BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2530
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 2530 (Rodriguez)
As Amended August 4, 2014
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |53-25|(May 28, 2014) |SENATE: |23-11|(August 26, |
| | | | | |2014) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: E. & R.
SUMMARY : Authorizes an elections official, when comparing the
signatures on a vote by mail (VBM) ballot identification
envelope, to use signature verification technology. Prohibits
an elections official from rejecting 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.
The Senate amendments add double-jointing language to avoid
chaptering out problems with SB 29 (Correa) of the current
legislative session.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, pursuant to Senate Rules 28.8, negligible state
costs.
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
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.
AB 2530
Page 2
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
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.
The Senate amendments make technical changes to avoid chaptering
our problems with SB 29. This bill, as amended in the Senate,
is consistent with Assembly actions.
AB 2530
Page 3
Analysis Prepared by : Nichole Becker / E. & R. / (916)
319-2094
FN: 0004333