Ahead of Florida’s recent August primary, Lee County election officials, IT staff, and the canvassing board conducted standard public logic and accuracy testing on vote-by-mail scanners, early voting equipment, and election day tabulators.
During the process, a single piece of equipment exhibited an operational error. Newly appointed Supervisor of Elections Jenna Persons-Mulicka, working her first election in this role, confirmed to WINK News that the malfunctioning unit was promptly removed from service and would not be used in the election.
While logic and accuracy testing is a mandatory compliance procedure, its routine nature should not obscure its significance. It is easy to turn on autopilot: publishing notices, hosting observers, running test decks, and completing forms. However, Lee County’s transparent identification and immediate resolution of an equipment error ultimately reinforced public trust, possibly more effectively than a flawless execution would have.
As Persons-Mulicka noted, “The test worked as intended. That is why we test our equipment because we want to make sure they’re operational and that they produce accurate results.”
Best Practices for Election Offices
- Pre-draft incident communications. Draft the template you would use if a machine doesn’t perform as intended during the testing cycles. The Lee County response is an effective model: acknowledge it, highlight that the testing protocol successfully identified the issue, confirm the unit’s isolation, and reiterate the purpose of the protocol.
- Emphasize systemic redundancies. Observers often lack technical knowledge of backup protocols. Demonstrating multi-layered safeguards provides greater reassurance than merely stating a final result.
- Maintain chain of custody. Document every equipment removal using the “Who, What, When, Where, and Why” framework. Record the unit ID, serial number, error logs, witnessing officials, and replacement assets to ensure a clear audit trail.
- Optimize observer engagement. Move beyond basic public notice compliance by actively inviting key stakeholders and providing clear context. Conducting a short introductory briefing to explain test decks, expected outcomes, and discrepancy protocols can help observers accurately report what they witness.
- Anticipate follow-up questions. Sometimes, heightened transparency invites deeper scrutiny rather than reducing questions. Providing consistent, documented answers remains essential for maintaining institutional trust.
Election officials dedicate significant effort to explaining system safeguards. Public testing provides a rare, visible demonstration of these mechanisms operating as designed. Identifying and addressing an equipment anomaly presents an opportunity to demonstrate integrity, accountability, and operational rigor.
The Situation Room focuses on real security incidents and threats in the news relevant to election security. To review previous issues, see the newsletter archive.