I Participated in Nebraska’s Election Audit Process. We Can Do Better.

GUEST CONTRIBUTOR By Danna Seevers Chairwoman, Seward County Republican Party

I have participated in Nebraska’s post-election manual audit process.

I believe in elections. I believe in transparency. And I believe the public deserves election systems that inspire confidence, not just assurances that everything is fine.

That is why I feel compelled to speak up about what I witnessed during Nebraska’s manual audit process.

Most Nebraskans probably assume a “manual audit” means a truly independent, surprise verification of election results. But that is not really how the current system works.

Under Nebraska’s audit procedures, the Secretary of State selects which precincts and races will be audited and notifies counties one day after the election. The actual audit may not happen until a week or more later.

In addition, the audit reviews only three contests total, typically one federal race, one statewide race, and one local contest. In many cases, the local race may be a small contest with relatively few ballots involved. That leaves many races and ballot questions completely outside the audit process.

That raises an obvious concern: if the purpose of an audit is to independently verify results, why are the specific precincts identified days in advance?

During the audit I participated in, the ballot containers had already been opened before we arrived. Early voted and mail-in ballots for the selected precinct had also already been separated from the main batch before the audit board began its work.

Maybe there are explanations for these procedures. But ordinary citizens should not be criticized for asking whether this process truly reflects the spirit of an independent audit.

The problem is not simply whether mistakes or wrongdoing occurred. The problem is public confidence.

Audits are supposed to reassure voters that election systems are transparent, accountable, and trustworthy. Yet many of the procedures currently used seem designed around administrative convenience rather than maximum public confidence.

Nebraska can do better.

We should have:

• stronger chain-of-custody protections,

• greater transparency surrounding ballot handling,

• more independent audit procedures,

• and audit methods that are truly random and publicly observable.

None of these reforms should frighten honest election officials. In fact, stronger transparency should benefit everyone.

As citizens, we should be able to ask reasonable questions about election procedures without being mocked, dismissed, or labeled extremists.

Wanting transparent audits does not make someone “anti-election.” It means they care enough about elections to want them done right.

I appreciate leaders willing to listen to these concerns instead of pretending they do not exist. That is one reason I support Scott Petersen for Nebraska Secretary of State.

Regardless of political party, every Nebraskan should want election audits that are beyond reproach and worthy of public trust.

Because confidence in elections is not something government officials can demand.

It is something they must earn.