BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                  AB 2530
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   April 9, 2014

                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
                                  Mike Gatto, Chair

               AB 2530 (Rodriquez) - As Introduced:  February 21, 2014 

          Policy Committee:                              ElectionsVote:5-1

          Urgency:     No                   State Mandated Local Program:  
          Yes    Reimbursable:              Yes

           SUMMARY  

          This bill requires an elections official, if using signature  
          verification technology when comparing the signatures on a vote  
          by mail (VBM) ballot identification envelope, not to 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.

           FISCAL EFFECT  

          Unknown, potentially significant state reimbursable General Fund  
          costs that could exceed $150,000 in any fiscal year. It is  
          unknown how many counties are currently using signature  
          verification technology. Information from one such county  
          (Solano) indicates costs ranging from about $8,700 for the 2012  
          statewide primary to $15,500 for the November 2012 general  
          election. Given the increasing use of VBM ballots, more counties  
          may adopt this technology over time.

           COMMENTS  

           1)Background  . 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.  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  








                                                                  AB 2530
                                                                  Page  2

            verify signatures on ballot identification envelopes.

           2)Purpose  . Computer signature verification technology is not  
            infallible and 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, county elections officials' existing practice is  
            to visually compare signatures that signature verification  
            technology finds do not compare before rejecting a voted  
            ballot. This practice, not required under current law, would  
            be codified by this bill.

           3)Creates a State-Funded Mandate  . By  requiring  counties using  
            automated signature verification to adopt the safeguard  
            procedure described above, even though this is apparently  
            their current practice, the state will henceforth have to pay  
            the counties' cost to meet this requirement.

            It should be noted that the last three state budgets have  
            suspended various state mandates as a cost savings mechanism.  
            Among the mandates that were suspended, and proposed for  
            suspension in 2014-15, were all existing elections-related  
            mandates.

           Analysis Prepared by  :    Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081