2024 General Election: Post-Election Manual Ballot Tabulation Audit

The post-election manual ballot tabulation audit requires an audit of:

1) At least 2% of election day precincts, including at least 1 randomly selected election day polling place in each county and the remainder of election day polling places to be chosen by SBE; and

2) A number of votes equal to at least 1% of the statewide total in the previous comparable general election[1] of ballots cast during early voting and mail-in and provisional ballots, including a minimum number in each county, as set by SBE. For the 2024 General Election, SBE has set 15 votes as the minimum number of mail-in ballots and provisional ballots for each county. 

The manual audit must be completed by each local board within 120 days after the general election. If the manual audit shows a discrepancy greater than 0.5%, SBE can expand the manual audit and take any other actions it considers necessary to resolve the discrepancy.

[1] Generally speaking, the "previous comparable general election” is defined as (1) in a presidential election year, the presidential election held four years earlier and (2) in a gubernatorial election year, the gubernatorial election held four years earlier. For the 2024 General Election, the 2020 General Election was not comparable with regard to in person voting. This election was a full vote by mail election to mitigate COVID-19. Thus, the total turnout for 2020 skews heavily towards voting by mail rather than in person. For this reason, SBE used the figures from the 2020 Presidential General to determine mail-in ballot turnout, and the figures from 2016 Presidential General to determine in person turnout.

Selecting the Contest to be Audited

In 2018[2], for the inaugural manual audit, the State Board set the following parameters for the contest to be audited. Those parameters are: 

• That the same contest be audited by each local board of elections. Therefore, the contest to be audited shall be a statewide race.
• That the contest would be a “pick one” contest.

The same parameters have been used for all elections in which a manual audit was performed. Using these same parameters, the eligible contests for the 2024 General Election are President or U.S. Senator. SBE used a random number generator to determine the contest to be audited. [2] Full minutes of the November 29, 2018 State Board of Elections meeting, when the Board decided the parameters for the contest to be audited, can be found here.

Selecting the Number of Ballots to be Audited

Before the election, SBE determined the number of ballots to be audited in each local jurisdiction for ballots cast during early voting and mail-in and provisional ballots, as well as the ballots from election day precincts to be audited. This chart shows the minimum number of ballots from each jurisdiction to be audited based on the requirements set forth in §11-309 of the Election Law Article.

Mail-in and Provisional Ballots

The number of mail-in and provisional ballots in the audit is based on the mail-in ballot turnout from the 2020 General Election and the official provisional ballots cast in the 2016 General Election. The number of mail-in ballots and provisional ballots to be audited is calculated by multiplying the 2020 relevant turnout by 0.01, in order to determine 1% of the total number of ballots cast in each category. If 1% of the 2020 turnout is less than 15 ballots, the local board audits 15 ballots.

Each local board selects the mail-in and provisional ballots to be audited, as they prepare for the respective canvasses. These ballots are then kept separate from the remainder of the mail-in and provisional ballots and mark them as “audit ballots.”

At the start of the first post-election mail-in and provisional canvasses, these ballots are presented, reviewed, and tabulated first, and then stored in sealable boxes marked “Mail-in Ballots for Manual Audit” or “Provisional Ballots for Manual Audit.” At the completion of each canvass, the sealed boxes containing the ballots to be audited are stored with the remainder of the mail-in or provisional ballots.

Early Voting Ballots

The formula used to determine the number of mail-in and provisional ballots to be audited is also applied to early voting. Using the early voting turnout from the 2016 General Election, 1% of that turnout was calculated to determine the number of early voting ballots for each local jurisdiction to be audited.

Jurisdictions with only one early voting center audited ballots from that early voting center. For jurisdictions with more than one early voting center, SBE used a random number generator to select the early voting center to be audited. Local boards were notified of the selected early voting centers the day prior to the first day of early voting. A list of the early voting centers randomly selected may be found here..

By 7 pm on the first day of early voting, the chief judges at the selected early voting centers  determined which scanner met the minimum number of ballots to be audited. If none of the scanning units met the minimum, two scanners were selected. At the close of the first day of early voting, and after all voters have left the building, a local election official ran a results report from the selected scanner(s). The election officials secured the ballots from the selected scanner(s) and the report(s) in a sealed box.

Election Day Ballots

§11-309 of the Election Law Article requires that 2% of all statewide precincts must be audited, including at least one precinct from each local jurisdiction. For the 2024 General Election, there are 1991 election day precincts, of which 2% equals 39.82 , which was rounded up to 40.

To select the required election day precinct from each local jurisdiction, a random number generator was used in the same manner that the early voting centers are selected to select the election day precincts. After the minimum of one precinct from each local jurisdiction is selected, the remaining 18 precincts are selected from all 24 jurisdictions. Local boards were notified of the election day precincts that day.

Preparing for the Audit

Preparation tasks include sorting the ballots into batches, preparing batch tally sheets for each batch, selecting audit tallying teams, setting up the audit room, and preparing audio & video equipment if the audit will be live streamed. Additionally, all local boards are required to post a public notice of the audit, which must be mailed or emailed to candidates for the contest to be audited, as well as posted on the local board’s website and in the front of the office ten days prior to the audit.

Conducting the Audit

Each local board conducted a manual audit of the required ballots within 120 days of the 2024 General Election. More information will be posted here once the audit has completed.

Schedule of Manual Audits

Each local board conducted a manual audit of the required ballots within 120 days of the 2024 General Election, starting with Harford County on December 18, 2024, and concluding with Kent County on February 26, 2025.

Results of the Audit

There were no vote differences between the manual audit and the voting system results in 21 of the 24 local jurisdictions, and no discrepancies approached the threshold of 0.5% that would require further investigation (Manual Audit Results with totals). Two discrepancies in one local board (Montgomery County) were caused by the voting system’s tabulation of a voter’s mark entirely outside, but adjacent to the oval as an undervote; local election officials determined that the checkmark that surrounded a candidate’s oval should count as voter intent for the candidate. Another discrepancy (St. Mary’s County) was determined to be an undervote by the auditing official: while the voting system tabulated a marked oval for a write-in candidate, no candidate’s name was written by the voter. In both cases, the tabulation by the voting system correctly tabulated according to its settings for oval density and the auditing officials were correct in determining voter intent as different from the tabulation. Overall, the 24 local boards of elections audited 72,767 ballots, resulting in a statewide audit contest vote discrepancy of 0.004%. [1] While not entirely unusual, these minimal discrepancies would have no impact on the determined outcome of the election.

Baltimore City: In the audit of mail-in ballots, there was one vote difference in overvotes for the U.S. Senator contest. The voting system reported 3881 ballots tabulated among the randomly selected ballot batches, while the manual audit reported 3880 ballots. This discrepancy reflected an additional overvote (3) in the Senator contest, while the audit reported two overvotes.

After hand counting the ballots, the local board arrived at a total of 3880 mail-in ballots selected for audit. When compared with the DS850 report of 3881 ballots, the audit team recounted the ballots multiple times and arrived at the same figure of 3880 ballots. While the cause of the discrepancy is unknown, the one ballot discrepancy would have no effect on the outcome of the contest, as it was tabulated as an overvote.

Montgomery County: In the audit of early voted ballots, there was a one vote difference in the votes cast for U.S. Senator Contest. The voting system reported 1649 votes for this candidate, while the manual audit identified 1650 votes. The voting system reported 11 blank votes for this contest with the audit counting 10 blank votes.

The two discrepancies were identified by auditing officials as belonging to the same ballot: what was tabulated by the voting system as a blank vote was determined by the auditing officials to be a vote.. The local board determined that the voting system tabulated a voter’s checkmark as an undervote because it did not enter the oval. Because this checkmark enveloped the oval in quest, local election officials determined that the checkmark should count as voter intent for the candidate.

Saint Mary’s County: In the audit of early voted ballots, local auditing officials determined there was one additional blank vote and one less write-in candidate vote for the U.S. Senator contest. The voting system tabulated three (3) write-in candidate votes to the local board’s two (2); the voting system also tabulated six (6) blank votes in contrast to the local board’s determination of seven (7).

When local auditing officials examined one of the ballots determined by the voting system to be a vote for a write-in candidate, they found that while the oval beside “write-in candidate” was filled in, no name was written in the space provided. The local board determined this ballot’s vote to be blank for the contest.

The manual audits conducted by the local boards of elections evidence that the voting system accurately counted 72,767 votes cast for U.S. Senator. This sample, taken from randomly selected early voting centers, election day precincts, and batches of mail-in ballots and provisional ballots should be deemed representative of the ballots cast in the state of Maryland. Additionally, the automated ballot tabulation audit confirmed that the voting system accurately counted over 3 million ballots in the 2024 General Election.

---

[1] “Total vote discrepancy” is calculated by dividing the absolute sum of vote differences for a contest by the total votes cast for a contest and then multiplying that number by 100 to get a percentage.

2022 General Election

Click here to see the report and results of the 2022 Post Election Manual Ballot Tabulation Audit.

2020 General Election

Click here to see the report and results of the 2020 Post Election Manual Ballot Tabulation Audit.