BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2054
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 25, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 2054 (Fong) - As Amended: March 28, 2012
Policy Committee: ElectionsVote:4-2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY
This bill:
1)Allows vote-by-mail (VBM) voters to return their ballots to
any polling place within the state-not just one within the
jurisdiction of the elections official who issued the ballot.
2)Provides that, if a VBM ballot is returned to a polling place
in a county other than the county where the ballot was issued,
the elections official responsible for that polling place must
forward the ballot to the elections official who issued the
ballot.
FISCAL EFFECT
Minor annual reimburseable costs for each county to collect and
return other (probably mostly neighboring) counties' ballots.
Assuming $1,000 per county, total costs would be $58,000.
ÝThe governor's proposed 2012-13 budget would continue the
current-year suspension of all six elections-related mandates,
including requirements for counties to allow any voter to become
a permanent vote-by-mail (VBM) voter and to tabulate VBM ballots
by precinct.]
COMMENTS
1)Background and Purpose . During a joint hearing earlier this
year of the Assembly Committee on Elections and Redistricting
and the Senate Committee on Elections and Constitutional
Amendments, five county elections officials testified to the
impact that recent post office and processing facility
AB 2054
Page 2
closures were having with respect to delivery time delays.
Some counties experienced delays of up to 5-7 days as opposed
to the usual 1-3 day mail delivery time. Moreover, the U.S.
Postal Service has 15 more processing facilities slated for
closure in California
According to the author, AB 2054 will help to ameliorate the
above situation by providing VBM voters the option of
returning their voted ballot to any polling place in the
state.
2)Prior Legislation . Last year, AB 199 (Correa), a substantially
similar bill, was vetoed by Governor Brown, who argued that
the bill would "add complexity to the voting and election
process without commensurate benefits." This action, however,
precedes the attention and concern about the potential impacts
of postal facility closures.
In 2007, AB 773 (Blakeslee), which was essentially identical
to this bill, was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger, who
argued that the added convenience that the bill provided for a
small number of voters did not justify the additional mandated
costs to counties.
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081