Dear editor:

As a conservative Republican, I support our Republican Party platform. The 23rd plank of our state party platform reads in part, “[t]he integrity of our elections must be upheld.” I completely agree. 

To further this objective, the Wyoming Freedom Caucus has brought numerous bills to add additional security to our elections as part of their five and dime plan. 

Many dedicated civil servants work tirelessly and thanklessly to maintain and protect elections throughout our state. To ensure that our elections are fair and untainted, there are certain principles that we support. These include making sure that only qualified electors vote, making sure that all legally cast ballots are counted, and making sure that the tallies are true and accurate. 

I generally have no qualms about any measures to improve the integrity of our elections, but recent events have led me to believe that hand counting ballots is not part of the solution — let me explain.

At the end of December, the Park County assessor announced his retirement. Wyoming statutes require that upon a county elective office becoming vacant, the county central committee then had 15 days to meet and select three names to present to the county commissioners who, in turn, had five days to select one of the three names to fill the vacancy. 

Currently, there is no set procedure for county central committees to select the three names, but the statute does specifically state that it is their duty to do so. 

In the case of the Park County assessor, the prior assessor retired and the county central committee adopted rules for voting and selecting the three nominees. 

The adopted rules included, among other things, a “primary” ballot if there were more than five applicants, a main ballot, tie-breaking procedures, and definitions of who can vote.

The primary ballot’s function was to narrow the field down to five. In this primary ballot, all ballots were required to have five names selected. Any overvotes or undervotes would disqualify the ballot. Following the primary ballot, a main ballot to select the three nominees was to be cast. Again, undervotes and overvotes were not permitted. In the event of a tie, the county central committee would vote between the two tied applicants in a head-to-head vote. 

The rules defined that only precinct committee people are allowed to vote, and executive committee members can also vote as long as they are also precinct committee people. A 2023 case from the Wyoming Supreme Court further defined who can vote in cases like this where the statute says, “county central committee.” That case outlines that “county central committee” means precinct committee people and does not include executive committee members who are not also duly elected (or appointed) precinct committee people.

So where did it all go wrong? 

To start, three members of the executive committee, the vice-chair (who was also one of the applicants), the state committeewoman, and the treasurer, all voted throughout the nomination process even though they had not been elected or appointed as precinct committee people. The idea that three individuals voted in a process that they were not allowed to vote flies in the face of the very principles of election integrity. 

Next, in response to the notice, there were six applicants (though one application was received after the deadline). This triggered a primary ballot process. As the three-person tabulating committee began to hand count votes, one of the three began to crumple and set aside ballots as she went. Thankfully this was quickly corrected. 

At the end of the time-consuming counting process, the number of reported votes cast in the primary ballot was 417. As voters were required to vote for five names, the number of votes was required to be divisible by five — the count had an error. Despite the error being reported to the chairman, no recount was performed. Instead, the sixth-place vote-getter was eliminated by one vote and the selection process continued. 

The next step in the process required all voters to pick three of the remaining five names. After the ballots were cast, two names advanced to be nominated and there was a tie for third place. Unfortunately, the county central committee was instructed to vote in a way that did not follow the agreed upon tie-breaking process.

Ultimately, three nominees were selected and presented to the county commissioners who held a meeting on Jan. 14. 

Just before the commissioner’s meeting, the chairman of the county central committee, at the request of one of the precinct committee people, conducted a recount of the primary ballots. This recount found that two of the ballots failed to have the required five names and should have been disqualified. 

As a result, the chairman informed the county commissioners that the primary ballot would have resulted in a tie for fifth place and a tie breaker vote should have been held. He further informed the commissioners that due to the statutory deadlines for notice and filling vacancies, the county central committee would be unable to meet again to correct its errors. 

The county commissioners ultimately voted to not name any of the nominees because the voting process had been tainted and instead allow a district judge to determine the outcome as outlined in the law.

So, what violations of the principles of election integrity took place? First, noneligible individuals voted. Second, ballots were nearly destroyed. Third, incorrect ballots were not promptly identified. Fourth, runoff processes were not followed.

Some of these issues could be resolved by putting better safeguards in place. Party leaders should be the pinnacle of election integrity and should not participate in processes that they are not allowed to vote in, especially if they are one of the candidates. Ballots must be protected and preserved to ensure that the processes are correct. But perhaps the biggest takeaway from this process is that, while individuals might have the best intentions, human error can always affect a process, even one as small as counting 84 ballots. One vote in Wyoming can often make a difference. And in this case, it did. 

If the amount of time, energy, and effort that has resulted from the hand counting of 84 ballots also results in errors large enough to invalidate the entire process, perhaps hand counting is not the answer to our election integrity concerns.

David Hill

Cody