BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 896
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 10, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING
Paul Fong, Chair
AB 896 (Portantino) - As Amended: April 25, 2011
FOR VOTE ONLY
SUBJECT : Elections: voter registration.
SUMMARY : Permits a county elections official to accept voter
registration affidavits that are signed with digital signatures
and transmitted electronically. Specifically, this bill :
1)Defines an "affidavit of registration," to include either a
transaction between the affiant and the county of his or her
residence, within the meaning of the Uniform Electronic
Transactions Act (UETA), or a written communication with a
public entity, as defined by existing law.
2)Permits a county elections official to accept an affidavit of
registration electronically if the following requirements are
satisfied:
a) The affidavit complies with UETA;
b) The signature on the affidavit complies with provisions
of existing state law governing digital signatures; and,
c) The signature on the affidavit is recorded using a
technology that allows the county elections official to
visually compare the signature to other signatures of the
affiant.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires, if a digital signature is going to be used in a
written communication with a public entity, that the digital
signature comply with all of the following:
a) The digital signature is unique to the person using it;
b) The digital signature must be capable of verification;
c) The digital signature must be under the sole control of
AB 896
Page 2
the person using it;
d) The digital signature must be linked to data in such a
manner that if the data are changed, the digital signature
is invalidated; and,
e) The digital signature conforms to regulations adopted by
the Secretary of State (SOS).
2)Prohibits a person from being registered to vote except by
affidavit of registration. Requires a completed affidavit of
registration to include, among other things, the signature of
the person who is registering to vote.
3)Allows a person to register to vote on the SOS's Internet web
site if he or she has a valid California driver's license or
state identification card, but provides that this provision
shall become operative only when the SOS certifies that the
state has a statewide voter registration database that
complies with the requirements of the federal Help America
Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA).
FISCAL EFFECT : Keyed non-fiscal by the Legislative Counsel.
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose of the Bill : According to the author:
AB 896 is a common sense, technology focused way to reduce
cost and increase accuracy associated with voter
registration in California. According to the Pew Center,
each new or updated voter registration costs the State and
County an average of $8 to process. In addition to this
cost, there is up to a 10% error rate in re-keying the data
submitted on registration forms in to County Voter
Databases.
Under our current registration system we are paying more
than we have to, for too many errors.
In terms of quality and simplicity, when Santa Clara
County's Registrar began accepting digital signatures for
registration in 2010, they were able to make the shift in
approximately 24 hours at no additional cost. Santa
Clara's Assistant Registrar, in response to a question
AB 896
Page 3
about the quality of the signatures and effectiveness of
the program said they "were really clear and better than
what we have on file?We feel it offers voters a quick,
convenient, and secure option for people who wish to
register or re-register to vote."
AB 896 will provide needed cost savings for Counties who
opt into the program. As an example of the potential cost
savings of this technology, the State of Arizona reduced
registration costs by 94% when they fully automated their
online voter registration system.
AB 896 will provide a simple solution to Registrars who are
interested in making the registration process easier and
less expensive.
2)Signature Comparison Problems : Under existing state law, the
signatures on voters' affidavits of registration are used for
a number of purposes, including verifying vote by mail (VBM)
and provisional ballots cast by voters and verifying
signatures on initiative, referendum, and recall petitions and
on nomination papers. Existing law does not allow the use of
electronic or digital signatures on any of these documents.
If this bill is approved and signed into law, voters who have
submitted an affidavit of registration electronically likely
would-at least in some instances-use their fingers to create
the signature on the affidavit of registration. Under this
scenario, it is unclear whether such a signature could be
expected to match up with the same voter's signature when that
voter signs using a pen and paper. Even if a voter used a
stylus to sign his or her signature on a smartphone or tablet
computer, it is unclear whether such a signature could be
expected to match the same voter's pen and paper signature,
especially given the large variety of touchscreen devices that
may use different touchscreen technologies. In such a
situation, a voter's ballot could be invalidated if his or her
digital signature from the affidavit of registration did not
match up with the pen and paper signature from the same voter
on his or her VBM or provisional ballot. The proponents of
this bill argue that the digital signature from an electronic
affidavit of registration would be more secure than a
handwritten signature on a piece of paper, because the digital
signature would be transmitted with biometric characteristics
of the signature as it was generated. Even if an elections
AB 896
Page 4
official had this information from a voter's affidavit of
registration, however, that information would not be useful
for comparison with a pen and paper signature on a VBM or
provisional ballot. The committee should consider the extent
to which the acceptance of electronic affidavits of voter
registration under this bill could create a new risk for
voters to be inadvertently disenfranchised.
3)Security and Use of Voter Registration Information :
Proponents of this bill, including Verafirma, a company that
has developed a product to allow for electronic voter
registration if permitted by state law, have argued that the
system developed by Verafirma to allow for electronic voter
registration contains a number of protections to ensure the
security and validity of voter registration information
collected and transmitted using this method. Regardless of
any protections that Verafirma may have built in to its
electronic voter registration system, however, another person
or company that was developing technology to permit electronic
voter registration would not necessarily need to build in
similar safeguards, unless explicitly required by this bill.
For instance, while Verafirma states that it purges all voter
registration information for a voter as soon as it has
transmitted that voter's registration to the relevant
elections official, nothing in this bill explicitly provides
rules for the capture or storage of data obtained from a voter
who is registering to vote. Furthermore, nothing in this bill
establishes standards for security during the electronic
transmission of voter registration information to the
elections official. This bill would require any electronic
voter registration system to comply with UETA, however, UETA
generally does not establish security safeguards for
electronic transactions, but instead provides a legal
framework for electronic transactions to be conducted.
The committee should consider whether this bill contains
sufficient safeguards to ensure the security of electronic
voter registration systems.
4)Voter Registration Only : Although there is pending litigation
concerning the use of technology to allow digital signatures
to be gathered on initiative petitions (see below), this bill
does not authorize the use of digital signatures for such a
purpose. In fact, this bill does not authorize the use of
AB 896
Page 5
digital signatures for any elections-related purpose other
than for voter registration. If this bill were to become law,
subsequent legislative action would be required to authorize
the use of digital signatures for other purposes, including
for gathering signatures on initiative petitions.
5)Arguments in Support : In support of this bill, the Southwest
Voter Registration Education Project writes:
Our interest in this bill is to improve and enhance the
ability of Latinos to become engaged in the American
political process. We believe the technology developed to
allow electronic signatures on voter registrations would be
highly beneficial in this regard.
Latinos are America's second-largest population group
(15.8% according to 2009 U.S. Census Bureau statistics) but
are consistently underrepresented in the political
process?New technology has the potential to alter this
trend. In a survey conducted in September 2010, the Pew
Hispanic Center found that nearly two-thirds of Latinos
(65%) are currently using the Internet and 45% enjoy
broadband access. According to a December 2010 study by
Scarborough Research, 82% of Latino adults use a mobile
phone compared to 84% of adults overall. Furthermore, the
Latino adoption rate for smartphone technology is outpacing
that of the total population?Even more revealing, the Pew
survey found that Latinos are more likely than other ethnic
groups to use a mobile device as their sole access point to
the Internet?
As evidenced by these studies, Latinos are gaining access
to and using new technology at increasing rates.
Consequently, a mobile application that gives Latinos the
ability to register to vote on "smartphones" has the
potential to reach a broad audience among a demographic
that would not otherwise have access to traditional tools
for becoming politically engaged.
Also in support of this bill, the Democratic Caucus of San
Jose State University and the San Jose State University
College Republicans jointly write:
California's current voter registration system is outdated,
expensive, and prone to error. Thousands of eligible
AB 896
Page 6
voters-including a large swath of young people-never
register, and others are rejected at the polls due to
inconsistencies in the paperbased system& In addition to
errorprone paper forms, high mobility rates among students
and other young people make registration and reregistration
a challenging, expensive, and neverending process&
Electronic voter registration on touchscreen devices would
provide young people with an easytouse and readily
accessible method for engaging in the political process.
This technology would experience a seamless integration
into our daily routines, which already include using the
web and mobile devices to register for classes, conduct
bank transactions, read news reports, and much more.
6)Concerns Raised : Although she has not taken an official
position, Secretary of State Debra Bowen has raised a number
of concerns with this bill. Secretary Bowen argues that this
bill "overlooks the critical voter rights, security, privacy,
and implementation details that should be addressed before the
Legislature approves" the use of technology that allows voters
to register to vote by providing an electronic signature on a
mobile or other electronic device. In addition to raising
concerns similar to those raised above about signature
comparisons and the security of electronic voter registration
systems, Secretary Bowen raises the following concerns, among
others:
Disenfranchisement-Under this bill, counties have
the option not to accept electronic voter registrations
using the method established by AB 896. That means if a
person registers electronically but the county does not
accept electronic registrations, the person will be
neither registered to vote nor informed that their
registration was not accepted. County elections
officials will have no way to identify people who may
have attempted to register using an electronic form and
will, therefore, not be able to send a notice of
rejection or a blank paper �voter registration card
(VRC)] to the person who attempted to register to vote.
Other Voter Protections Eliminated-Page 4, line 24
of this bill, states that "Notwithstanding any other
provision of law a county elections official may accept
an affidavit of registration ?" if three specific
AB 896
Page 7
requirements created by AB 896 are met. This language
implies that these are the only requirements that must be
met and all other requirements of the Elections Code that
pertain, for example, to voter eligibility and other
information a voter must provide on the VRC, no longer
apply. This effectively eliminates many of the
protections that have been added to the Elections Code
over the years to ensure voters are eligible to register
to vote.
Potential For Data To Be Altered-The digital
signature regulations adopted pursuant to Government Code
section 16.5 impose a requirement that a digital
signature cannot be removed or copied from the document
for another purpose. However, it does not appear that a
similar requirement applies to the other information on
the VRC. That raises the question of whether
unauthorized changes, for example, to a person's party
registration after the voter signs the VRC
electronically, are possible and whether such alterations
will be more difficult to detect.
Liability of Third Parties-The bill makes no
reference to and imposes no liability on a third party
that may be designing and selling the electronic
application permitted by this bill if it doesn't work as
intended?What recourse does a person who attempted to
register to vote using this process have if their
electronic VRC, through no fault of their own, cannot be
processed by the county elections official?
Tracking Registration Drives-Under current law,
people conducting voter registration drives have to
obtain VRCs from the Secretary of State's office or from
county elections officials. Those VRCs are serialized so
the Secretary of State and county elections officials can
track what happens to the cards and can identify the
voter registration drive operator should a problem be
identified or a complaint be received. There is no such
requirement for tracking in this bill.
1)Pending Lawsuit : The Court of Appeal of the State of
California, First Appellate District, Division One, is
currently considering a lawsuit regarding whether or not
California law permits initiative petitions to be signed by
AB 896
Page 8
electronic means. The case, Ni v. Slocum , Case No. A128721,
is an appeal of a case in which the San Mateo Superior Court
ruled that existing law does not permit initiative petitions
to be signed in such a manner. The case has been scheduled
for oral argument on May 10, 2011.
2)Related Legislation : AB 1357 (Swanson) would permit county
elections officials to make affidavits of voter registration
available online. AB 1357 was approved by this committee on a
7-0 vote, and is pending on the Assembly Floor. SB 397 (Yee)
would authorize counties to develop and use an electronic
voter registration system for the electronic submission of an
affidavit of voter registration from a person who is qualified
to register to vote, who has a valid California driver's
license or state identification card, and who resides in that
county. SB 397 is pending in the Senate Appropriations
Committee.
3)Prior Action : This bill was heard by this committee on May 3,
2011, and was rejected on a 3-3 vote. Because the committee
has already heard testimony on this bill, and the bill has not
been amended since, it is being heard in committee today for
vote only.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Asian American Action Fund
Democratic Caucus of San Jose State University
San Jose State University College Republicans
Southwest Voter Registration Education Project
One individual
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094