BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 2530 Page 1 ASSEMBLY THIRD READING AB 2530 (Rodriguez) As Amended May 23, 2014 Majority vote ELECTIONS 5-1 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Ayes:|Fong, Mullin, Hall, |Ayes:|Gatto, Bocanegra, | | |Perea, Rodriguez | |Bradford, | | | | |Ian Calderon, Campos, | | | | |Eggman, Gomez, Holden, | | | | |Pan, Quirk, | | | | |Ridley-Thomas, Weber | | | | | | |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------| |Nays:|Logue |Nays:|Bigelow, Donnelly, Jones, | | | | |Linder, Wagner | | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY : Authorizes an elections official, when comparing the signatures on a vote by mail (VBM) ballot identification envelope, to use signature verification technology. Requires an elections official to not reject a ballot if the signature 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 : According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, any costs for manual verification to counties who elect to use signature verification technology would not be state reimbursable. COMMENTS : 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 AB 2530 Page 2 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." 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 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, it is the existing practice of county elections officials to visually compare AB 2530 Page 3 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. Analysis Prepared by : Nichole Becker / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094 FN: 0003716