BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2530
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 1, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING
Paul Fong, Chair
AB 2530 (Rodriguez) - As Introduced: February 21, 2014
SUBJECT : Ballot processing.
SUMMARY : Requires an elections official, if using signature
verification technology when comparing the signatures on a vote
by mail (VBM) ballot identification envelope, to not reject a
ballot when the verification technology determines that the
signatures do not compare unless he or she visually examines the
signatures and verifies that the signatures do not compare.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Permits a county elections official, upon receipt of a VBM
ballot, mail ballot precinct ballot, or provisional ballot, to
compare the signature on the identification envelope with one
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; or,
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, as specified.
2)Permits an elections official to make the determination of
whether a signature on a VBM ballot, mail ballot precinct
ballot, or provisional ballot, compares with the signatures on
file for that voter by reviewing a series of signatures
appearing on official forms in the voter's registration record
that have been determined to compare, that demonstrate the
progression of the voter's signature, and that make evident
that the signature on the identification envelope is that of
the voter.
3)Provides that if the ballot is rejected because the signatures
do not compare, the envelope shall not be opened and the
AB 2530
Page 2
ballot shall not be counted. Requires the cause of the
rejection to be written on the face of the identification
envelope.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. State-mandated local program; contains
reimbursement direction.
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose of the Bill : According to the author:
California voters are increasingly choosing to vote by
mail. During the November 2012 statewide election, for the
first time ever in a general election, a majority of
California voters chose to cast vote-by-mail ballots.
Current law requires a voter's signature on a provisional
or mail ballot envelope to compare with a signature found
in the voter's registration record. To accommodate
provisional ballots and the growing number of vote-by-mail
ballots, many elections officials use signature comparison
software to verify signatures. When software cannot verify
that a signature compares, the existing practice is that
the election official visually examines the signatures to
determine if the ballot will be counted. However, this
practice is not required by law.
Signatures often vary over time and human eyes may identify
a natural progression among the signatures in the voter's
record. A computer may fail to recognize that progression.
It is also possible that the county may have a poor quality
signature image - either on file or scanned from the ballot
envelope - that requires human eyes rather than comparison
by software.
AB 2530 codifies existing best practices in the use of
signature verification technology that both allow
California elections officials to use automated systems and
also ensure no voter's ballot is rejected without a human
review of the signatures.
2)Signature Verification Process : Current law requires a county
elections official, upon receiving a VBM ballot, mail ballot
precinct ballot, or provisional ballot, to compare the
signature on the identification envelope with the signature
appearing in the voter's registration record, as specified.
AB 2530
Page 3
If the signatures compare, existing law requires the county
elections official to deposit the ballot, still in the
identification envelope, in a ballot container in his or her
office. Due to an increase in VBM and provisional ballots,
and to make the verification process more efficient, many
county elections officials use signature verification
technology to compare and verify signatures on ballot
identification envelopes.
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. As mentioned above
in the author's statement, computer signature verification
technology is not infallible and unfortunately there are
circumstances that may lead the verification software to
incorrectly determine that a signature on an identification
envelope does not compare to the signature on the voter's
registration record. For example, the location of the voter's
signature on the envelope, a problem with the digital image of
the signature, or an outdated signature, all may lead
verification software to incorrectly determine that the
signatures do not match. Consequently, as mentioned above, it
is the existing practice of county elections officials to
visually compare signatures that signature verification
technology finds do not compare before rejecting a voted
ballot. However, this practice is not required by law. This
bill codifies this procedure.
3)Previous Legislation : AB 1135 (Mullin), Chapter 271, Statutes
of 2013, expanded the list of documents a county elections
official may use to compare to the signature on a VBM ballot
identification envelope.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support Opposition
Secretary of State Debra Bowen (sponsor) None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Nichole Becker / E. & R. / (916)
319-2094
AB 2530
Page 4