BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2530|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2530
Author: Rodriguez (D)
Amended: 8/4/14 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE ELECTIONS & CONST. AMEND. COMM. : 4-1, 6/24/14
AYES: Padilla, Hancock, Jackson, Pavley
NOES: Anderson
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 53-25, 5/28/14 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Ballot processing
SOURCE : Secretary of State
DIGEST : This bill authorizes an elections official to use
signature verification technology when comparing the signatures
on a vote-by-mail (VBM) ballot identification envelope. If
signature verification technology determines the signatures do
not compare, the elections official shall not reject the ballot
unless he/she visually examines the signatures and verifies that
the signatures do not compare.
ANALYSIS :
Existing law:
1. Permits a county elections official, upon receipt of a VBM
CONTINUED
AB 2530
Page
2
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 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 ballot shall not be counted, and further requires the
cause of the rejection to be written on the face of the
identification envelope.
This bill:
1. Authorizes an elections official to use signature
verification technology when comparing the signatures on a
VBM ballot identification envelope. If signature
verification technology determines the signatures do not
compare, the elections official shall not reject the ballot
unless he/she visually examines the signatures and verifies
that the signatures do not compare.
2. Provides that any jurisdiction having the necessary computer
capability may start to process VBM ballots on the 10th
business day before the election.
CONTINUED
AB 2530
Page
3
3. Contains double-jointing language with SB 29 (Correa).
Background
Signature Verification Process . Existing 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/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 noted in the
author's statement below, 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.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/4/14)
Secretary of State (source)
California State Council of Service Employees International
Union
CONTINUED
AB 2530
Page
4
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : 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.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 53-25, 5/28/14
AYES: Alejo, Ammiano, Bloom, Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta,
Bradford, Brown, Buchanan, Ian Calderon, Campos, Chau,
Chesbro, Cooley, Dababneh, Daly, Dickinson, Eggman, Fong, Fox,
Garcia, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Hall, Roger Hernández,
Holden, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Lowenthal, Medina, Mullin,
Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Pan, Perea, John A. Pérez, V. Manuel
Pérez, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez,
Salas, Skinner, Stone, Ting, Weber, Wieckowski, Williams,
Yamada, Atkins
NOES: Achadjian, Allen, Bigelow, Chávez, Conway, Dahle,
Donnelly, Beth Gaines, Gatto, Gorell, Grove, Hagman, Harkey,
CONTINUED
AB 2530
Page
5
Jones, Linder, Logue, Maienschein, Mansoor, Melendez,
Nestande, Olsen, Patterson, Wagner, Waldron, Wilk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Frazier, Vacancy
RM:d 8/6/14 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED