Election Day

• Election Night Reporting: 4,680
• Cast Vote Records: 4,680
• Ballot Images: 4,680

Recount

• Election Night Reporting: 4,680
• Cast Vote Records: 4,680
• Ballot Images: (not available)

Aberrations

• Ballots not appearing in recount: 22
• New Ballots not appearing in original: 22

General Observations

In a detailed comparison between the original count and the recount data, an anomaly surfaced: 22 Ballot Marking Device (BMD) ballots, all cast for Presidential candidate Trump, were missing from the recount. Notably, this set did not include any votes for Biden.

The absence of these 23 ballots in the recount is puzzling. They originated from three different tabulators and were randomly distributed in the original dataset, with no discernible pattern to their exclusion. The fact that all missing ballots were for a single candidate provokes questions, as a truly random error would likely affect a mix of candidates.

Recount Analysis

During the recount, there were 22 sequential presidential-only ballots added to the recount as replacement ballots. No other race or candidate was selected giving the ballot fingerprint a distinct pattern.

All but one of these new ballots were scanned together sequentially and in a single group. Since the recount focused only on the presidential race, the election official only created the ballots for the one race. Do note that the replacement ballots don't match the precincts up exactly right.

This inconsistency in ballot types, coupled with the exclusive focus on the presidential vote, appears to contravene state law requirements for a "true duplicate copy" of the original ballot. Additionally, these were not the final ballots in the count; they were followed by more ballots, indicating that the county could have been aware of the issue during the hand RLA. However, without access to the recount ballot images for this county, it's impossible to verify if these were legitimate duplicates following the proper duplication process.

Conclusion

To definitively ascertain whether these ballots were legitimately duplicated in accordance with state laws, access to the original ballot images is needed. It is worth noting that if these replacements were indeed accurate duplicates of damaged ballots, it would indicate that Bacon County managed its ballot processing with a high degree of efficiency, despite the challenges. In such a scenario, the county would have successfully navigated issues like unscannable ballots without further complicating the electoral process.