WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SB 394

AN ACT IMPLEMENTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE RISK-LIMITING AUDITS WORKING GROUP.

2026 Regular Session Introduced by Rob Sampson

Connecticut bill establishing post-election risk-limiting audit procedures to statistically verify election results and enhance confidence in reported outcomes.

FAV. RPT., TAB. FOR CAL., SEN.
#audits #ballots #candidates #canvassandreturnsofvotes #complaint #comptroller #electionofficials #elections #judges #municipalelections #notices #pilots #primaries #regionalcouncilsofgovernments #registrarsofvoters #reports #secretaryofthestate #stateelectionsenforcementcommission #statetreasurer #townclerks #universityofconnecticut #violations #votingdistricts #votingtabulators #absenteeballots #investigations
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SB 394

Legislative bill overview

SB 394 implements recommendations from Connecticut's Risk-Limiting Audits (RLA) Working Group, which has studied post-election audit procedures. The bill likely establishes or modifies protocols for conducting risk-limiting audits—statistical methods that verify election results by hand-counting ballots until reaching a confidence threshold that the reported outcome is correct, rather than auditing a fixed percentage of ballots.

Why is this important

Risk-limiting audits represent a modernization of election security practices, providing mathematical assurance that reported winners actually won without requiring a full hand recount. This directly affects public confidence in election integrity and operational procedures for election officials across the state.

Potential points of contention

  • Implementation costs: RLA programs require funding for training, staffing, and ballot storage/handling infrastructure that may burden smaller municipalities or counties
  • Operational complexity: Election officials may face learning curves and procedural changes, potentially causing delays in certifying results if systems aren't well-coordinated
  • Scope uncertainty: Without seeing the specific recommendations, it's unclear whether the bill mandates RLAs for all elections, specific race types, or only applies to close contests—each approach has different resource and feasibility implications
  • Timeline pressures: Statutory deadlines for result certification could conflict with the time needed to conduct thorough audits if not carefully calibrated

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.