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