The Case for Paper Ballots and Public Hand Counts

Why Paper Ballots Are Essential

Paper ballots provide a durable, verifiable record of voter intent. When technology fails, paper remains. In 2018, the National Academies of Sciences recommended that all U.S. elections use human-readable paper ballots and routine audits. Their report pointed to the growing risks of cyberattacks, software flaws, and supply chain vulnerabilities. Paper is the necessary safeguard against these risks.

Professor J. Alex Halderman’s independent research has confirmed that vulnerabilities exist in modern voting machines. His 2023 court-released report on Dominion’s ImageCast X devices described multiple ways hackers could manipulate results. The U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) echoed his warnings with a formal advisory. These findings do not allege past exploitation, but they highlight how fragile electronic tabulation can be. Paper ballots, verified by hand in public, prevent hidden tampering.

When Machines Failed, Paper Saved Elections

Real-world elections have already revealed the dangers of relying on machines:

• Humboldt County, California (2008): Diebold tabulators silently dropped 197 ballots due to a software bug. The error was discovered only because officials scanned the paper ballots and cross-checked results with the public. Paper revealed what software had hidden.
• Antrim County, Michigan (2020): A configuration error caused incorrect unofficial tallies on election night. A full hand audit of the paper ballots confirmed the true result and restored confidence.
• Windham, New Hampshire (2020): Folding errors on absentee ballots caused scanners to misread votes. A public hand recount corrected the outcome. Without paper, the error would never have been found.
• Maricopa County, Arizona (2022): Tabulators rejected thousands of ballots on Election Day due to printer problems. While ballots were eventually counted at central facilities, the confusion delayed results and undermined confidence. Paper preserved the actual votes.
• Northampton County, Pennsylvania (2023): A programming error on ES&S machines caused retention votes to print incorrectly. Emergency procedures and later hand audits were required to resolve the issue.

In each case, paper ballots allowed election officials and the public to discover mistakes and verify outcomes.

The Role of Public Hand Counts

Paper alone is not enough. The counting process must also be transparent. Hand counts, done in public under a nonpartisan system, allow citizens to watch the democratic process directly. Teams of counters, representing no party interest, can read votes aloud, tally them in small batches, and post results publicly at each precinct. This process prevents secrecy and builds confidence that results are accurate.

Georgia demonstrated this model in 2020. Its statewide risk-limiting audit became a full hand count of nearly five million ballots. Observers watched as bipartisan teams counted in the open. The results confirmed the machine tally, but most importantly, the public could see the process unfold with their own eyes.

Addressing Accessibility and Fairness

Every eligible voter must be able to cast a ballot independently and with dignity. To ensure this, each polling place should provide one accessible ballot-marking device for voters with disabilities. However, these machines must never serve as tabulators. Their purpose should be limited to assisting those who cannot hand-mark paper ballots. The tabulation itself must always return to the hand count, conducted openly by a nonpartisan body.

This balance achieves two goals: inclusivity for voters who need assistance and security for the election as a whole.

Responding to Common Concerns

Critics often argue that hand counts are too slow or error-prone. Yet, when structured properly, they can be both efficient and accurate. Precinct-level teams working in parallel finish quickly. Standardized procedures—read-and-repeat methods, double-checking tallies, and posting results publicly—reduce human error. In fact, hand counts performed under these conditions can be more reliable than machines, which can fail invisibly.

Some also suggest that technology increases efficiency. While scanners may provide unofficial tallies faster, speed should never outweigh accuracy and transparency. Democracy requires trust, and trust comes from a process the public can see and understand.

Policy Recommendations

To secure elections and restore public trust, reforms should adopt the following measures:

• Hand-Marked Paper Ballots: Require all voters to use paper ballots by default. Accessible machines may assist those with disabilities but must not tabulate results.
• Public Nonpartisan Hand Counts: Mandate precinct-level hand counts conducted in full public view, supervised by nonpartisan teams.
• Routine Audits: Require post-election audits to confirm accuracy and detect anomalies.
• Transparency in Reporting: Publish precinct-level results immediately after hand counts, with clear chain-of-custody logs available to the public.
• Simplified Election Systems: Avoid fragile dependencies on specialized printers or tabulators. Keep the process clear, observable, and community-driven.

Conclusion

Elections must not depend on opaque machines vulnerable to error, malfunction, or attack. The future of democracy requires a return to the basics: paper ballots, hand counting, and public oversight. Paper ensures that votes are permanent. Hand counts conducted in public by nonpartisan teams ensure that results are visible, verifiable, and beyond doubt. Accessible machines at each polling place ensure that every citizen can participate fully.

This model—simple, transparent, and inclusive—places trust back where it belongs: in the hands of the people.

---

Paid for by Civic Lightworks (FPPC ID 1483541)

Disclosure: This article was written by Civic Lightworks with A.I. assistance for research and editorial support. While the author believes the content is accurate, readers are responsible for verifying information and should seek professional guidance before making legal, financial, or other decisions.