BILL ANALYSIS Ó ----------------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1135| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |1020 N Street, Suite 524 | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- THIRD READING Bill No: AB 1135 Author: Mullin (D) Amended: 6/25/13 in Senate Vote: 21 SENATE ELECTIONS & CONST. AMEND. COMMITTEE : 4-1, 7/2/13 AYES: Torres, Hancock, Padilla, Yee NOES: Anderson ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 52-25, 4/15/13 - See last page for vote SUBJECT : Vote by mail ballots: signature verification SOURCE : Author DIGEST : This bill revises and recasts current procedures for processing vote by mail (VBM) ballots and provides that a county elections official is also permitted to compare the signature on the identification envelope with the signature appearing on a form issued by an elections official that contains the voter's signature, that is part of the voter's registration record, and that the elections official has determined meets specified criteria. ANALYSIS : Existing law: 1. Requires a county elections official, upon receiving a VBM ballot, to compare the signatures on the envelope with the CONTINUED AB 1135 Page 2 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/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, and requires the cause of the rejection 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 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 the facsimiles of voters' signatures when determining from the records of registration if the signature and residence address compare. This bill: 1. Requires an elections official upon receipt of a VBM ballot, to compare the signature on the identification envelope with either of the following to determine whether the signatures compare: A. The signature appearing on the voter's affidavit of registration or any previous affidavit of registration of the voter. B. The signature appearing on a form issued by an elections official that contains the voter's signature, that is part of the voter's registration record, and that the elections official has determined compares with the signature on the voter's affidavit of registration or any previous affidavit of registration of the voter. 2. Allows the elections official to make this verification determination by reviewing a series of signatures appearing on official forms in the voter's registration record that have been determined to compare, that demonstrates the CONTINUED AB 1135 Page 3 progression of the voter's signature, and makes evident that the signature on the identification envelope is that of the voter. 3. 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 on the voter's affidavit of registration or any signature permitted for comparison as set forth by this bill. 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 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. FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No CONTINUED AB 1135 Page 4 SUPPORT : (Verified 7/8/13) Secretary of State California Association of Clerks and Election Officials California Common Cause California Forward Action Fund ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office, 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 VBM ballots were rejected. About one-third were not counted because the signatures on the VBM envelopes did not match the signatures on the voters' original registration affidavits. The requirement that the signature on a VBM 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 VBM ballots rejected because the signatures did not match, 20-29 year-old voters accounted for a disproportionate number of rejections. These voters submitted just 6% of VBM 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. This bill allows county registrars to compare the signature on a VBM envelope with the signature appearing on the voter's affidavit of registration or any previous affidavit of registration of the voter; the signature on an official form issued by an elections official that contains the voter's signature that is part of the voter's registration record and CONTINUED AB 1135 Page 5 that the elections official has determined compares with the signature on the voter's affidavit of registration or any previous affidavit of registration of the voter through a series of signatures in the voter's registration record showing a progression of the voter's signatures. This bill is a critical measure to ensure all Californians have the best chance possible to have their votes counted. ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 52-25, 4/15/13 AYES: Alejo, Ammiano, Atkins, Bloom, Blumenfield, Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta, Bradford, Brown, Buchanan, Ian Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chesbro, Cooley, Daly, Dickinson, Eggman, Fong, Fox, Frazier, Garcia, Gomez, Gordon, Gray, Hall, Roger Hernández, Holden, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Medina, Mitchell, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Pan, Perea, V. Manuel Pérez, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Rendon, Salas, Skinner, Stone, Ting, Torres, Weber, Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada, John A. Pérez NOES: Achadjian, Allen, Bigelow, Chávez, Conway, Dahle, Donnelly, Beth Gaines, Gatto, Gorell, Grove, Hagman, Jones, Linder, Logue, Maienschein, Mansoor, Melendez, Morrell, Nestande, Olsen, Patterson, Wagner, Waldron, Wilk NO VOTE RECORDED: Harkey, Lowenthal, Vacancy RM:k 7/8/13 Senate Floor Analyses SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE **** END **** CONTINUED