Clear Ballot

Name: Clear Ballot
Brand: Clear Ballot

Clear Ballot is a U.S. election technology vendor that provides paper-ballot imaging, ballot scanning/tabulation, adjudication workflows, and post-election audit and verification tools for election administrators.

Est 2009|Valuation $40M|Raised $23.9M|42 Ref Customers

LinkedIn 2K|Website|FTEs 81

Published Sep 19, 2026

01Common complaints

Clear Ballot may be a weaker choice when:

Standardized review-platform presence is a procurement requirement. Clear Ballot has limited visibility on mainstream review sites, so diligence must rely more on references, demonstrations, and public records.
You need immediate deployment of new voting methods without certification. Feature upgrades that enable new voting methods (for example, RCV) may be constrained by state certification timelines.
Enterprise compliance attestations are required. If a procurement requires publicly available SOC 2 Type II or ISO 27001 attestations, these are not prominently published for Clear Ballot in the reviewed materials.
Budget predictability is a primary constraint. Without published pricing, early benchmarking is harder; structured RFP comparisons and reference pricing should be obtained.

Clear Ballot may be a weaker choice when: - **Standardized review-platform presence is a procurement requirement.** Clear Ballot has limited visibility on mainstream review sites, so diligence must rely more on references, demonstrations, and public records. - **You need immediate deployment of new voting methods without certification.** Feature upgrades that enable new voting methods (for example, RCV) may be constrained by state certification timelines. - **Enterprise compliance attestations are required.** If a procurement requires publicly available SOC 2 Type II or ISO 27001 attestations, these are not prominently published for Clear Ballot in the reviewed materials. - **Budget predictability is a primary constraint.** Without published pricing, early benchmarking is harder; structured RFP comparisons and reference pricing should be obtained.

Deal disqualifiers (poor fit)

Jurisdictions needing highly customized election models on short timelines where certification may not align.
Buyers who require standardized enterprise security attestations (SOC 2/ISO) as a hard procurement requirement and for which the vendor cannot provide recent attestations.

Vendor-acknowledged limitations

No explicit public “known issues” list was identified on vendor pages in the reviewed material.

Practical limitations surfaced by public sources

Feature upgrades depend on certification: public reporting indicates that adoption of new features (e.g., RCV support) can be blocked until state certification is completed.

Roadmap visibility

The vendor publishes news and certification updates, but does not publish a detailed public roadmap with target dates in the materials reviewed.

Scale and reliability metrics

The vendor references deployments in jurisdictions of various sizes, but systematic reliability metrics (e.g., MTBF, election-night throughput benchmarks, downtime statistics) are not publicly standardized in the materials reviewed.

02Why they buy

Unique selling points supported by evidence

EAC-certified ClearVote releases: multiple ClearVote versions appear in EAC certification listings.
Closed-network posture for certified products (vendor-described): the vendor documents operation without Internet/Wi‑Fi/Bluetooth in certified configurations, and describes encryption and audit-log capabilities.
Ballot imaging and adjudication workflows: county communications and vendor materials highlight high-resolution ballot images and adjudication workflows intended to support interpretation of ambiguous marks.

- **EAC-certified ClearVote releases:** multiple ClearVote versions appear in EAC certification listings. - **Closed-network posture for certified products (vendor-described):** the vendor documents operation without Internet/Wi‑Fi/Bluetooth in certified configurations, and describes encryption and audit-log capabilities. - **Ballot imaging and adjudication workflows:** county communications and vendor materials highlight high-resolution ballot images and adjudication workflows intended to support interpretation of ambiguous marks.

Where competitors may have stronger advantages

Larger installed-base ecosystems and broader third-party integration footprints can favor other vendors in certain states.
Competitors may have more publicly visible procurement artifacts, training ecosystems, and broader third-party commentary.

03Field reports

Important caveat on review platforms

Clear Ballot is a specialized government election-technology provider. Unlike mainstream B2B enterprise software vendors, it has limited presence on typical review platforms in the sources reviewed. As a result, publicly available reviews are primarily drawn from:

public-sector announcements,
vendor case-study style quotes,
government certification pages,
local journalism.

Representative customer statements (sourced)

A vendor-quoted county election official stated: “ClearAudit gives us absolute comfort providing an independent validation of election results and a digital inventory that no other system provides.”
A county government announcement described ClearVote as replacing an older optical scanning system with a digital imaging system intended to provide faster processing and additional visual data for determining voter intent, including high-resolution images of paper ballots and instant visuals to determine voter intent.

Notes on evaluation:

Several positive statements in public materials are either vendor-quoted or come from county press announcements. These are useful as qualitative evidence but do not replace systematic, independently collected user ratings or controlled impact studies.

- A vendor-quoted county election official stated: “ClearAudit gives us absolute comfort providing an independent validation of election results and a digital inventory that no other system provides.” - A county government announcement described ClearVote as replacing an older optical scanning system with a digital imaging system intended to provide faster processing and additional visual data for determining voter intent, including high-resolution images of paper ballots and instant visuals to determine voter intent. Notes on evaluation: - Several positive statements in public materials are either vendor-quoted or come from county press announcements. These are useful as qualitative evidence but do not replace systematic, independently collected user ratings or controlled impact studies.

Critical / cautionary sentiment examples

Certification gating for feature changes (ranked-choice voting): Local reporting indicates that some jurisdictions will not install updates that are not state-certified, and that adding ranked-choice voting can have legal, staffing, voter-education, and funding consequences. This highlights a buyer constraint: vendor-provided feature updates may be constrained by certification timelines.

Why customers select Clear Ballot (inferred from public sources)

Common selection drivers suggested by county announcements and vendor claims include:

adoption of ballot imaging and adjudication workflows,
audit and verification capabilities as part of the vendor’s product set,
perceived improvements in processing speed and modernization of workflows.

Why some customers might leave (inferred)

Public sources do not provide clear churn narratives. Likely churn drivers in this market include:

total cost (capital and ongoing),
procurement politics and statewide standardization decisions,
certification delays for requested features,
usability and training burdens,
vendor responsiveness during critical election windows.

Case study 1: a large urban county (ClearVote rollout)

What happened: A large urban county announced it would deploy ClearVote to replace an older optical scanning system, citing expectations of faster processing and additional visual data to help determine voter intent.

Reported benefits:

reduced preprocessing labor (county statement used figurative language to describe prior effort),
improved ability to interpret voter intent via ballot images.

Critical evaluation:

The announcement is a county-authored communications piece, which carries more credibility than vendor marketing alone, but it is not a controlled impact study.
No quantified KPIs (e.g., minutes per ballot, staff hours saved, error rates) were provided in the public release.

**What happened:** A large urban county announced it would deploy ClearVote to replace an older optical scanning system, citing expectations of faster processing and additional visual data to help determine voter intent. **Reported benefits:** - reduced preprocessing labor (county statement used figurative language to describe prior effort), - improved ability to interpret voter intent via ballot images. **Critical evaluation:** - The announcement is a county-authored communications piece, which carries more credibility than vendor marketing alone, but it is not a controlled impact study. - No quantified KPIs (e.g., minutes per ballot, staff hours saved, error rates) were provided in the public release.

Case study 2: a small municipality (Election as a Service)

What happened: The vendor reported completing a municipal election for a small municipality, providing end-to-end managed services (ballot design, support, tabulation, reporting, project management).

Reported benefits:

The vendor reported delivering results and characterized the delivery as timely; the claim is vendor-provided and not independently verified in the public materials.

Critical evaluation:

Metrics supporting the vendor’s claims are not independently verified in the public material that was reviewed.
EaaS may be useful for small municipalities that lack internal election operations capacity, subject to clarity on chain-of-custody, governance, and legal frameworks.

**What happened:** The vendor reported completing a municipal election for a small municipality, providing end-to-end managed services (ballot design, support, tabulation, reporting, project management). **Reported benefits:** - The vendor reported delivering results and characterized the delivery as timely; the claim is vendor-provided and not independently verified in the public materials. **Critical evaluation:** - Metrics supporting the vendor’s claims are not independently verified in the public material that was reviewed. - EaaS may be useful for small municipalities that lack internal election operations capacity, subject to clarity on chain-of-custody, governance, and legal frameworks.

Case study 3: audits in multiple counties (ClearAudit)

What happened: The vendor reported audits covering portions of presidential election results in several counties using ClearAudit in historical press materials.

Critical evaluation:

Public statements focus on process benefits; audit outputs, discrepancy rates, and independent validation are not provided in the reviewed materials.
Buyers should request sample audit outputs and information on how audit findings are addressed operationally.

**What happened:** The vendor reported audits covering portions of presidential election results in several counties using ClearAudit in historical press materials. **Critical evaluation:** - Public statements focus on process benefits; audit outputs, discrepancy rates, and independent validation are not provided in the reviewed materials. - Buyers should request sample audit outputs and information on how audit findings are addressed operationally.

04Best fit

Jurisdiction profiles

Mid-to-large counties (from tens of thousands to over one million registered voters) that run vote-by-mail, early voting, and/or high-volume central count operations.
States and counties that require EAC/state-certified systems and have procurement capacity for multi-year maintenance agreements.

Industries / verticals

Public sector: county election offices, municipal clerks, state election agencies.

Roles and personas

Decision makers: County Auditor / Supervisor of Elections / Elections Director; procurement and legal counsel; county commissioners.
End users: election operations managers; tabulation staff; ballot adjudication teams; IT/security staff; poll workers.

Pain points addressed

High-volume ballot processing bottlenecks.
Need for auditable processes and documented ballot-image trails.
Accessibility requirements for in-person voting.

Qualification criteria (good fit)

Jurisdictions committed to paper ballots and image-based review/adjudication.
Willingness to align procedures with certification requirements and vendor upgrade cycles.
Ability to fund ongoing maintenance and periodic equipment refresh.

05The pitch

What the product does (objective value proposition)

Key product families mentioned by Clear Ballot and public election-certification sources include:

ClearVote: a paper-based voting system suite (vote-by-mail and in-person components) certified by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) under VVSG 1.0, with multiple certified releases.
ClearCast / ClearCast Go: precinct tabulators referenced in certification announcements and state certification pages.
ClearAccess / ClearMark (accessibility/ballot marking): referenced in state certification materials and media coverage focused on accessible voting.
ClearAudit: post-election auditing/verification offering (vendor positioning and historical press releases).

Clear Ballot also offers service-based delivery:

Election as a Service (EaaS): a managed offering in which Clear Ballot provides technicians and operational support for end-to-end election execution (ballot design, support, tabulation, reporting, project management). The vendor has described municipal EaaS deliveries in public materials.

Clear Ballot is a U.S. election-technology vendor focused on paper-ballot-based voting, ballot scanning/tabulation, results verification, and post-election auditing. Its core platform centers on high-resolution ballot imaging, tabulation workflows (including adjudication), and supporting audit/verification processes. The platform is designed to capture ballot images, facilitate tabulation and adjudication workflows, and support post-election audit processes for election administrators. Key product families mentioned by Clear Ballot and public election-certification sources include: - **ClearVote**: a paper-based voting system suite (vote-by-mail and in-person components) certified by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) under VVSG 1.0, with multiple certified releases. - **ClearCast / ClearCast Go**: precinct tabulators referenced in certification announcements and state certification pages. - **ClearAccess / ClearMark** (accessibility/ballot marking): referenced in state certification materials and media coverage focused on accessible voting. - **ClearAudit**: post-election auditing/verification offering (vendor positioning and historical press releases). Clear Ballot also offers service-based delivery: - **Election as a Service (EaaS)**: a managed offering in which Clear Ballot provides technicians and operational support for end-to-end election execution (ballot design, support, tabulation, reporting, project management). The vendor has described municipal EaaS deliveries in public materials.

Target market and market positioning

Primary buyers/users: county and municipal election offices and state election authorities in the United States.

Positioning themes (vendor + public sector sources):

The vendor describes its system as using commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) components and browser-based software.
The vendor emphasizes the use of paper ballots and auditability, and states it does not use barcode/QR vote encoding.
The vendor reports adoption across multiple states and large jurisdictions; vendor-provided scale figures are cited in public materials.

**Primary buyers/users:** county and municipal election offices and state election authorities in the United States. **Positioning themes (vendor + public sector sources):** - The vendor describes its system as using commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) components and browser-based software. - The vendor emphasizes the use of paper ballots and auditability, and states it does not use barcode/QR vote encoding. - The vendor reports adoption across multiple states and large jurisdictions; vendor-provided scale figures are cited in public materials.

Get a comprehensive analysis of Clear Ballot including market position, competitive landscape, adoption trends, and peer benchmarks.

Download full report →