Local election directors say that complying with a state senator’s election audit would end up costing local taxpayers.

No local counties have been contacted by State Sen. Doug Mastriano, as part of his audit.

Mastriano, the chairman of the Senate Intergovernmental Operations committee, wants to conduct an audit of the 2020 presidential election similar to the one underway in Arizona, reviewing ballots, voting machines and databases for possible irregularities.

Schuylkill County Elections Director Albert Gricoski said he would deny access to third-party entities who want to examine election machines.

“I agree that I don’t like having the idea to have somebody look at our machines, because you are going to compromise the integrity of an election,” he said.

Such a request has not been made yet, nor does he believe one would occur.

He hasn’t spoken to the three county commissioners who comprise the election board, nor the solicitor, although he plans to speak with the solicitor.

“I’m very confident in the security and the integrity of our election,” he said, speaking of Schuylkill County.

Mastriano requested a forensic audit of the 2020 general election and 2021 primary.

He reportedly issued letters to three counties, York, Tioga and Philadelphia, seeking voluntary compliance.

Mastriano says the examination will “go a long way to restore trust in our system.”

He said the investigation isn’t about overturning the results.

Gov. Tom Wolf said in a tweet July 7 “The latest conspiracy-driven scheme to undermine PA’s election process echoes the wasteful efforts in Arizona. A sham election review of the 2020 election will only compromise voting machines, add expenses to counties, and undermine our democracy. I will not stand for it.”

Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro said he would intervene on behalf of counties if Mastriano issues subpoenas for election information, calling the audit a ‘fishing expedition.’

“Although two legal audits have already been completed in Pennsylvania, Senator Mastriano is now requesting a laundry list of confidential and privileged information from three Pennsylvania counties in continued efforts to pay homage to former President Trump and further spread misinformation about our elections.

Acting Secretary of State Veronica W. Degraffenreid issued a directive July 8 concerning access to electronic voting systems, including but not limited to the imaging of software and memory files, access to related internal components and the consequences to county boards allowing such access.

It says that counties “shall not provide physical, electronic, or internal access to third parties seeking to copy or conduct an examination of state-certified electronic voting systems, or any components of such systems.

It further states the DOS will withdraw certification of the items that are affected. Also, the state will not pay for replacements. Each board of elections is required to notify Degraffenreid of any requests for access to an electronic voting system or components.

Local counties spent hundreds of thousands, if not millions replacing voting machines prior to the 2019 general election.

“None of us can afford to have anyone touch our machines,” said Sara May-Silfee, director of elections for Monroe County.

Schuylkill County replaced more than 260 voting machines for the 2020 election, Gricoski said. Cost to replace the machines was $1.6 million, according to Times News archives. The state reimbursed the county some of that cost.

Carbon County spent about $500,000 replacing its voting machines.

Election director Lisa Dart said if the investigation takes the machines, they would be decertified, and unable to be used again.

”If I would give them any of my stuff, I can’t use it ever again,” said Dart.

Dart said she has been instructed by the county solicitor to forward all requests for information to the county’s election board. She said he agrees with the Department’s stance that third parties should not be given access to internal information.

If the county receives a subpoena to hand over ballots or voting machines, they would forward it to the department of state.

Dart said that she’s confident in the way the county conducted the election. She said they conducted two separate audits where they compared a sample of paper ballots with the electronic results.

“We check everything when it comes in, and if we have to physically count ballots they are there, we can,” Dart said.