BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1135
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 9, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING
Paul Fong, Chair
AB 1135 (Mullin) - As Amended: April 1, 2013
SUBJECT : Vote by mail ballots: signature verification.
SUMMARY : Expands the list of documents a county elections
official may use to compare to the signature on a vote by mail
(VBM) ballot identification envelope. Specifically, this bill :
1)Permits a county elections official, upon receipt of a VBM
ballot, to compare the signature on the identification
envelope with the signature appearing on any supporting
document that contains the voter's signature and is part of
the voter's registration record to determine whether the
signatures compare.
2)Permits a county elections official, upon receipt of a
military or overseas ballot returned by facsimile
transmission, to determine the voter's eligibility by
comparing the signature on the return information with the
signature of any supporting document that contains the voter's
signature and is part of the voter's registration record.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires a county elections official, upon receiving a VBM
ballot, to compare the signatures on the envelope with the
signature appearing on the affidavit of registration.
Requires the county elections official, if the signatures
compare, to deposit the ballot, still in the identification
envelope, in a ballot container in his or her office.
2)Provides that if the ballot is rejected because the signatures
do not compare, the envelope shall not be opened and the
ballot shall not be counted. Requires the cause of the
rejection to be written on the face of the identification
envelope.
3)Permits a county elections official to use the signature on
the voter's VBM application for the signature comparison, if
the elections official compared the signature on the voter's
AB 1135
Page 2
VBM ballot application with the signature on the voter's
affidavit of registration.
4)Permits a county elections official to use the duplicate file
of affidavits of registered voters or facsimiles of voters'
signatures when determining from the records of registration
if the signature and residence address compare, as specified.
FISCAL EFFECT : This bill is keyed non-fiscal by Legislative
Counsel.
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose of Bill : According to the author:
Signatures often change over time. For example, a young
voter who registers to vote at 17 or 18 may not have
solidified his or her permanent signature. In addition, as
use of electronic signatures increases, young voters may
not have developed a handwritten signature in the first
place. Similarly, elderly voters' signatures often change
with age.
In current law, the only signature permitted for use in
verifying a voter's ballot is the signature attached to the
original registration affidavit. This means ballots are
being summarily rejected, despite access to more recent
signatures in a voter's registration record.
Tying a voter's signature to the original registration
affidavit does not account for signatures that change or
develop over time. In some cases, the voter's original
signature is decades old.
Additionally, the registrar of voters regularly receives
other relevant documents from voters that contain updated
signatures. Examples include address updates and absentee
ballot requests.
To ensure all voters have the greatest chance of having
their votes count, AB 1135 allows county registrars to
compare a voter's ballot signature to any other document in
his or her voter registration record that contains that
voter's signature.
AB 1135
Page 3
2)How Would This Work ? As mentioned above, a strict read of
existing law only allows the signature on a voter's affidavit
of registration to be used when comparing signatures on a VBM
ballot or a military or overseas ballot returned by facsimile
transmission. The author argues that signatures change or
develop over time and in some cases a voter's signature on
their affidavit of registration can be outdated.
Consequently, valid ballots are being rejected despite access
to more recent signatures in voter's registration record.
According to county elections officials, many voters'
registration records contain a variety of supporting documents
that could be used when comparing a voter's signature.
Examples of supporting documents include, but are not limited
to, address updates, VBM ballot requests, letters from the
voter, and postcard updates. When received, these supporting
documents are scanned and kept in the voter's registration
record. Many of these supporting documents contain the
voters' name, address and signature.
3)How Many Ballots Were Rejected Due to Mismatching Signatures ?
Because election data from the 2012 November general election
is still being collected, the committee staff was unable to
obtain statewide data on how many ballots were rejected for
signatures not matching at that election. However, according
to the Sacramento County Registrar of Voters, at the November
2012 general election, Sacramento County had 3,035 VBM ballots
rejected. Of those, 1,064 (approximately 35%) were rejected
because the signature did not match, 403 did not have
signatures, 14 had no ballot enclosed, and the rest were
received too late to be counted.
Historically, the main reasons why a ballot is rejected for a
signature mismatch is because the signature is unreadable,
missing or, as mentioned above in the author's statement, has
changed and is out of date. However, there is evidence to
suggest that as the voting process modernizes and new
technologies are used, the election process is being impacted.
For example, the author's staff provided the committee with a
copy of a partial signature that was received from the
Department of Motor Vehicles' (DMV) database via California's
online voter registration. The image provided to the
committee shows that half of the voter's signature is missing.
According to a county elections official this particular
partial signature came from older DMV records. Clearly this
is an unintended consequence of the online voter registration,
AB 1135
Page 4
but nevertheless the partial signature provided is the
signature on the voter's affidavit of registration that the
county elections must use when comparing signatures.
Furthermore, the only way for a voter to update their
signature is to fill out a new voter registration form. Using
the online voter registration system may not guarantee that
the signature on file with DMV is updated, unless the voter
has recently applied or renewed their California driver's
license or identification card. Otherwise the signature in
the DMV's database could be just as outdated as their voter
registration affidavit signature.
Providing county elections officials with the option to use
other supporting documents that contain the voter's signature
within the voter's registration record for signature
comparison purposes could ensure voters are not inadvertently
disenfranchised.
4)Contra Costa County Report : Over the years, Contra Costa
County, similar to many other counties, has collected data
concerning VBM ballots. The collection and analysis of this
data has helped counties take proactive steps to improve the
success rate for VBM voters. According to Contra Costa County
Clerk-Recorder's November 6, 2012 General Presidential
Election Report, at the November 2010 election, they saw an
increase in signatures being rejected for "no match." Upon
further investigation, they found that voters less than 50
years of age and clustered in the 20-39 age groups represented
a disproportionately high number of rejected ballots for no
signature match. According to the report, in an effort to
help mitigate this problem, Contra Costa County changed their
"Make Your Vote Count" insert that is placed in their outgoing
VBM packets to highlight the problem. The insert alerted
voters that how they sign their name matters when they sign
their ballot envelope and reminded voters that if their
signature changed to immediately re-register so their current
registration would be on file. According to the report, the
outreach efforts did have a positive effect and the county saw
a reduction in rejected signatures by over 40% between the
November 2010 and November 2012 elections. However, despite
that reduction, younger voters remain well above the average
for rejected signatures. Consequently, Contra Costa County
plans to do more outreach via the social networks in hopes to
educate voters and reduce the number of ballots rejected.
AB 1135
Page 5
While the evidence reported in Contra Costa County's report
reflects only one county's experience, it is still
significant. Contra Costa's findings illustrate that the
signature matching issue has the potential to impact any voter
and could potentially result in their disenfranchisement.
5)Related Legislation : SB 589 (Hill), permits a county
elections official, when comparing the signature on a VBM
identification envelope, to use the signature appearing on the
voter's current or previous affidavit of registration on file
with the elections official, among other provisions. SB 589
is pending the Senate Appropriations Committee.
AB 1135
Page 6
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Association of Clerks and Election Officials
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Nichole Becker / E. & R. / (916)
319-2094