(a) The
shall oversee a post-election review of the tabulation results, except in cases where the initial tabulation was conducted using a hand count of ballots, in which case a post-election review is not required.
(b) Selection of review date; notice. At canvass, the must set the date, time and place for the post-election review. The post-election review shall be open to the public and notice of its date, time and place shall be posted at the tabulation center at least 72 hours prior to its start.
(c) Scope of review. The post-election review shall encompass all votes cast for one district seat on the City Council that was not decided solely by a first ranked choice tabulation. Except:
(1) If there was more than one district seat that was not decided solely by a first ranked choice tabulation, the
shall select,
, the district seat to be counted. If there are no district seats that proceeded to a second
tabulation, then the review shall be done on the votes for a city-wide race that was not decided solely by a first ranked choice tabulation. In elections where there was more than one city-wide race that was not decided solely by a first ranked choice tabulation, the
shall select the office
.
(2) If there are no city-wide municipal offices and no district seats on the city council that proceeded to second
tabulation, then there shall be no post-election review of the tabulation.
(d) Using the actual ballots cast for the office selected, election judges shall conduct a hand count tabulation of ballots cast, using procedures called for in this article and administrative rules.
(e) Standard of acceptable performance by voting system. A comparison of the results compiled by the tabulation method with the results compiled by the post-election review must show that the results differed by no more than the applicable percentage requirement, as provided by M.S. § 206.89, subd. 4, as amended. Valid votes that have been marked by the voter outside the vote targets or using a manual marking device that cannot be read by the voting system must not be included in making the determination whether the voting system has met the standard of acceptable performance.
(f) Additional review if needed. Additional review(s) may be required as follows:
(1) First additional review. If a test under clause (c) reveals a difference greater than the applicable percentage , as provided by M.S. § 206.89, subd. 4, as amended, the must immediately select an additional race for review. The additional review must be completed within two days after the office is selected and the results immediately reported to the county auditor.
(2) Second additional review. If the first additional review also indicates a difference in the vote totals that is greater than the applicable percentage , as provided by M.S. § 206.89, subd. 4, as amended, the must conduct a review of all remaining municipal offices on the ballot. This review must be completed no later than two weeks after the canvass.
(g) Report of results. Upon completion of the post-election review, the must immediately report the results to the county auditor and make those results public.
(h) Update of vote totals. If the post-election review under this section results in a change in the number of votes counted for any candidate, the revised vote totals must be incorporated in the official result.
(i) Effect on voting systems. If a voting system is found to have failed to record votes accurately and in the manner provided by this article, the voting system may not be used at another election until it has been approved for use by the county auditor, pursuant to M.S. § 206.58, as amended. In addition, the county auditor may order the city to conduct a hand recount of all ballots cast in the election.
(Ord. 2021-8, passed 4-26-2021)