BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS
AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
Senator Norma J. Torres, Chair
BILL NO: AB 1135 HEARING DATE: 6/4/13
AUTHOR: MULLIN ANALYSIS BY: Frances Tibon
Estoista
AMENDED: 5/28/13
FISCAL: NO
SUBJECT
Vote by mail ballots: signature verification
DESCRIPTION
Existing law requires a county elections official, upon
receiving a vote by mail (VBM) ballot, to compare the signatures
on the envelope with the signature appearing on the affidavit of
registration. If the signatures compare, the elections official
shall deposit the ballot, still in its identification envelope,
into a ballot container in his or her office.
Existing law 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, and requires the cause of the
rejection be written on the face of the identification envelope.
Existing law 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 VBM ballot application with the signature on the
voter's affidavit of registration.
Existing law permits a county elections official to use the
duplicate file of affidavits of registered voters or the
facsimiles of voters' signatures when determining from the
records of registration if the signature and residence address
compare.
This bill adds additional "supporting documents" that contain
the voter's signature and is part of the voter's registration
record for use when comparing the signature on the
identification envelope as follows:
(A) A form for use by a military or overseas voter pertaining
to the voter's identity, eligibility to vote, and status as
a military or overseas voter.
(B) A form designed to permit a voter to opt out of receiving
election materials.
(C) A form designed to indicate a voter's preference for ballot
materials in a language other than English.
(D) A form containing corrected voter information and submitted
at a polling place.
(E) A form confirming a voter's change of address or residency
information.
This bill 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.
This bill makes other minor grammatical changes.
BACKGROUND
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 a November 6, 2012
General Presidential Election Report prepared by the Contra
Costa County Clerk-Recorder, at the November 2010 election, the
county 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 had a positive
AB 1135 (MULLIN)
Page 2
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.
COMMENTS
1. According to the Author : In the November 2012 election,
more voters voted by mail than in person. Since 1980, the
percent of votes cast by mail in general elections has
increased from about 6% to just over 50%. Because voting by
mail is quickly becoming the preferred voting method, it is
critical we do everything we can to ensure voters' ballots
are counted.
Last November, nearly 60,000 vote-by-mail ballots were
rejected. About one-third were not counted because the
signatures on the vote-by-mail envelopes did not match the
signatures on the voters' original registration affidavits.
The requirement that the signature on a vote-by-mail envelope
matches the voter's original registration affidavit is unique
to absentee ballots. Signature matching is not required when
a person shows up to vote at a polling place.
Given the nature of voting by mail, this verification system is
important-but it also has pitfalls. One major drawback is
that voters' signatures change over time. Let's consider
young voters, who are often in the process of developing a
permanent signature. Among vote-by-mail ballots rejected
because the signatures didn't match, 20-29 year-old voters
accounted for a disproportionate number of rejections. These
voters submitted just 6% of vote-by-mail ballots, but were
accountable for 30% of rejections due to mismatching
signatures. On the other end of the spectrum are older
voters, whose signatures can change considerably as they age.
Their original registration affidavits have often been on
file for decades.
Assembly Bill 1135 will allow county registrars to compare the
signature on a vote-by-mail envelope with any signature that
is part of the voter's official registration record, such as
AB 1135 (MULLIN)
Page 3
a permanent vote-by-mail application or other forms. AB 1135
is a critical measure to ensure all Californians have the
best chance possible to have their votes counted.
2. How Would This Work ? 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 a 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 ? 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 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
AB 1135 (MULLIN)
Page 4
consequence of the online voter registration, but
nevertheless the partial signature provided is the signature
on the voter's affidavit of registration that the county
elections official 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.
4. Related Legislation : SB 589 (Hill), among other provisions,
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. SB 589 was recently referred to the Assembly
Elections and Redistricting Committee.
PRIOR ACTION
Assembly Elections and Redistricting Committee: 5-2
Assembly Floor: 52-25
POSITIONS
Sponsor: Author
Support: California Association of Clerks and Election
Officials (CACEO)
California Common Cause
Oppose: None received
AB 1135 (MULLIN)
Page 5