A Perfect Storm of Mail-In Ballot Printing Errors and Sloppy News Reporting Just Became a Huge Problem for Washington County Maryland

In Washington County, Maryland, the race for State’s Attorney remains too close to call, with a razor-thin margin and thousands of mail-in and provisional ballots yet to be counted. The situation has been further complicated by premature media reporting and a significant printing error that affected mail-in ballots across the state, raising likely well-founded concerns about public confidence in the election’s final outcome and potential legal challenges, at least for tight local races.

Early results from the June 23, 2026, primary election showed challenger Adam Greivell with a narrow 18-vote lead over incumbent Gina Cirincion. However, election officials still need to process a substantial number of mail-in and provisional ballots. In Maryland, election night reporting typically comprises only a portion of the overall vote. Mail-in ballots, postmarked by Election Day or deposited in secure drop boxes, and provisional ballots, cast by voters whose eligibility requires further verification, take several days to count. This process has been further extended in 2026 by the observance of federal holidays, Juneteenth and Independence Day. Declaring a winner in a race with such a small lead before all ballots are tabulated is premature and risks creating a false narrative, potentially leading to public confusion and accusations of electoral impropriety if the count shifts in favor of the incumbent.

Adding to the existing uncertainty is a widespread systemic failure involving the Maryland State Board of Elections and its mail-in ballot vendor, Taylor Print & Visual Impressions, Inc. (TPVI). This issue, acknowledged by the State Board of Elections on May 15, 2026, involved a coding error by TPVI that resulted in a segment of voters receiving ballot packets designated for different party affiliations or geographic areas. With over 565,000 voters having requested mail-in ballots early in the election cycle, this error posed a significant threat to the integrity of the closed primary system, which requires voters to cast ballots aligned with their registered party affiliation, and the potential for duplicate ballot conflicts creates a serious concern for potential legal challenge to the mail-in ballots.

To address the printing error, the State Board of Elections implemented a broad remedy. Because TPVI could not precisely identify all voters who received incorrect materials, the state was compelled to re-mail new ballots to every voter who had requested a mail-in ballot prior to May 14, 2026. Voters were advised to destroy their original, potentially erroneous ballots. To further safeguard the process and ensure that only correctly issued ballots were counted, the State Board of Elections incorporated tracking technology and secondary data checks. These measures were designed to prevent the tabulation of any original, flawed ballots that might have been mistakenly returned. While these safeguards were intended to uphold ballot integrity, the sheer magnitude of the disruption has heightened public awareness of potential administrative vulnerabilities, and created significant distrust of the mail-in ballot process by many residents.

The current volatile situation is exacerbated by a lack of media responsibility by certain local outlets and its impact on public trust. The premature declaration of Adam Greivell as the winner by some media outlets, despite the substantial number of uncounted ballots, has created a scenario ripe for public misunderstanding. This premature reporting can lead to a simplified, and potentially inaccurate, public narrative. If the ongoing count of mail-in and provisional ballots results in Gina Cirincion taking the lead, a natural outcome of the tabulation process, it could be interpreted as evidence of fraud by the public (even if there was none), particularly in a polarized political climate and given the prior well-publicized ballot printing issue. At the same time, it also creates a scenario where Greivell might be criticized as a “conspiracy theorist” for challenging the election results, even if legitimate issues with the mail-in ballots are identified. The entire situation has now become a political and legal powderkeg.

According to the Maryland State Board of Elections, as of June 24, 2026, 3,417 Republican mail-in ballots were issued, with 1,630 returned and 1,230 accepted. A total of 1,430 mail-in ballots remain to be counted across all parties, with the possibility of additional ballots arriving in the coming days if they were mailed close to Election Day. Currently, Greivell leads with 4,672 votes compared to Cirincion’s 4,654 votes. However, mail-in ballot voters appear to lean towards Cirincion, suggesting that the final outcome could still shift.

One of the primary concerns highlighted to us by Greivell stems from how the Maryland State Board of Elections is handling the “first and second ballot” mix-up. While the State Board of Elections has stated that if a Maryland voter sent their original mail-in ballot, followed by the corrected mail-in ballot, that only the second ballot will count. However, that is not in line with the COMAR.

B. If more than one ballot is received from the same individual in different envelopes:

(1) If the signed oaths have different dates, the local board shall:

(a) Count the ballot with the earliest signed oath date that the local board determines is legally sufficient; or

(b) Reject all ballots if none of them are legally sufficient.

COMAR 33.11.05.04B Ballot Rejection — Multiple Ballots from the Same Individual.

This is further complicated by the fact that ballots themselves do not have unique serial numbers, meaning that once a ballot is separated from its envelope, if that ballot was found to have been improperly cast there is no ability to remove that ballot from the voting tabulation and replaced with a different one.

“That’s a problem if we end up knowing they are illegally counted because some judge makes a decision that it was unlawful, then what do we do?” asked Greivell. “Do we have to have another election? Do we have do we just disregard all the second ballots, or all of them?”

Greivell however, does not appear concerned if he wins or loses, but more concerned in the integrity of the process.

“I ran this race from the very beginning with the truth put right on the front, which is this,” said Greivell. “It is not important to me if I win.” Greivell stressed that he was very upfront on his campaign website and announcements his platform and his intentions, should he win. “It was not to pander the people or really carefully say things so that I would I could sort of not upset a specific class of people because I need their votes. Like I said, I’m gonna say exactly the truth.”

“I told Gina a year ago we talked on the phone for about an hour about why I was running… I said I don’t care if I win or lose by during the campaign I am going to talk about the things that are important, that I think the public should know about,” stated Greivell.

Should Greivell not be elected, he stated he will return his full attention to his law practice to continue fighting for his clients’ rights and getting justice. “I love the law practice I have and the freedom [it] affords me… To be with my family and to choose the cases that I want to,” said Greivell. He plans to continue refining his practice so he can take on “the most important” matters and devote “even stronger attention to each one”.

To resolve the Washington County State’s Attorney race and restore public confidence, transparency from all involved institutions is paramount. The State Board of Elections and the local canvassing board must provide clear communication regarding the number of mail-in ballots received, the processing of replacement ballots, and a definitive timeline for certifying the election results. Until every legally cast ballot is counted and audited, any premature announcement of a winner risks fabricating a narrative that undermines the fundamental principles of democratic institutions.

But quite likely, a judicial decision may need to be involved in determining the final winner. And while none of this is the fault of the local Washington County Board of Elections, who must serve at the will of the State Board of Elections, they will undoubtedly find themselves caught in the crossfire.

Post-election canvass begins June 25, 2026 at 10 am at the Washington County Board of Elections on Virginia Avenue. The canvass process is open to the public for observation.

Article by Ken Buckler, based upon information from Maryland State Board of Elections and an interview with Adam Greivell.

Video Spotlight