Special coverage — updated November 5, 11:12 a.m. Eastern. Croton News will update this article as more information and developments are confirmed. Dated updates identify what has changed. The county results below retain their stated source time and are unofficial and incomplete. An omitted village-justice contest in Ardsley triggered the ballot-definition change behind Westchester’s Election Day scanning disruption, according to a new explanation from the New York State Board of Elections. The board also supplied Croton News with the signed court order governing how unscanned ballots were to be transported, guarded and counted. For Croton voters, the unanswered question remains how many local ballots are still outside the published count. Both the state and the county communications office directed our operational questions to the County Board of Elections. Croton News has now sent the inquiry directly to that board. The state identifies the omitted contest “The village justice for Ardsley was left off the original ballot definition file by the Westchester County Board of Elections,” Kathleen McGrath, the state board’s director of public information, wrote in a 10:33 a.m. email Thursday to Croton News. McGrath said the contest had to appear on the ballot to preserve the opportunity for write-in votes, even when no candidates are listed on ballot lines. When the contest was added, the definition file changed. The ballots were printed using the new file, while affected Election Day scanners retained the earlier definition, she said. The distinction matters: McGrath said the scanners behaved as designed by rejecting ballots they could not recognize, rather than incorrectly tabulating them. Her explanation concerns mismatched election files, rather than a hardware malfunction. The state’s November 3 statement had already said the updated programming was tested and deployed for early voting and for Election Day machines in the municipality with the changed contest. Election Day machines elsewhere retained the original programming. Thursday’s reply identifies that municipality and contest. McGrath said the state’s November 3 communications remained accurate and required no correction. The news release attached to her reply repeats the substantive explanation already published, including its statement that no identified problem with the paper or its physical characteristics prevented scanning. What the signed court order requires The three-page consent order supplied by the State Board is dated November 3 and signed by state Supreme Court Justice Paul I. Marx. It was made on the parties’ consent in a proceeding brought by the state Democratic and Republican parties against the county and state election boards and the county Department of Public Safety. The order requires police to transport unscanned ballots directly from polling locations to the designated county facility and safeguard them through completion of the county canvass. Containers must be sealed; seals may be broken before scanning only in the presence of representatives of both major parties. Candidate and party representatives have the right to observe as provided by Election Law. Scanning must take place at the central location, start as soon as practicable but no later than 11 a.m. November 4, and “continue uninterrupted until complete.” Unscanned ballots must remain separate from already-canvassed ballots during transport. The order does not set a completion deadline. McGrath said scanning began Wednesday, November 4. Croton News is seeking the actual scanning timetable, current ballot totals and records showing how the safeguards were carried out. The supplied copy does not display a court index number; we have requested it from the county. Where Croton’s count stands The county’s public results export, checked Thursday morning, lists all eight Croton election districts as partially reported. A district appearing in the results does not establish that every ballot from that district has been counted. For the two trustee seats, the totals combining each candidate’s ballot lines are Maria F. Slippen, 2,072; Leonard S. Simon, 1,851; and Mary Lynn Dlabola, 750. There are 19 write-in votes. Because voters could select two trustees, these candidate totals are not a count of individual voters. For village justice, Ali Raza Jaffery has 1,438 votes and Sam R. Watkins, Jr. has 1,172, with two write-ins. Jaffery’s reported lead is 266 votes. These figures describe the posted count, not a final result or a projection. The export was generated at 10:15 p.m. Eastern on November 4 and was checked by Croton News on November 5. Its generation time is separate from our check time. The official results page and this site’s existing homepage results box provide subsequent count updates; the article’s figures retain their stated source time. The commissioners’ Wednesday remarks News 12’s November 4 update, posted at 9:30 p.m., reported that counting began around 11 a.m. Wednesday and that no completion estimate was available at that time. Democratic Commissioner Tajian Nelson told News 12, “We are still investigating that,” and said a final statement would follow review, including consultation with the state board. Republican Commissioner Douglas Colety said, “No foul play whatsoever,” and rejected the suggestion of hacking. Those were their Wednesday statements; Croton News is seeking the underlying testing records and investigation findings. Questions now with the County Board County Communications Director Catherine Cioffi replied Thursday, “You have to contact the Board of Elections.” McGrath likewise directed questions about county staff, the testing timeline and polling sites to the county board. Croton News sent the questions directly to the County Board on Thursday. The questions seek:
  • When the Ardsley omission was discovered and corrected, who prepared, approved and distributed the file versions, and why other Election Day scanners retained the earlier version.
  • Whether the final printed ballot styles were tested against the programming actually installed, and what version checks and logic-and-accuracy records are available.
  • The number of affected locations, scanners and ballots, with a breakdown for Croton’s eight districts and any documented delays or accessibility problems.
  • A timestamped accounting of ballots received, scanned and reconciled, and still outstanding; which voting methods appear in the local totals; and when more returns will be posted.
  • The actual scanning timetable, reconciliation against participation records and earlier scans, any discrepancies, and records of custody, seal opening and observer access.
  • The investigation’s leadership, expected findings and corrective actions, available public incident reports, the court index number and any later orders.
A substantive response from the County Board on those questions is pending. The communications office’s referral is not a refusal by the board to comment. Update log November 5, 11:12 a.m. Eastern: Added McGrath’s identification of the omitted Ardsley contest, her explanation of the ballot-file mismatch and the signed court order supplied with her reply. Clarified the distinction between a scanning disruption and a hardware malfunction; added the court’s safeguards and start-of-scanning deadline, and the direct County Board referral. The attached news release repeats the earlier substantive statement. The reported election figures retain their November 4 export time. November 5, 10:20 a.m. Eastern: Initial special-coverage article brought together the state’s explanation, the commissioners’ latest located remarks, the county’s posted Croton returns and the questions sent to officials.