►
From YouTube: House Standing Committee on Elections, Constitutional Amendments, & Intergovernmental Affairs (2-23)
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
C
A
Here,
everyone,
please
silence
your
phone
and
when
you
speak,
make
sure
that
the
green
light
is
on
on
your
microphone.
A
And
I
know
we,
we
were
going
to
have
some
bills
today,
but
we
don't
so
they're.
Still
in
the
sausage
making
process.
C
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman
I
do
I,
have
Russell
County's
Educators
Rising
group
with
me
today.
There's
some
high
school
students
and
some
of
our
future
Educators
they've
come
up
today
to
take
part
in
the
legislative
process
and
have
been
in
committee
meetings
this
morning.
I
believe
you
guys
got
up
at
what
time
was
it
three
o'clock
this.
A
D
You
chairman
I've,
got
Paris
Independent,
Schools
and
Bourbon
County
FFA.
They
come
up
here
together
every
year
on
the
same
bus.
You
know
we
talk
about
getting
along
they're,
doing
it
in
Bourbon,
County
they're
setting
the
example.
They
did
not
get
up
at
three
o'clock
in
the
morning.
To
get
here.
I
can
promise
you
that,
but
my
favorite
day
the
FFA
chapters
come
up
here.
We
they're
going
to
the
Old
Capitol
today,
they're
eliminating
Joe
Fritz
is
actually
going
to
play.
D
A
A
E
Mr
chairman
I'd
like
to
recognize
Joanne
Ray
here
today,
Joanne
is
my
guest
here
today:
she's
a
registered
nurse
with
Norton
hospital.
She
is
shadowing
me
today
as
part
of
their
leadership
advocacy
training
program
to
have
individuals
in
the
nursing
field
spend
a
day
with
a
state
legislator
that
happened
last
week
with
another
individual
so
that
they
can
learn.
E
The
legislative
process
know
what
it's
like
to
spend
the
day
in
the
life
of
a
member
of
the
general
assembly
so
that,
as
they
advocate
for
their
profession,
they
better
understand
the
role
that
we
perform
here
in
Frankfurt.
So
I'd
like
to
ask
the
members
of
the
committee
to
make
Joanne
welcome.
Thank
you,
Joan.
Thank
you.
F
Anybody,
our
representative
Callaway,
yes,
sir,
thank
you
Mr
chairman
I,
appreciate
all
of
you
being
here
today.
Some
of
you
may
or
may
not
know
that
a
little
over
a
week
ago,
I
had
to
have
a
spinal
fusion
and
I
am
here
today,
because
my
wife
has
been
with
me
every
step
of
the
way
over
the
last
couple
weeks,
and
so
I
want
to
recognize
her
and
I
want
you
all
to
be
able
to
meet
her
today,
my
wife
Angela
Callaway.
Thank
you
great.
A
Thank
you,
Angela
and
thank
you
guys
so
anybody
else
first
item
today
and
the
only
item
today
will
be
the
State
Board
of
Elections
and
and
come
forward.
Please
and
they're,
going
to
give
a
presentation
and
we
look
forward
to
it
and
take
it
away
once
you
identify
yourself.
G
Thank
you
Mr
chair,
thank
you.
Mr
chairman
I'm
Karen
sellers
executive,
director
of
the
State
Board
of
Elections
and.
G
I
just
want
to
thank
the
committee
that
we
really
appreciate
the
opportunity.
The
chairman
asked
us
to
come
and
speak
about
Eric,
which
is
the
electronic
registration
information
center.
G
I
also
want
to
thank
the
committee
and
the
chairman
for
allowing
via
Zoom
the
executive
director
of
Eric
Shane
Hamlin
and
Jennifer
Morrell,
who
will
be
on
a
little
bit
later
to
speak
or
add
to
Richard's
report
about
our
rla
pilot
that
we
did.
They
have
a
lot
of
expertise
in
these
areas
and
just
felt
it
was
important
that
both
of
them
were
available
to
the
committee
and
I
will
introduce
Shane
Hamlin.
He
is
on
Zoom.
G
E
I
Will
share
my
screen
and
while
I'm
doing
that,
I'd
like
to
thank
the
chair
and
the
device
chair
and
Karen
for
inviting
me
today
to
share
information
on
Eric
and
what
we
do
and
how
Kentucky
makes
use
of
their
Eric
membership.
I
It's
a
pleasure
to
be
before
you
this
morning
from
7
A.M,
my
time
out
on
in
Washington
state,
so
I
look
forward
to
sharing
information
and
answering
any
questions
that
you
may
have
as
I
move
through,
though
I
thought
I'd
pop
on
camera.
So
you
can
see
who
you're
who's
speaking
but
as
I
move
through
the
presentation.
I'll
come
off
camera
and
I'm
happy
to
hop
back
on
during
any
q.
A
if
that's,
okay
with
the
chair.
Yes,.
I
Okay,
so
Eric
obviously
helps
states
with
list
maintenance,
as
I
with
list
maintenance.
Excuse
me,
as
I'm
sure,
you've
heard
from
Karen
in
previous
hearings
and
there's
a
couple
of
really
important
challenges
to
understand
when
thinking
about
good
list
maintenance.
Maintaining
accurate
voter
rolls
is
a
challenge,
because
every
day
voters
move
or
die,
and
then
the
voters
who
move
don't
always
remember
to
update
their
registration.
I
They
don't
always
immediately
go
in
and
renew
at
a
driver's
license
or
update
their
address
at
a
DMV
office
either,
and
you
can
see
on
this
slide
just
two
really
high
level
stats.
That
I
think
support
this
quite
well
about
27
million
people
or
eight
a
little
over
eight
percent
of
the
population
moved
in
2021
according
to
the
Census
Bureau
and
pre-coveted
move
rates
were
even
higher
and
then
a
little
over
three
three
and
a
half
million
Americans
died
in
2021
the
most
recent
year
in
which
official
death
estimates
are
available.
I
So
what
is
Eric's
Mission
then?
Given
these
challenges,
we
help
state
and
local
officials
improve
the
accuracy
of
their
voter
rolls
and
register
more
eligible
citizens
in
the
voting
process,
and
we
believe
Eric
is
the
most
effective
tool
available
to
help
election
officials
maintain
the
Integrity
of
their
voter
rolls
when
Eric
was
founded
in
2012
by
seven
states
and
I'll
get
to
that
in
a
second.
I
Their
membership
resignation
will
be
effective
in
April,
so
they
are
included
here
in
this
map
and
then
we'll
be
down
to
32
members.
But
we
are
talking
to
several
other
states
that
are
interested
in
joining
so
membership.
This
year
could
Flex
a
little
bit
throughout
the
year.
I
So
some
Basics
about
Eric,
we
are
a
non-profit
membership
organization,
as
I
said,
founded
in
2012
by
seven
states.
Four
of
those
were
led
by
Republicans
three
Bay
Democrats.
Today,
Eric
is
led
by
a
bipartisan
mix
of
Republican
Democratic
state
election
officials
across
32
states
and
the
District
of
Columbia.
I
By
the
way,
those
founding
states
were
Washington,
Utah,
Virginia,
Colorado,
Nevada,
Maryland
and
Delaware
so
participating
States
control.
Eric.
The
states
that
make
up
its
membership
are
in
control.
Are
man
govern
the
organization
and
fund
it?
Each
Chief
election
official
across
the
membership
appoints
a
member
representative
to
serve
on
the
board
of
directors
for
your
state
executive
director,
Karen
seller
serves
on
the
Eric
board
of
directors.
The
the
State
Board
administers
the
your
State's
involvement
in
Eric.
They
submit
the
required
data
and
process.
I
The
reports
that
they
receive
Eric
is
funded
by
participating,
States
new
members
pay
a
one-time
fee
and
then
pay
annual
dues.
Initial
startup
support
did
come
from
the
Pew
charitable
trust,
but
there
were
no
other
funding
sources
involved
in
Eric
and
there
never
have
been
any
other
funding
sources
involved
in
Eric.
We
are
supported
by
our
members
through
dues
payments.
I
And
then
we
also
maintain
and
are
qualified
recipient
of
the
Social
Security
limited
Master
death
file.
This
is
a
process
that
you
have
to
apply
for,
and
you
have
to
undergo
every
three
years
and
an
independent
assessment
of
your
handling
of
the
data
to
ensure
that
you're
complying
with
Federal
data
laws
pertaining
to
that
data,
and
we
have
undergone
that
assessment
twice
and
we're
about
to
do
it
again.
In
2023..
I
This
data
set
provides
us
with
full
names
date
of
birth,
social
security,
number
and
date
of
death,
and
that
is
used
to
produce
the
deceased
voter
report,
which
I
will
get
to
in
a
moment.
So
in
these
data
sets,
we
asked
the
states
our
members
to
exclude
confidential
records.
So
if
your
state,
for
example,
has
a
program
that
allows
victims
of
domestic
violence
in
some
states,
it
includes
victims
of
domestic
violence
or
stalking,
or
perhaps
judges
or
others
their
voter
registration
information.
If
it
is
confidential,
it
is
not
public.
I
We
do
not
want
those
records,
because
we
don't
want
to
take
any
risk
on
exposing
those
individuals
or
or
having
those
records
submitted
or
sent
to
other
Eric
States
as
part
of
the
cross
state
match
report
that
I
will
highlight
in
a
moment
we
also
don't
get
party
affiliation.
Party
affiliation
is
unnecessary
to
the
matching
process.
We
don't
need
it
and
we
don't
ask
for
it.
So
we
do
not
know
whether
a
voter
is
a
Democrat,
a
Republican
or
an
independent.
It
is
not
necessary
for
our
work
in
helping
States
maintain
accurate
voter
roles.
I
We
ask
states
to
exclude
known
non-citizens,
and
this
is
for
two
reasons:
one.
We
do
not
want
to
send
back
a
no-non-citizen
in
a
report
that
will
be
used
to
reach
out
to
individuals
to
provide
them
with
voter
registration
information,
because
we
don't
want
our
members
and
Eric
as
an
organization
does
not
want
to
send
an
invitation
to
register.
To
vote
to
someone
we
know
is
not
a
U.S
citizen.
I
Also
non-citizen
data
that
may
be
contained
in
a
State
motor
vehicle
database
can
sometimes
be
unreliable
because
people,
because
non-citizens
May
typically
be
moving
through
the
process
to
become
citizens
and
their
status
may
change
over
time.
So
we
have
found
that
it's
unreliable
and
rather
the
risk
misidentifying
someone
as
a
non-citizen
which
could
lead
to
litigation
or
other
legal
challenges.
We
simply
do
not.
I
We
ask
states
to
exclude
that
data,
and
then
they
follow
their
own
processes
for
managing
and
filtering
out
and
protecting
against
non-citizens
registering
to
vote
or
how
they
may
be
handled
in
the
list
maintenance
process
and
then
that
final
bullet
in
the
gray
box
I
do
I.
I
will
briefly
describe
this
process
and
then,
if
necessary,
I
I
have
I
can
send
a
slide.
I
To
sort
of
give
you
an
example
of
what
this
looks
like,
but
how
but
but
states
protect
the
date
of
birth,
the
social
security
number
and
the
driver's
license
number
by
applying
what
we
call
a
cryptographic
hash
to
those
data
fields
and
a
cryptographic.
Hash
is
essentially
it's
different
from
encryption
cryptographic
hash.
I
All
our
members
use
the
same
software
to
do
this
so
that
when
they
hash
their
dates
of
birth,
for
example,
of
March
9th
1974,
it
will
come
out
of
that
process
that
algorithm
with
the
same
value
so
that
they
can
still
be
compared
and
matched
it's
a
string
of
roughly
42
characters,
letters
and
numbers
that
can
still
be
compared,
but
it's
not
readable
to
the
human
eye.
It
won't
make
no
sense
to
a
human
who
sees
it
cryptographic.
Hashes
are
not
intended
to
be
decrypted,
so
there's
no
key
to
decrypt
it.
I
It's
sort
of
like
making
sausage
Once.
You
turn
the
pig
into
sausage.
There's
not
really
there's
no
way
going
back
to
the
original
to
the
pig.
If
you
will
it's
a
little
bit
crude,
but
it
is
a
decent
analogy
of
how
cryptographic
hashing
works,
so
the
states
are
members
submit
these
data
sets
on
a
routine
basis,
and
then
we
receive
the
Social
Security
death
data
on
a
monthly
basis,
and
we
produce
a
variety
of
reports
for
their
use
on
the
left.
We
have
the
eligible
but
unregistered
report.
I
This
identifies
individuals
who
do
not
appear
to
be
registered
to
vote
but
may
be
eligible
in
the
center.
We
have
four
list:
maintenance
reports,
in-state
movers.
These
are
individuals
who
have
moved
within
the
state
but
have
not
updated
their
address.
This
may
also
include
updates
to
contact
information
like
phone
numbers
and
email.
If
the
state
collects
it
and
if
they
want
it,
this
also
included.
We
have
the
cross
state
movers
report
in
here.
I
I
We
are
also
a
certified
service
provider
of
these
data
and
we
provide
these
reports
as
as
needed
or
as
requested
by
our
members.
It
is
not
a
report
that
is
required
to
be
used,
and
then
we
also
have
what
we
call
a
voter
participation
report.
This
is
a
report
that
identifies
possible
cases
of
double
voting
or
illegal
voting
after
each
Federal
general
election.
It
also
identifies
cases
where
it
appears
someone
may
have
voted
on
behalf
of
a
deceased.
I
Individual
I'll
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
how
these
reports
are
created,
as
I
work
through
the
next
few
slides
I'm
going
to
start
with
just
a
few
key
points
on
that
eligible,
but
unregistered
report.
So
these
reports
come
directly
from
Eric,
not
any
other
data
sources
or
any
other
entity.
They
contain
individuals
who
have
a
driver's
license
or
ID
card,
but
who
are
not
registered
to
vote.
I
This
is
a
relatively
simple
comparison
of
your
DMV
record
to
your
voter
role
and
anyone
who
is
not
on
the
voter
roll
but
has
a
DMV
record,
is
identified
in
this
report.
Eric.
Our
organization
cannot
see
the
age
of
these
individuals
because,
as
I
said,
those
dates
of
birth
are
hashed.
Before
it's
submitted
to
Eric.
I
The
state
then
processes
these
reports
and
I'll
get
to
that
in
a
second.
So
the
data
in
these
reports
comes
directly
from
the
DMV
and
therefore
these
data
are
protected
by
the
federal
driver's
privacy
protection
act
of
1993
they're,
not
disclosable.
The
states
can
share
these
data
with
Eric
because
we
qualify
under
one
of
the
exceptions
authorized
in
that
federal
law.
I
As
I
said
before,
there
are
no
political
party
affiliation
in
these
reports,
so
there's
no
way
to
Target
these
mailings
to
either
Democrats
Independents
Republicans.
Or
what
have
you
States?
Take
these
reports
and
filter
out
any
individuals
they
know
not
to
be
eligible.
For
example,
if
they
have
access
to
official
data
on
felon
status,
they
can
remove
known
felons.
Who
are
ineligible.
I
They
can
compare
these
records
to
the
original
DMV
to
look
at
the
age
and
ensure
that
only
individuals
who
should
be
receiving
this
based
on
age
eligibility
receive
this
mailing,
and
then
these
mailings,
all
these
mailings
across
all
of
the
Eric
members,
clearly
State.
The
eligibility
requirements
and
reminding
the
recipient
of
these
mailings-
and
these
are
typically
postcards
of
the
age,
citizenship,
residency
and
any
other
eligibility
requirements,
as
well
as
information
on
how
to
register,
and
these
are
typically
done
prior
to
each
Federal
general
election
every
other
year.
That
is
the
minimum
requirement.
I
Moving
into
list
maintenance
list.
Maintenance
reports
are
required.
These
are
a
required
element
of
membership
in
Eric
and
I
know
that
there
is
some
misunderstanding
out
there
on
this,
and
in
fact,
actually
here
you
can
see
this
is
verb.
This
is
verbatim
from
our
membership
agreement
that,
when
they
receive
credible
error,
data
from
Eric
indicating
that
information
in
a
record
is
D
is
out
of.
Excuse
me,
out
of
date
or
inaccurate.
I
The
members
shall
at
a
minimum,
initiate
contact
with
that
voter
in
order
to
correct
the
inaccuracy
or
obtain
information
sufficient
to
inactivate
or
update
the
voter's
record,
and
essentially
they
do
this
under
the
nvra,
under
the
national
voter
registration
act
or
under
their
state.
Voter
registration
list
maintenance
laws.
I
The
list
maintenance
reports
are
here
for
you
and
I
want
to
just
briefly
walk
through
how
those
are
created
and
some
of
the
requirements
around
those
reports
and
how
States
use
them
so
that
cross
state
movers
report
that
identifies
Kentucky
voters
who've,
maybe
moved
up
to
Ohio
moved
somewhere
else.
This
is
created
by
comparing
your
voter
roles
to
other
states,
DMV
and
voter
rolls
and
where
there
is
a
newer,
more
recent
voter
or
licensing
record
in
another
state.
Those
individuals
will
be
included
on
this
report.
I
In-State
updates
very
simple
and
I
called
them
in
state
movers
earlier
they're
this
one.
In
the
same,
these
are
where
we
compare
your
voter
role
to
your
DMV
record
and
where
their
DMV
record
indicates
a
newer
address
for
contact
information.
Those
individuals
are
included
in
that
report
and
then
the
deceased
report
is
a
simple
match
of
the
Social
Security
death
Master
list
to
your
state
voter
roles
and
again,
individuals
who
appear
on
the
Social
Security
death
index
and
the
voter
file
are
included
in
this
report.
I
The
social
security
deathmaster
file
includes
deaths
for
your
residents
that
occur
outside
of
the
state
and
then
in-state
duplicates
is
a
pretty
straightforward
report
that
identifies
potential
or
all
duplicates
within
your
state
and
states
that
have
sort
of
bottom-up
architected
voter
registration
systems
or
where
they're
Pro,
where
the
counties
or
local
jurisdictions
are
primarily
responsible
for
the
transfer
of
voter
registrations
and
maintaining
voter
records.
Those
States
tend
to
have
more
in-state
duplicates.
These
are
not
necessarily
an
indication
of
potential
of
you
know
problems
within
the
database.
I
These
are
just
it's
a
common,
it's
common
in
up
bottom-up
systems,
that
a
sort
of
older
record
will
exist
for
a
while
as
the
transfers
occur
and-
and
we
help
identify
those,
so
they
can
clean
them
up
So
within
the
Eric
requirements.
I
They
are
all
exceeding
sort
of
the
floor
if
you
will
of
what's
required,
they
have
to
certify
back
to
Eric,
relate
to
them
to
to
their
colleagues
in
Eric,
to
show
sort
of
accountability
that
they
have
initiated
contact
and
acted
on
these
reports
that
they've
initiated
to
contact
with
at
least
95
percent
of
the
individuals,
and
that
95
is
there
to
give
them
a
little
bit
of
room
because
they
have
access
to
information
to
indicate
that
perhaps
someone
hasn't
moved
and
so
forth.
I
So
it's
important
to
give
them
a
little
bit
of
flexibility
to
identify
sort
of
nuisance
records
and
and
not
act
on
those
when
they
are
acting
on
a
cross-state
and
in-state.
They
generally
need
to
follow
the
nvra
or
stateless
maintenance
laws.
Eric
doesn't
tell
them
what
to
do
exactly.
We
just
tell
them.
I
They
need
to
do
something
with
that
information
to
improve
the
accuracy
of
their
voter
rolls,
and
so
that
may
be
sending
a
postcard
to
the
old
address
and
act
on
deliverables
that
may
be
sending
a
voluntary
cancellation
request
to
a
new
address
which
is
fairly
common
for
that
cross.
State
report,
where
they're
contacting
someone
out
of
state
and
asking
them
to
cancel
their
registration,
and
so
generally,
just
following
the
nvra
and
doing
good
list
maintenance.
With
these
reports
and
I
am
almost
done.
I
The
next
slide
just
summarizes
Kentucky's
use
of
the
list
maintenance
reports
over
its
membership
since
2019.,
so,
as
you
can
see,
they
have
requested
the
State
Board
is
requested
and
used
two
cross
state
movers
reports
identifying
almost
370
000
individuals,
kentuckians
who've,
moved
out
of
state
42
000
in-state
updates,
11
000
deceased
voters
across
three
reports
and
a
little
over
ten
thousand
duplicate
registrations
across
three
reports
for
a
total
of
about
432
000
out
of
date
or
inaccurate
records
identified
as
part
of
your
membership
in
Eric.
I
I
This
is
just
noting
that
as
a
distinction
from
other
Eric
states
that
might
have
a
higher
number
here,
but
overall
again
across
just
10
reports
and
really
these
reports
cover
21
and
22.
When
reports
started
being
requested,
432
000
records
is
a
pretty
substantial
number
for
a
state.
Your
size
and
I
think
this
helps
demonstrate
the
value
of
Eric
both
to
your
state
board,
but
also
your
local
election
officials
and
the
Integrity
over
all
of
elections
in
Kentucky.
I
So
with
that
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
I
would
refer
you
to
our
website
as
well.
If
you're
interested
or
your
staff
to
our
website,
I
believe
I,
provide
I,
know:
I,
provided
committee
staff
with
a
frequently
asked
questions
document
that
covers
some
of
what
I've
said
in
more
detail
as
well
as
other
materials
on
our
website.
A
Thank
you
Shane.
That
was
great.
I
learned
a
lot
there,
but
I
do
have
questions
but
Josh
representative
Josh
branscoms.
First.
C
Hey
Shane,
thank
you
for
the
the
presentation
did
have
a
couple
questions
really
quick
and
one
of
them.
You
may
not
be
able
to
speak
to,
but
just
curious
why
Alabama
left
and
I
guess.
The
second
question
is
we
have
a
couple
states
around
us
who
are
not
in
Eric
are:
are
they
actively
looking
into
it
or
or
not?.
I
Right
so,
first
on
Alabama,
I
think
secretary
Allen
has
spoken
as
to
his
reasons
as
to
why
he's
leaving
I
think
initially
those
reasons
he
has
just
had
some
general
concerns
about
the
data
that's
provided
to
us,
and
we
have
provided
information
to
that
state
and
other
states
as
to
how
we
protect
that
data.
But
his
reasons,
I
think,
are
his.
You
know
he
he's
articulated
those
a
number
of
times
and
stories
that
have
been
covered.
I
As
for
your
neighbors,
there
are
some
of
your
border
states
have
reached
out
over
the
years
to
learn
more
I
can't
say
that
any
of
them
are
sort
of
in
the
pipeline
to
join
a
couple
of
States
just
outside
your
border
region
are
asking
more
questions
about
Eric
that
indicate
they
might
be
interested
in
joining.
Obviously,
Eric
is
much
more
effective
when
more
States
belong,
because
it
helps
identify
those
cross
state
movers.
So
you
get
more
out
of
it
in
terms
of
your
residents
who
have
moved
out
of
state.
I
So
there
are
some
of
your
neighbors
inquiring,
but
we
are
always
talking
to
States
and
answering
questions
and
providing
information.
A
Let
me
ask
you
this
Shane.
Let
me
ask
this
Shane
when
you
when
you,
when,
when
the
reports
are
sent
from
you
guys,
who
is
it
sent
to
State
Board
of
Elections
I'm
sure
anybody
is
it
that.
I
That's
a
good
question.
I'm
glad
you
asked
it
that
way,
because
it
allows
me
to
highlight
a
really
important
security
feature
so
when
States
submit
data
to
us
and
when
they
submit
it
to
a
secure
server
SFTP.
But
you
may
have
heard
that
phrase
before
they.
Only
certain
staff
within
the
state
board
have
access
to
that
server
and
they
have
to
log
in,
and
then
our
data
host
company
knows
who's
logging
in
and
can
monitor
that
activity,
and
then
we
pick
it
up
inside
of
a
secure
environment,
our
staff
and
then
process
it.
I
And
then,
when
we
create
a
report,
it
goes
back
on
that
secure
server
for
state
board
staff
to
retrieve
and
only
Kentucky
State
Board
of
election
staff
have
access
to
Kentucky's
reports.
No
other
state,
no
other
entity.
So
essentially
that
server
is
what
it
has
white
listed.
Ip
addresses,
meaning
that
only
identified
recognized
computers
can
access
it
and
individuals
who
have
the
proper
credentials
to
log
in
can
access
it.
A
Do
you
ever
make
public
any
kind
of
blind
reports
you
know
where
it
wouldn't
have
like
sensitive
information
or
but
like
could
you
could
I
go
to?
Could
somebody
go
to
Eric
or
whatnot
and
say
this
is
how
many
like,
like
the
the
info
you
gave
here
on
one
of
these
pages,
about
how
many,
how
many
records
in
Kentucky
were
changed?
What
is
that
is
that
on
your
website
or
anything
or
what
will
you
have
to
ask
for
that
or
you.
I
I
The
membership
right
now
has
started
sharing
and
we
want
to
start
sharing
sort
of
aggregate
stats
at
the
state
level,
like
I
just
shared
a
slide
ago
for
your
state,
the
number
of
Records
by
a
report
type
and
then
actually
the
in-state
duplicates
report
that
contains
that
identifies
duplicate
registrations.
There
are
no
protected
data
in
that
meaning.
That
report
does
not
contain
any
data
protected
under
federal
law,
and
that
report
is
public.
I
Anyone
could
request
and
ask
for
that
report.
Additionally,
under
the
federal
regulations
that
protect
the
deceased
report,
the
deceased
data
that
we
use
deaths
that
are
more
than
three
years
old
are
public
deaths
that
are
not
that
are
yet
less
than
three-year-old
are
not
public.
So
the
deceased
reports-
members
May,
disclose
deceased
reports
as
long
as
they
do
not
release
records
on
any
individual
who's
whose
date
of
death
is
less
than
three
years.
So
deceased
reports
are
disclosable
with
that
caveat
and
that
is
only
to
comply
with
the
federal
laws
that
protect
those
data.
I
The
other
Eric
reports
that
I
talked
about
the
cross
state
movers,
the
in-state
updates
and
the
eligible,
but
unregistered
all
of
those
contain
explicitly
contained
data
from
the
DMV
and
that
data
is
protected
under
the
federal
driver's
privacy
protection
act
and
that's
what
prohibits
Eric
and
its
members
from
releasing
that
data
unless
it's
released
for
one
of
the
ex
permissive
exceptions
in
that
federal
law.
A
Thank
you
just
a
couple
more
quick
ones.
If
anybody
else
I
think
I
I
think
oh
well,
let
me
ask
this
one:
the
you
say
there
was
no
input
from
anybody,
but
as
far
as
Financial,
except
the
states
right
and
so
no
no
Zuckerberg
what
was
it
called?
Zuckerbock,
Zuckerberg
bucks
or
whatnot?
None
of
that
in
there
Shane.
I
No
sir,
no
no
Mr
chairman,
we
have
Eric
Eric
startup.
We
have
his.
We
had
assistance
from
Pew
on
our
startup
and
then
the
board
approved
a
one-time
Grant
from
Pew
only
a
few
years
ago
to
help
with
one-time
I.T
infrastructure
upgrades
and
I.T
related
projects.
So
none
of
our
ongoing
operations
were
supported
by
that
Grant.
It
has
since
been
extended.
The
board
approved
that
we
have
never
received
grants
from
any
other
entity.
Nor
do
we
want
any
grants
from
any
other
entity.
I
Yeah,
well,
we
have
33
members
and
we've
we've
lost
two
but
gained
two
at
the
same
time.
So
so
the
net
effect
I
think
is
the
loss
of
one
and
it's
a
little
early
for
me
to
do
mental
math,
but
I,
okay,
I,
think
I
I
think
we've
lost
two
states,
but
we're
at
33
members
total
with
just
with
DC
and
32
states.
Okay,.
I
Oh,
that
is
a
good
question
that
I
don't
have
the
number
in
front
of
me,
so
there
was
a
one-time,
25
000
joining
fee
and
all
states
that
pay
that
that
essentially
goes
into
reserves
to
help
with
periodic
one-time,
large
expenditures.
I,
don't
have
Kentucky's
annual
dues
in
front
of
me,
but
either
Karen
or
I
could
follow
up
with
committee.
Stop
with
that
information
easily
this
morning,
best
seller.
G
Would
that
be
appropriate
if
we
can
follow
up?
You
know
we
do
have
some
mailings
and
I
would
need
to
look
back
to
see
what
the
cost
of
the
mailings
the
production
of
the
mailings
plus
I
I,
will
speak
and
say:
I
believe
our
dues
are
40
000
a
year,
but
I
would
prefer
to
get
a
a
firm
number
on
that.
Okay,.
J
Hudson,
yes
morning,
Shane
couple
questions
for
you.
If
you're
open
to
difficult
questions,
I
read
recently.
E
J
There's
a
lawsuit
in
four
states
alleging
that
Eric
was
sharing
data
with
someone,
perhaps
ceir,
who
was
a
recipient
of
69
million
dollars
in
the
aforementioned
Zucker
bucks.
Obviously
you
can't
get
into
legal
details,
but
how
would
we,
as
a
member
State,
know
that
you
are
not
sharing
information
with
an
outside
entity
like
ceir.
I
And
I
believe
two
of
those
have
been
completed
through
the
administrative
hearings
process
and
were
dismissed
and
I
believe
two
are
still
active
to
to
be
clear.
The
only
way
to
know
so.
This
is
an
interesting
question,
because
the
board
just
discussed
this.
So
there
are
a
number
of
Assessments
that
we
could
complete
by
in
by
an
independent
bodies
that
would
show
We
are
following
our
policies
and
procedures
for
data
handling
that
our
systems
are
secure
and
not
vulnerable
and
so
on,
including
even
auditing.
I
Our
logs
there's
there's
no
way
to
prove
100
that
somehow
nefariously
we
did
not
pull
the
data
off
and
then
some
other
method
provide
it
to
someone,
that's
a
negative
that
we
can't
prove,
but
we
all
all
Eric
staff,
all
three
of
us.
There
are
only
three
of
us
and
I
do
not
actually
have
access
to
the
data.
The
system,
engineers
and
the
data
Specialists
have
access
to
the
data.
I
All
of
us
sign
off
on
affirmations
that
we
will
follow
Eric's
security
policies
and
procedures,
including
not
releasing
the
data
and
following
Eric's
confidentiality
requirements
and,
of
course,
the
penalty
for
violating
those
is
losing
our
job
and
losing
our
reputation.
Our
professional
reputation
and
integrity.
I
Again,
when
I
was
referring
to
research
earlier,
some
Eric
member
states
chose
on
their
own
to
engage
in
research
with
ceir
in
the
past,
at
their
choosing
without
any
undo.
You
know
without
any
pressure
or
suggestion
from
Eric
as
an
organization
or
for
me,
as
its
executive
director
and
I,
believe
that
that
sharing
of
that
data
was
in
compliance
with
federal
law
that
protects
those
data
and
it
was
in
compliance
with
the
membership
agreement
because
of
the
purposes
of
it.
J
Okay,
well,
thank
you.
A
couple
more
questions.
If
I
could
referring
to
your
slide,
that
talked
about
eligible,
but
unregistered
voters
does
Eric
actually
make
contacts
with
those
people
or
does
the
state
board
or
do
both
make
contact
with
those
voters
only.
J
Does
he
have,
he
is
the
chief
elections
officer?
Does
he
have
access
to
the
Eric
data.
G
J
Okay,
thank
you
also.
The
list
maintenance
reports.
Your
recommendation
was
that
every
Eric's
recommendation
was
that
every
member
pulled
these
reports
at
least
once
a
year,
but
not
less
than
every
425
days.
It
looks
like
in
a
four-year
span.
There.
Kentucky
has
only
pulled
two
of
those
reports.
Any
reason
why.
I
I
Not
good
enough,
let
me
put
it
that
way:
I
I
believe
Eric
I,
believe
the
requirements
should
be
higher
and
that
change
was
made
when
I
was
on
a
on
a
break
from
elections.
I
used
to
be
the
first
I
was
part
of
creating
Eric
I
was
the
first
chair
of
Eric.
I
was
very
involved,
I
took
a
few
years
off
and
I
came
back
and
that
change
had
been
implemented
to
accommodate
a
few
States
challenges
in
using
Eric
I.
Believe
States
should
be
required
to
use
reports
more
frequently.
I
I
think
Karen
can
speak
to
why
they've
only
done
two,
but
I
can
say
they
are
in
compliance.
They
actually
even
exceed
that
requirement
when
you,
if
I,
was
to
put
up
the
schedule
of
when
those
reports
were
requested,
2019
is
when
they
joined
I
think
it
took
a
little
while
to
get
them
fully
on
board.
I,
don't
remember
how
many
months
so
so
I
know
that
looks
like
a
three-year
period.
It
might
actually
have
been
only
two
years
or
so
that
they
were
fully
operational
or
two
and
a
half
years.
I
G
J
G
K
Yes,
thank
you
all
for
your
report
and
for
the
presenter
on
Zoom
really
appreciated
that
a
couple
of
things
I
want
to
clarify
I,
think
John
said
so.
The
Secretary
of
State
hired
you
and
I
just
want
to
clear
that
up.
The
secretary
of
state
does
not
did
not
hire
you
the
board
hires
you
is
that
correct.
K
Thank
you
and
then
I
do
have
a
question
about
the
whole
theory
that
there's
left-wing
money
in
Eric.
The
the
the
theory
is
really
not
Zucker
bucks,
it's
Soros,
and
so
can
you
address
that
anyone.
K
I
I
He
gave
a
donation
to
The,
Pew
trust
and
that
those
funds
were
used
for
a
different
elections
program
called
the
voting
information
project,
which
is
another
project
that
Pew
started.
That
is
not
no
longer
housed
a
few,
and
those
records
have
been
published,
it
is
I
can
just
say
unequivocally
no
Soros
funding
involved
in
Eric.
At
any
point,
thank.
K
A
G
Am
going
to
turn
that
over
to
Mr
House
assistant
director,
he
was
really
the
leader
in
our
risk.
Limiting
audit
also
online
is
Jennifer
Morrell.
She
had
been
present
before
a
committee
here
in
the
last
few
months
to
speak
about
our
risk
limiting
audit
but
I'll.
Let
turn
it
back
over
to
Mr
house
and
let
him
discuss
the
results.
Thank.
H
Thank
you
for
your
opportunity
today
to
appear
today
to
talk
about
the
Commonwealth's
first
risk
limiting
audit
pilot
program
in
2021,
the
legislature,
Place
language
and
House
Bill
574
for
this
type
of
audit
to
be
tested
in
Kentucky.
However,
in
2021
we
didn't
have
elections,
so
discussions
began
and
along
the
way,
the
early
strategies
and
planning
sessions
occurred
in
the
start
of
2022.
The
State
Board
of
Elections
continued
discussions
with
Miss
Morrell,
who
is
with
us
today.
H
Ms
Morrell
is
known
throughout
the
election
world
as
a
subject
matter
expert
in
the
area
of
audits,
particularly
in
rlas,
as
they
are
often
referred
to,
with
her
help
and
more
guidance
from
the
general
assembly
and
five
in
house
bill
564.,
we
moved
forward
with
the
establishment
of
milestones
and
a
path
to
completing
the
mandates
of
the
pilot
program.
Our
first
task
was
to
put
together
a
working
group
to
educate
ourselves
about
this
type
of
audit
and
how
it
could
work
in
Kentucky
joining
the
team.
H
H
We
also
had
members
of
the
Secretary
of
State
Adams's
office,
representatives
of
the
election
systems
and
software
harp
Enterprises
Inc,
representing
heart
inner
Civic,
the
other
certified
vote.
The
two
certified
voting
machine
systems
that
are
allowed
in
Kentucky
and
rounding
out.
The
group
Trey
Grayson,
who
is
the
election
expert
in
his
own
right
with
a
diverse
group,
formed
SBE,
led
the
project
forward,
developing
the
concepts
that
believed
that
would
believe
to
be
worked
in
Kentucky.
H
As
a
plan
plan
to
launch
the
pilot
in
Fayette,
County,
Kenton,
Henderson,
Madison,
Johnson
and
Anderson,
shortly
after
the
November
general
election
final
preparations
for
the
counties
were
made
the
most
important
part,
putting
together
each
of
these
County's
ballot
manifests,
which
is
also
addressed
on
page
eight
of
the
handout.
These
are
lists
of
every
scanner
in
each
County
during
the
election,
along
with
the
locations
and
types
of
the
scanners
and
then
after
the
election,
the
numbers
would
be
added
to
that
manifest
of
how
many
votes
were
in
each
of
those
scanning
machines.
H
Once
we
had,
this
SBE
began
testing
the
rla
spreadsheet
tool
developed
by
Miss
Morrell's
team.
The
tool
was
designed
to
help
us
in
three
ways.
I
would
determine
the
acceptable
sample
size
to
be
pulled
for
examined
ballots.
It
would
produce
a
random
sampling
of
ballots
that
we
needed
to
pull
and
it
would
compare
the
margin
of
victory
for
the
certified
winners
in
the
elections
to
the
margin
of
Victory
produced
by
the
sample
size
that
we
pulled.
H
We
were
ready
to
go
in
December
and
then
Fayette
County
held
their
elections
in
November
and
which
ended
in
two
recount
contests.
This
put
us
on
hold
for
a
bit
and
had
us
change
our
our
plans
slightly
instead
of
Performing,
the
rla
in
December,
all
six
counties
decided
that
the
pilot
would
would
be
beneficial
if
we
isolated,
Fayette
County
separate
and
combine
the
other
five
counties.
So
we
in
essence,
did
two
rla
projects.
H
So
to
get
started
after
the
the
recounts
were
clear
and
collect.
Taylor
gave
us
the
click
all
go
ahead.
Our
State
Board
of
Elections
members
met
on
Tuesday
January
17th
to
perform
a
public
dice
roll
to
get
a
15-digit
seed
that
we
could
plug
into
that
rla
project
that
rla
tool.
That
was
actually
a
fun
day
for
our
board
members,
since
they
got
to
roll
the
dice.
We
had
a
little
gaming
going
on
in
the
boardroom,
so
that
was
a
little
bit
different.
H
So
on
Thursday
19,
Thursday,
January
19th,
our
staff,
along
with
Miss
Morrell,
a
cog
league
and
a
colleague,
deployed
to
each
of
the
six
counties
to
Monitor
and
assist
with
the
pilot
project,
and
we
all
thought
due
to
the
amount
of
ballots
we
had
to
pull,
which
was
466
from
Fayette
County
at
607
from
the
other
five
counties
that
everything
would
be
pretty
quick
and
smooth.
H
H
Each
County
took
their
generated
lists
of
ballots
to
be
pulled
from
their
machines
and
started
working
in
pairs
of
two,
which
would
be
a
Republican
and
Democrat
in
a
normal
setting,
participants
organized
ballots
from
those
still
locked
and
in
in
all
cases,
but
in
Fayette
County
sealed
voting
machines
once
organized.
They
began
counting
the
stacks
and
retrieving
the
randomly
selected
ballots
after
this
process
was
completed,
the
ballots
were
pulled
the
wood
and
would
be
hand
counted
and
tallied
again
by
the
two
pair
by
pairs
of
two
people.
H
The
certified
results
which
you
can
tell
on
page
12
in
your
packets,
showed
that
Booker
having
59.81
to
Paul's
fit
39
percent
matched
the
almost
matched
perfectly
with
the
rla
samples
showed
Booker
having
59.4
percent
one
poor
percent
and
Paul
is
39.14
percent.
The
other
counties
combine
totals
Paul
Paul
received
61.6
percent
to
37.2
percent
in
the
certified
results.
The
rla
results
showed
60
for
Paul
and
38
for
Booker
being
a
pilot
in
our
first
running
of
these
result.
These
the
results
were
very
encouraging
and
summation.
H
We
learned
a
great
deal
from
the
development
and
implementation
of
this
pilot
program.
This
process
appears
to
be
have
Merit,
based
on
the
results
alone.
There
are
operational
tasks
that
we
would
need
to
be
worked
out
through
a
law
through
and
along
other
issues
that
require
further
examination
and
discussion.
H
Sb
would
at
least
like
to
be
recommend
an
expanded
pilot
program
with
more
counties
to
see
what
can
be
improved
and
to
get
more
cost
and
time
analysis
with
that
again,
thank
you
for
your
opportunity,
this
opportunity
and
to
participants
of
the
pilot.
We
appreciate
your
time
and
work
on
the
behalf
of
the
Commonwealth.
H
L
I,
really
don't
have
much
to
add.
Richard
did
a
phenomenal
job
there
and
I'm
just
honored
that
I
got
to
participate
with
them.
I
think
the
way
that
they
went
about
this
was
Stellar
taking
their
time
to
make
sure
everybody
had
a
full
understanding
of
how
rlas
work
the
requirements
in
terms
of
ballot
accounting
organization
storage.
L
We
spent
a
lot
of
time
working
through
that
and
that's
absolutely
the
way
that
you
want
to
conduct
your
first,
your
initial
pilot
project,
so
I'm
really
just
here
to
answer
any
questions
that
Richard
isn't
able
to
answer
he's
now.
Also
an
audit
expert,
having
spent
a
lot
of
time
over
the
last
year.
Thinking
and
reading
about
this.
J
Yes,
I've
got
a
question
for
you:
House
Bill
574
had
permissive
language
in
it
to
allow
us
to
conduct
rlas.
Was
there
any
prescriptive
language
that
told
you
exactly
how
to
do
that,
or
is
that
codified
in
a
regulation
somewhere
or
the
working
group
just
come
up
with
this
protocol?
Well.
H
J
Okay,
my
understanding
of
rlas
from
other
states
is
a
lot
of
states,
use
serialized
ballots
and
that's
how
they
select
the
random
balance.
Since
our
ballots
are
not
serialized.
How
did
you
do
that.
H
We
use
the
ballot
polling
process,
which
was
just
randomization.
It
wasn't
anything
selected
it
would.
It
wasn't
meant
that
you're
talking
about
using
cast
vote
records,
Kentucky's
machines,
they
do
have
that
ability
the
more
they
transition
to
the
the
newer
machines,
but
that
would
be
a
costly,
more
costly
process
as
far
as
having
to
to
change
that
in
a
update.
Take
those
voting
equipment
to
do
that
and
the
clerks
have
not
done
that
yet
using
that
gas
ballot
vote
record.
That
is
something
we
could
examine
in
the
future.
H
L
Happy
to
take
it
from
here
Richard,
so
there
are
three
main
methods
for
conducting
risk:
limiting
Audits
and
the
method
that
you're
referring
to
ballot
comparison
method
works
great
in
states
where
ballots
are
centrally
scanned,
so
that
that
normally
is
states
where
you
see
a
predominance
of
mail,
ballots
or
ballots
being
brought
back
from
voting
location
and
scanned
in
an
operations
facility,
and
that
allows
a
couple
of
things
that
allows,
as
you
mentioned
the
imprinting.
L
It
allows
you
to
then
take
that
and
compare
that
directly
to
the
cast
vote,
record
and
I
would
say
for
states
that
are
have
either
made
risk,
limiting
audits,
a
requirement
or
piloting.
That's
actually
not
the
norm.
So
Most
states
that
again
Colorado
and
some
of
some
of
the
other
western
states
that
centrally
scan
can
do
that
direct
comparison.
L
A
ballot
to
a
customer
record
most
are
doing
what
you
all
just
did
in
Kentucky
ballot
polling,
where
we
take
a
random
sample
and
we
hand
tally
that
sample
and
we're
looking
for
a
similar
result
to
what
was
officially
reported.
Other
states
are
using
what
what
we
call
batch
comparisons.
We
may
take
all
the
ballots
in
a
single
container
or
batch
hand,
tally
those
and
compare
those
to
subtotals
from
the
voting
system.
L
The
other
thing
that
I
would
flag
there
when
we
talk
about
putting
a
unique
number
on
a
ballot
and
why
that's
not
being
done
in
in
many
states
is
because
Most
states
scan
ballots
at
the
precinct
level
right
if
you're
not
scanning
in
a
central
facility
but
you're
scanning
them
right
there,
where
a
voter
votes,
putting
a
serialized
number
of
risks.
L
Sorry
risk
voter
exposing
how
a
voter
voted
so
voter
secrecy.
Voter
anonymity,
then,
is
is
subject
to
that.
That's
a
problem,
and
so
we
have
not
I,
don't
know
of
any
state.
That's
doing
that.
Putting
a
serialized
number
when
they're
scanning
ballots
at
a
polling,
location.
K
J
For
those
reasons,
I
just
wanted
to
know
how
we
did
our
random
selection,
but
you
did
mention
the
batch
rla
method.
So
if
we
were
to
say,
take
one
scanner,
one
ballot
counter
at
a
Precinct
and
do
that
batch
method
and
count
that
entire
scanners
ballots
three
five.
Six
hundred
thousand
compare
that
to
the
talent
that
would
be
a
valid
method
of
performing
an
rla.
L
It
would
be
a
valid
method
and
for
a
lot
of
States,
that's
become
the
preferred
method.
It's
it's
fairly.
Intuitive
election
administrators
understand
how
to
do
that.
It's
very
similar
to
recount
requirements.
It's
a
little
bit
easier
to
explain
to
the
public,
because
you're
taking
totals
from
that
hand
count
you're,
comparing
them
directly
to
something
coming
out
of
the
voting
system.
L
It's
really
tough,
though,
when
you
have
early
voting,
because
if
it's
just
three
or
four
or
five
or
six
hundred
ballots
in
a
batch,
that's
not
tough
to
sit
and
hand
count
those.
But
when
a
single
batch
or
a
single
container
contains
ballots
for
the
whole
early
voting
period,
you
potentially
have
thousands
of
ballots,
and
so
there,
because
we
randomly
select
those
right.
L
There
is
a
chance
or
a
probability
that
that
early
voting
batch
that
batch
with
thousands
of
ballots
may
be
the
one
that's
selected
again,
I
know
of
a
state
that
decided
to.
They
still
wanted
to
move
forward
with
it
and
take
that
risk
and
for
most
of
their
counties.
They
ended
up
with
normal
sized
batches
and
they
had
one
County
that
Drew
the
Short
Straw
and
had
to
count
almost
10
000
ballots
were
in
that
particular
batch.
L
J
Well,
certainly,
thank
you
for
the
explanation.
I
certainly
prefer
the
the
batch
method
and
we've
discussed
that
with
some
proposed
legislation
is
being
easier
to
understand
by
the
public
and
easier
to
executed
by
the
county
clerks
and
we'll
get
into
that
a
bit.
This
summer,
I
was
wondering
if
you
have
an
estimate
from
our
state
or
other
states
about
how
many
ballots
you
can
recount.
In
an
hour,
I've
heard
members
of
recounts
in
the
courtroom
settings
of
about
300
an
hour
for
a
single
single
race.
H
We'll
say,
with
this
rla,
we
learned
that
problem
isn't
actually
counting
a
moral
Italian.
It's
the
organization
and
you
have
a
picture
in
your
packet
there
of
wood.
All
of
the
voting
machines
look
like
when
they
come
to
the
clerk
back
to
the
clerk's
office,
so
that
would
be
the
that
would
be
the
big
issue
of
organization
of
those
ballots.
Yeah.
D
H
I
saw
you
shrug
at
that.
Yes,
it
was
our
biggest
obstacle
in
this
rla
and
it
was
the
most
time
consuming.
You're,
like
a,
for
instance,
in
hearing,
went
to
Johnson
County
and
only
had
to
pull
25
ballots
from
a
few
machines,
but
it
took
two
hours
to
do
that
in
Henderson
County.
We
went
and
pulled
72
ballots
in
about
three
and
a
half
hours
out
of
about
20
machines,
so
it
it
was
very
time
consuming
in
larger
counties.
It
was
a
a
big
part.
H
J
A
Thank
you,
representative,
Decker.
K
K
H
We
well
there
are
there
you
could
put
in
those
machines
there,
they
do
make
these
little
tubs
that
catch
ballots
and
organize
them
a
little
bit
better.
The
problem
with
that
is
is
the
first
ballot
that
drops
in
the
machine.
If
somebody
got
creative
at
some
point
in
time
in
life,
maybe
you
could
decide
how
that
person's
ballot
was
I
mean.
That
was
always
the
the
part
of
that
is
trying
to
keep
the
voters
secrecy.
H
We
we
struggled
with
that
in
the
pilot
program
and
discussing
different
different
methods
and
things
as
far
as
how
to
keep
that
balance.
Secrecy
I
know
that
Jason's
trying
to
figure
out
a
way
to
create
some
kind
of
Jiggler
that
makes
makes
them
flow
into
a
good
good
path
or
something,
but
we'll
we're.
Certainly
looking
at
that,
because
that
was
the
that
was
the
biggest
part
of
the
rlas.
That
was
the
most
tasking.
A
A
Okay,
do
I
hear
a
motion
to
adjourn
we
adjourned.
Thank
you.