This is the second of a two-part series of articles looking at the absence of specimen ballots in Greenbelt in time for the primary election on June 23. This article investigates what caused the delayed mailing.
Specimen ballots should have been mailed to voters by June 4 at the latest according to Maryland election law, which states that they must be mailed at least one week before the first day of an early voting period (see the August 6 article). On June 15, State Administrator of Elections Jared DeMarinis personally directed the county’s Board of Elections (BoE) to draft a press release and approved it before publication. DeMarinis did not respond to the questions in our press inquiry on July 24 nor acknowledge subsequent follow-up. Residents of Greenbelt and some other areas of the county reported receiving their specimen ballots after the election.
Several issues led to the delay, including approval delay, mailing errors and communication problems. In addition, on June 17, documents obtained by the News Review through a Maryland Public Information Act (MPIA) request show the vendor reported there were insufficient funds in the BoE’s mailing account to pay for the ballot mailing, 13 days after the mailing deadline. It’s not clear whether lack of mailing funds contributed to any delay, though it threatened to.
Cause of Delay
Election Administrator Wendy Honesty-Bey told the News Review, “Multiple factors contributed to the delay in mailing the specimen ballots, two of which were primary: proof approval delays and address errors in voter files.” According to Honesty-Bey, “The initial proof from the vendor was approved on May 20, 2026. However, an unauthorized edit required correction [to the ballot], which the Board ultimately approved on May 26. The second major factor involved voter mailing addresses. On June 3, the vendor notified us of several incomplete addresses. Treating these messages as routine informational updates, the board staff did not immediately take action. Consequently, board staff did not learn that the specimen ballots had not actually been mailed until June 8.”
Address Errors
On June 3, the day before the shipping deadline, Adrian Salotti, postage specialist and mailing representative with the vendor Indiana Printing & Publishing Company (IPP), alerted the BoE to the address errors. He sent further emails on June 4 and June 5 with details of address issues found, stating “please advise,” in both communications. Although Honesty-Bey says the BoE treated these messages “as routine informational updates,” the message thread from the vendor had a subject line that included the word “urgent” in all caps and it was titled “URGENT MAILING INQUIRY: Addresses missing City, State, ZIP.”
On June 8, IPP General Manager Jamee Crusan intervened to solicit a response from the BoE, writing, “Could someone please get back to Adrian as soon as possible? Missing these address details is delaying the shipping process. Additionally, please verify the current balance of the postage account so we can ensure these items are shipped promptly.” Honesty-Bey responded an hour later, which was five days after the first email alerting the BoE of address issues, saying the June 4 spreadsheet “only had two names listed” and asking: “So are you tell[ing] me that based on that, you all haven’t shipped any specimen ballots out yet? Or just those that are in question.” Honesty-Bey also stated she would verify postage that day, which was June 8.
At that point, no ballots had been shipped. Salotti replied that the rest of the ballots have been “getting prepped for mailing in the meantime,” and “as soon as we have confirmation on the funds being available on the permit, we can begin delivery.”
Postage Funds
The BoE in their summary of what caused delays did not mention postage funding but repeated messages from the vendor warned them that funds had to be in the mailing account. As noted, Honesty-Bey first said she would check that funds were available on June 8, which was already past the statutory deadline for the mailings. On June 12, eight days after the mailing deadline, Salotti again asked the BoE to verify that postage amounts will be available. Honesty-Bey responded on June 12 saying there should be funds in the account and asking if ballots had been mailed yet, since they had passed the deadline.
On June 15 Crusan wrote: “We began mailing last week, and the remaining items should be out by the end of this week. Please ensure that the necessary funds are available in the permit account.”
On June 17 the Distribution Manager for IPP Terri Maughan emailed Honesty-Bey, “We are currently scheduling the truck to pick up the voters’ guides for tomorrow’s delivery. While preparing the mail permits, we noticed that there are still insufficient funds in the postal account.
“Could you please verify when the postage will be paid? I want to ensure there are no issues with tomorrow’s deliveries, as they will consist of two truckloads.” In an email shortly after, Maughan clarified: “I cannot schedule the trucks until postage payment is confirmed. If this is not resolved by 2 p.m. today, we will have to reschedule the deliveries for Monday, assuming funds are available by then. We want to avoid further delays and are doing everything possible on our end to stay on schedule. However, we require confirmation of payment before we can move forward.”
The Monday referenced was June 22, one day before the election.
Honesty-Bey did not respond by the 2 p.m. Wednesday deadline but at 4:45 p.m. wrote that she had informed “Mike” (likely IPP President Mike Donnelly) the day before that funds would be available on Thursday and “you all can [send] it out.” “So now, they won’t be going out until Monday???” asked Honesty-Bey. Maughan responded, “When we ran the report it said insufficient funds. We have it resolved and we are on track with tomorrow’s delivery.”
It’s unclear if the trucks made the delivery on Thursday but Honesty-Bey has given the final delivery date as a day later, Friday, June 19.
The News Review has not yet obtained documents that confirm the dates of the mailings, which the BoE says were sent in waves with the first on June 10 and final on June 19. We have submitted a supplemental MPIA request for USPS receipts and postage statements to confirm mailing dates.
Announcement of Delay
Prince George’s County Board of Elections did not announce the delay until June 16, 12 days after the deadline and five days after early voting began. Honesty-Bey previously told the News Review via email that the date of the undated press release about the delay on the Prince George’s County BoE website was June 12. Internal communications obtained via an MPIA request show the press release was drafted on the evening of June 15 following a directive from DeMarinis and was approved by him the same evening prior to posting.
DeMarinis emailed Honesty-Bey on the afternoon of June 15 saying, “We are receiving many calls regarding the specimen ballots. You should issue a statement that they [were] sent out. I would acknowledge the fact that they were sent late. This will stop some of the mis/disinformation being circulated around them.” Honesty-Bey this week apologized for “misspeaking” and gave the actual date of the press release as June 16.
Delivery Timeline
The vendor informed the BoE that “ballot styles under 200 in quantity do not qualify for bulk rates and must run as first class.” Those mailings were set to arrive within one to three business days, according to IPP. The majority of the mailings were a bulk mailing, which are not required to be sent first class. At time of press Honesty-Bey had not responded to our inquiry about whether they had been provided with delivery estimates for bulk mailing timeframes or what they understood those to be.
However, based on Honesty-Bey’s assertion that final mailings were sent on Friday, June 19, if delivery took more than two business days (Saturday and Monday) the specimen ballots would have arrived on election day or later.
Complaints from Public
Records reviewed by the News Review show the BoE received documented complaints from voters across the county who did not receive specimen ballots prior to the primary. At least two complaints in the MPIA file are from voters who complain of receiving specimen ballots for the wrong legislative district, and at least one Republican household says they received a specimen ballot with blank pages where candidate information should have appeared.
No Competitive Bid Process
Prince George’s County paid IPP a total of $370,293 for the specimen ballot mailing contract. It is not yet clear what the postage cost itself was for the mailing.
The contract was a sole source or no-bid contract “due to the time-sensitive nature of election preparation and printing deadlines” and the need for a vendor “capable of producing and distributing three high-volume voter guides within a limited timeframe.” The BoE’s justification for bypassing the competitive bid process was partly based on volume but the justification gave a figure approximately 30 percent higher than the actual mailing need.
In the justification for the sole source contract, IPP was said to have “the required paper stock reserved and production capacity available to meet the schedule for printing approximately 629,000 voter guides and coordinating mailing services.”
“Delays associated with a competitive procurement process could jeopardize the timely distribution of voter information to registered voters prior to the election period. Therefore, this vendor is considered the only practical source capable of meeting the required timeline and production requirements.” Though the justification cited 629,000 specimen ballots, documents obtained via MPIA show BoE IT Manager Shafiq Satterfield stated on May 11 that the number of specimen ballots to be mailed “may be slightly under the 486,000 marker.” Honesty-Bey did not respond to our inquiry about the origins of the 629,000 number by press time.
Our MPIA request returned that there are no internal reports, formal assessments, or after-action documents that followed the specimen ballot delay.
The News Review has submitted a supplemental MPIA request for USPS delivery records and also awaits a response to questions sent to IPP.
