canvassing board - postelection review official - public postelection review - voted ballots - ballots cast for president, governor, United States senator, United States representative - absentee ballots - early voted ballots - manual count - recounts (section 204C.361) - party balance requirement (section 204B.19) - voting system performance standard - discrepancies (votes difference by precinct) - physical transfer (disk, tape, or other physical means)
Bill text versions
- Introduction PDF PDF file
Actions
| Date | Chamber | Where | Type | Name | Committee Name |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| March 18, 2026 | House | Action | Introduction and first reading, referred to | Elections Finance and Government Operations |
Citations
[
{
"analysis": {
"added": [
"Specifies that after the polls close, the head election judge must print the record of results.",
"Allows transmission of the accumulated tally to a central reporting location via telephone modem, Internet, or other electronic connection.",
"Requires that the results transmitted electronically be considered unofficial until the canvassing board completes a full reconciliation.",
"Requires that election judges transfer the record of results to the central reporting location by disk, tape, or other physical means of communication."
],
"removed": [],
"summary": "Amends Minnesota Statutes 2024 section 206.845, subdivision 2 to require transmission of the precinct results to the central reporting location and to specify methods of transmission and handling.",
"modified": [
"Clarifies transmission methods and official status of electronic transmissions.",
"Retains and formalizes requirement to transfer physical records to the central reporting location."
]
},
"citation": "206.845",
"subdivision": "2"
},
{
"analysis": {
"added": [
"Defines the postelection review official as in subdivision 1 and specifies the offices to be reviewed (president, governor, United States senator, United States representative).",
"Allows the postelection review to include additional offices as determined by the county canvassing board."
],
"removed": [],
"summary": "Amends Minnesota Statutes 2024 section 206.89, subdivision 3 to define the scope and conduct of the postelection review.",
"modified": [
"Sets the postelection review to be conducted in public at the storage location or another location chosen by the county canvassing board.",
"Requires the review to be conducted by the postelection review official, potentially assisted by election judges, with party balance requirements applying per section 204B.19.",
"Specifies that the review must be a manual count and aligned with procedures in section 204C.21 and recount procedures in 204C.361, to the extent practicable."
]
},
"citation": "206.89",
"subdivision": "3"
},
{
"analysis": {
"added": [],
"removed": [],
"summary": "Amends Minnesota Statutes 2024 section 206.89, subdivision 4 to set the standard of acceptable performance by voting systems for postelection review.",
"modified": [
"Outlines that the comparison between electronic and manual counts must fall within specified tolerances (no more than two votes for fewer than 1200 voters; three votes for 1200-1599; four votes for 1600-1999; five votes for 2000 or more).",
"Requires separate performance evaluation for absentee and early ballots as opposed to only ballots cast in the precinct polling place on election day.",
"Specifies that valid votes marked outside the vote targets or unreadable by the voting system must not be included in determining conformity with the standard."
]
},
"citation": "206.89",
"subdivision": "4"
},
{
"analysis": {
"added": [
"Acknowledges that the party balance requirement applies to election judges designated for the postelection review."
],
"removed": [],
"summary": "References the party balance requirement in section 204B.19 in the context of the postelection review.",
"modified": [
"Incorporates 204B.19 as a governing constraint for the postelection review process."
]
},
"citation": "204B.19",
"subdivision": ""
},
{
"analysis": {
"added": [],
"removed": [],
"summary": "Directs that the postelection review must be conducted in the manner provided by section 204C.21.",
"modified": [
"Links the postelection review procedures to the standards and procedures specified in 204C.21."
]
},
"citation": "204C.21",
"subdivision": ""
},
{
"analysis": {
"added": [],
"removed": [],
"summary": "Directs that the postelection review be conducted in the manner provided for recounts under section 204C.361.",
"modified": [
"Aligns postelection review procedures with the recount framework established in 204C.361."
]
},
"citation": "204C.361",
"subdivision": ""
}
]Progress through the legislative process
In Committee