HB0051 creates a new post-election requirement: after each primary and general election, every county must perform a manual hand count of ballots in one precinct chosen through a statewide random selection process. The bill also directs the secretary of state to adopt rules to govern how those hand count audits are done.
The change is a narrow but visible addition to Wyoming’s audit framework: it builds a direct comparison between a manual count and the electronic tabulation for a single precinct in every county, while shifting near-term operational work to county clerks and rule development to the state office.
At a Glance
What It Does
The secretary of state will randomly pick one precinct in each county after each primary and general election. County clerks must hand-count all ballots cast in the selected precinct, compare that manual total to the electronic voting system's tabulation, and report the results to the secretary of state promptly.
Who It Affects
County clerks and their election staff shoulder the manual counting and comparison tasks; the secretary of state is responsible for selection and for issuing implementing rules; election vendors and jurisdictions that operate electronic tabulators will face additional scrutiny when discrepancies appear. Local poll workers and the volunteers who assist with canvassing will see new operational duties.
Why It Matters
The bill creates a routine, physical check on electronic results in every county — a symbolic and operational calibration point for confidence in tabulation. Because the statute requires a rapid turnaround and standardized procedures by rule, it will force short-term capacity planning at the county level and prompt the state to define chain-of-custody, scope and observation rules quickly.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
HB0051 inserts a discrete, repeatable audit into Wyoming’s post-election process by requiring a physical hand count of ballots in one precinct per county after both primary and general elections. The selection is not local: the secretary of state conducts a random pick for each county, then the county clerk conducts a complete hand tally of every ballot cast in that precinct.
The county compares the manual total to the electronic results and forwards the comparison to the state office.
Because the bill adds this step on top of existing statutory audits, it functions less like a statistical sample program and more like a uniform per-county verification exercise. That design means the legislature expects a statewide baseline check in every county rather than a statistically driven, risk-limiting audit model.
Practically, counties will need procedures for counting, documenting discrepancies, preserving ballots, and accommodating observers — all elements the secretary of state is tasked with defining by rule.Operationally, the one-week completion window creates a compressed schedule for county staff already engaged in canvass and certification activities. Counties will need to plan staff allocation, secure counting locations, and ensure secure handling and storage of ballots before and after the hand count.
The bill leaves several implementation details to rulemaking — for example whether the audit includes absentee and provisional ballots, how ties or mismatches are escalated, and what observers or party agents may do during the count — so the secretary of state’s forthcoming rules will determine much of the on-the-ground effect.Finally, the statute’s reporting requirement funnels all hand-count results to the secretary of state, centralizing oversight and creating a publicly reportable record that could trigger follow-up action in counties with discrepancies. That centralized reporting also places an implicit burden on the state office to review results, set thresholds for further investigation, and communicate findings consistently to the public and stakeholders.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds a new subsection (c) to W.S. 22-6-130 requiring a hand-count audit in one precinct in every county after each primary and general election.
The secretary of state, not local officials, randomly selects the single precinct that will be audited in each county.
County clerks must hand-count all ballots cast in the selected precinct and compare that manual tally to the electronic voting system’s tabulation.
Each hand-count audit must be completed within one week after election day and the county must immediately report the audit results and comparison to the secretary of state.
The secretary of state must adopt rules to implement the new audit provision, and the bill sets a statutory deadline for those rules (specified separately in the act).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Creates a mandatory single-precinct hand-count audit in each county
This provision is the operational core: it directs the secretary of state to randomly pick one precinct in every county and requires the county clerk to hand-count every ballot cast in that precinct. The text specifies a comparison between the manual count and the electronic tabulation but does not define technical parameters such as which ballot classes are included (absentee, provisional), nor does it set tolerances for discrepancies. Practically, the section imposes a repeatable manual verification step that counties must fold into their post-election workflow.
Fast turnaround and centralized reporting
The statute sets a short timeframe — completion of the audit not later than one week after the election — and requires immediate reporting of both the hand-count result and the comparison to the secretary of state. That tight deadline prioritizes prompt verification but compresses the window for logistical tasks (assembling teams, securing counting sites, and resolving chain-of-custody questions). Centralized reporting creates a single intake point for state-level review and any necessary escalation, shifting expectations of oversight to the state office.
Delegates procedural detail to the secretary of state
Rather than embedding detailed procedures in statute, the bill requires the secretary of state to adopt rules that establish the scope and procedures of the hand-count audits. The delegation covers mechanics such as observer access, handling absentee and provisional ballots, reconciliation methods, documentation standards, and certification of results. Because the statute leaves those details to rulemaking, much of the bill’s practical effect will depend on the content and timing of the rules.
Deadline for rule adoption
This section imposes a statutory deadline by which the secretary of state must promulgate the rules governing the hand-count audits. A legislatively set deadline accelerates the rulemaking schedule and creates a compliance target for training and county preparations. The compressed timeline also risks producing rules that prioritize operational feasibility over comprehensive procedural clarity if the state office lacks resources or stakeholder input.
Effective date provision
The act states it takes effect immediately upon completion of acts necessary for a bill to become law. In practice, that immediate effective date means counties and the secretary of state must begin rule development and operational planning without a delayed implementation phase unless the secretary of state’s rules and subsequent guidance provide transitional relief.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Elections across all five countries.
Explore Elections in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Voters seeking direct verification: The manual count offers a tangible check on electronic tabulation in every county and can increase confidence where counts align.
- Secretary of state’s office: Centralized receipt of audit data gives the office a statewide snapshot to detect outliers and coordinate follow-up where discrepancies occur.
- Election integrity advocates and watchdog organizations: A uniform, public hand-count in each county produces discrete data points that advocacy groups can review and use to press for further examination when results diverge.
Who Bears the Cost
- County clerks and election staff: Counties must allocate personnel, space, and time to perform hand counts within a one-week window, increasing labor and logistical costs during an already busy post-election period.
- Local budgets and taxpayers: Smaller counties with limited staff or overtime budgets will likely absorb increased costs for counting teams, security, and potential overtime pay.
- Secretary of state’s administrative staff: The office must draft and promulgate rules quickly, train counties on new procedures, and process incoming audit reports — a resource and coordination burden that may require additional funding or reallocation.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between public, tangible verification and meaningful statistical assurance: the bill guarantees a visible, manual check in every county (which supports transparency and local confidence) but does so with a design that is unlikely to provide robust, statistically representative detection of tabulation errors — and it imposes nontrivial operational burdens on county election offices to deliver that visibility quickly.
The bill’s design trades breadth for a predictable per-county check: a single precinct hand count in every county is administratively simple to describe but statistically weak as a detector of systemic tabulation problems. A mismatch in one precinct could indicate local error, a random anomaly, or nothing meaningful about statewide equipment reliability.
Conversely, the absence of mismatches in those sampled precincts does not statistically rule out errors elsewhere.
Implementation details will determine whether the hand-count yields useful assurance or merely fuels confusion. Key unresolved items include which ballot types are included in the count, how to handle splits between machine and manual records, who may observe the count, and what thresholds trigger investigation or recounts.
The compressed one-week deadline amplifies these questions: rushed procedures can increase the risk of chain-of-custody mistakes or inconsistent counting methods across counties. The secretary of state’s rules therefore carry outsized weight — both for operational clarity and for legal defensibility if results are later contested.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.