BILL ANALYSIS SENATE COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS, REAPPORTIONMENT AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS Senator Loni Hancock, Chair BILL NO: AB 2023 HEARING DATE: 6/15/10 AUTHOR: Saldana ANALYSIS BY: Darren Chesin AMENDED: 4/27/10 FISCAL: YES SUBJECT Post election audits: pilot project DESCRIPTION Existing law requires an election official, during the official canvass of every election, to conduct a public manual tally of ballots tabulated by the voting system, including vote by mail ballots, cast in one percent of the precincts chosen at random. This bill authorizes the Secretary of State (SOS) to conduct a pilot project in five or more counties to evaluate post canvass risk-limiting audits of election results. The bill does not relieve a participating county from conducting the currently required one percent manual tally. Specifically, this bill: A.Defines a "risk-limiting audit" as a manual tally employing a statistical method that ensures a large, predetermined minimum chance of requiring a full manual tally whenever a full manual tally would show an electoral outcome that differs from the outcome reported by the vote tabulating device for the audited contest. B.Defines an "audit unit" as a precinct, a set of ballots, or a single ballot. C.Provides that a precinct, a set of ballots, or a single ballot may be used as an audit unit only if all of the following conditions are satisfied: The relevant vote tabulating device is able to produce a report of the votes cast in the precinct, on the set of ballots, or on the single ballot; The elections official is able to match that report with the ballots corresponding to the report for the purposes of conducting a risk-limiting audit; and, Each ballot is assigned to not more than one audit unit. d. Requires a risk-limiting audit to begin with a hand tally of the votes in one or more audit units and to continue to hand tally votes in additional audit units until there is strong statistical evidence that the electoral outcome is correct. e. Requires the risk-limiting audit to include a full manual tally of all votes if counting additional audit units does not provide strong statistical evidence that the electoral outcome is correct. f. Encourages the SOS to include urban and rural counties, counties from northern, central, and southern California, and counties with different voting systems. g. Requires each county that chooses to participate in the pilot project to conduct a post canvass risk-limiting audit of one or more contests after each election conducted in that county in the 2011 calendar year. h. Requires an elections official who is conducting a post canvass risk-limiting audit to do all of the following: Provide at least a five-day public notice of the time and place of the random selection of audit units to be manually tallied and of the time and place of the audit; Make available to the public a report of the vote tabulating device results for the contest, including the results for each audit unit in the contest, prior AB 2023 (SALDANA) Page 2 to the random selection of audit units to be manually tallied and prior to the commencement of the audit; Conduct the audit upon tabulation of the unofficial final results or upon completion of the official canvass for the election; and, Conduct the audit in public view by hand without the use of electronic scanning equipment using the procedures established under existing law for conducting a manual tally of ballots in one percent of precincts. i.Requires the SOS to report to the Legislature on or before March 1, 2012 on the effectiveness and efficiency of post canvass risk-limiting audits conducted as part of the pilot project. j.Requires the report to include an analysis of the efficiency of the post canvass risk-limiting audits, including the costs of performing the audits, as compared to the one percent manual tallies conducted under existing law. aa.Prohibits an audit from being conducted under the pilot project with respect to a state or multi-jurisdictional contest unless all counties involved in the contest choose to participate in the pilot project. bb.Provides that advisory elections and elections for political party central committee may not be included in the pilot project. cc.Defines "unofficial final results," for the purposes of this bill, as election results tabulated as part of an official canvass but not yet reported to the governing board or the SOS. dd.Allows a voter to request a recount either upon conclusion of the official canvass or upon completion of the post canvass risk-limiting audit, if one is conducted. ee.Makes other technical changes. AB 2023 (SALDANA) Page 3 BACKGROUND One Percent Manual Tally and the Post-Election Manual Tally : As noted by the author below, for 45 years, California law has required elections officials in counties that use voting systems to tabulate ballots to manually tally the ballots cast in one percent of the precincts as a check to ensure that the voting systems are tallying ballots correctly. Although state law governing the one percent manual tally has been updated to reflect changes in voting technology and to provide additional public notice and reporting requirements, the requirement to manually tally the ballots cast in one percent of precincts has not significantly changed since first being enacted in 1965. In 2007, the Secretary of State conducted a "top-to-bottom review" (TTBR) of several voting machines certified for use in California. The purpose of the review was "to determine whether currently certified voting systems provide acceptable levels of security, accessibility, ballot secrecy, accuracy and usability under federal and state standards." At the conclusion of the TTBR, the SOS decertified and conditionally re-certified three voting systems that had been the subject of the TTBR. The SOS also decertified a fourth voting system, which was unable to be tested during the TTBR. Subsequently, after that system was tested, it too was conditionally recertified. Among the conditions that the SOS imposed as part of the recertification of these voting systems was a requirement that counties using the systems must conduct a larger manual tally in close races than the manual tally of one percent of precincts that is required for all elections. The manual tally of the additional ballots was required to be completed during the official canvass of the election. These post election manual tally (PEMT) requirements were challenged in court, and on August 31, 2008, the California Fourth District Court of Appeal held that the SOS had the authority to institute PEMT requirements, but should have done so using the procedures for adoption of regulations in the Administrative Procedures Act. The SOS subsequently AB 2023 (SALDANA) Page 4 adopted emergency regulations so that the PEMT requirements would be in effect for the November 2008 election. Those emergency regulations expired in April of last year, and new PEMT requirements have not been established by statute or by regulation. One of the primary purposes of the PEMT requirement was to establish a higher level of confidence that any error by a voting system in tabulating ballots did not change the outcome of the election. The pilot project proposed by this bill could help determine whether a post canvass risk-limiting audit could serve the same purpose. COMMENTS 1.According to the author , AB 2023 authorizes the Secretary of State's office to establish and conduct a statistically based, post-canvass audit pilot program. Current law requires county elections officials to conduct a manual tally of one percent of all precincts following each election. The Legislature established the one percent manual tally in 1965 - 45 years ago - to check voting machine function and accuracy. Under current law, however, there is no requirement to expand the manual tally beyond one percent even when significant differences are found between the manual tally and the machine count. By law, the one percent manual tally cannot change election outcomes either. Instead, when the machine results are very close, candidates and ballot measure proponents and opponents must file and pay for expensive hand recounts and election contests if they wish to challenge the outcome of a contest. In 2007, the Secretary of State's office established a Post-Election Audit Standards Working Group which published recommendations for how California can improve its elections auditing process. AB 2023's pilot program implements many of the Working Group's recommendations. Allowing and encouraging county elections officials to implement risk-limiting audits will improve the likelihood of identifying voting system errors and security breaches. Risk-limiting audits also have the potential to reduce the AB 2023 (SALDANA) Page 5 need for election recounts because the audit model begins with a small sample and gradually escalates - potentially to a full hand count - if significant differences persist between the machine and manual tally results. Modern auditing methods can help elections officials focus scarce budget resources on very close races that pose the highest risk while still confirming the outcomes of contests that show wide margins after the machine count. Simply put, statistically based, post-canvass audits can improve the accuracy of and public confidence in our elections. PRIOR ACTION Assembly Elections and Redistricting Committee: 7-0 Assembly Appropriations Committee: 17-0 Assembly Floor: 76-0 POSITIONS Sponsor: Secretary of State Support: American Statistical Association Brennan Center for Justice California Common Cause Citizens for Election Integrity Minnesota Verified Voting Oppose: None received AB 2023 (SALDANA) Page 6