BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS
AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
Senator Lou Correa, Chair
BILL NO: SB 589 HEARING DATE: 4/2/13
AUTHOR: HILL ANALYSIS BY: Frances Tibon
Estoista
AMENDED: 4/1/13
FISCAL: YES
SUBJECT
Vote by mail ballots: sample ballots
DESCRIPTION
Existing law outlines procedures for voting by mail and
establishes requirements for elections officials to compare
the signature on a vote by mail (VBM) ballot envelope with
that appearing on the affidavit of registration. If the
ballot is rejected because the signatures do not compare,
the envelope shall not be opened and the ballot shall not
be counted. The cause of the rejection must be written on
the face of the identification envelope.
Existing law requires elections officials to establish
procedures to track and confirm the receipt of VBM ballots
and to make this information available by means of online
access using the county's elections division Internet
website. If the county does not have an elections division
Internet website, the elections official shall establish a
toll-free telephone number that may be used to confirm the
date a voted VBM ballot was received.
Existing law requires the Secretary of State (SOS) to
establish a free access system to allow any voter who casts
a provisional ballot to determine whether his or her
provisional ballot was counted and, if not, the reason why
it was not counted.
Existing law requires sample ballots be identical to
official ballots and that the sample ballots be printed on
paper of a different texture from the paper to be used for
the official ballot.
Existing law provides that in order to facilitate the
timely production and distribution of sample ballots, the
county elections official may prepare a combined sample
ballot, which also contains the voter information guide
(VIG).
Existing law requires every ballot contain all of the
following:
The title of each office.
The names of all qualified candidates.
The titles and summaries of measures submitted to
vote of the voters.
Instructions to voters.
This bill requires the elections officials to establish a
free access system that allows a VBM voter to learn whether
his or her VBM ballot was counted and, if not, the reason
why the ballot was not counted. This bill also requires
for each election, the elections official to make the free
access system available to a VBM voter for at least 30 days
immediately following the completion of the official
canvass.
This bill provides that a county elections official may
elect not to mail a sample ballot to the following:
a permanent VBM voter,
a voter in an all-mail ballot election
a voter in an all-mail ballot precinct
This bill provides that a county elections official may
elect not to mail a sample ballot to one of these voters if
the elections official prepares and mails to each of them a
VIG containing all the information required to be included
in, and accompanied with all the election materials
required to accompany the sample ballot except the
following:
an application for a VBM ballot
a notice that a VBM application is enclosed
This bill removes an ambiguous reference to "residence
address" in a provision of the Elections Code that deals
SB 589 (HILL)
Page 2
strictly with signature verification.
BACKGROUND
VBM Voting in California : In the past few elections, the
number of voters choosing to vote using a VBM ballot has
increased significantly, particularly since the enactment
of AB 1520 (Shelley), Chapter 922, Statutes of 2001, which
allowed any voter to become a permanent VBM voter.
Of the 13,202,158 California voters participating in the
2012 Presidential Election, about 6.8 million people, or
51%, cast their ballots by mail. This continued, steady
increase suggests that the number of voters opting to vote
by VBM ballot will continue to grow.
Reasons Why a VBM Ballot Might Not be Counted : Under
current law, there have been two primary reasons why a VBM
ballot that was completed and returned to the elections
officials may not be counted. One of the most common
reasons is that many ballots are received by the elections
office after Election Day, and state law requires that VBM
ballots be received by the close of polls on Election Day
in order to be counted. A voter who was under the
impression that his or her ballot would be counted as long
as the envelope was postmarked by Election Day could
repeatedly have his or her ballot not counted if that voter
regularly waited until Election Day to put their VBM ballot
in the mail.
The other primary reason why a VBM ballot might not be
counted is that the signature on the identification
envelope is missing or does not match the one on the
voter's affidavit of registration. Illness and age can be
factors that contribute to a signature changing over time.
For example, many older voters do not realize that the
signature on file with the registrar of voters no longer
matches their current signature and as a result their VBM
ballot may not be counted.
COMMENTS
1. According to the author : For the first time in
California's history, a majority of voters in a general
SB 589 (HILL)
Page 3
election cast their ballots by mail in the November 6,
2012 election. Unfortunately, over 59,000 vote-by-mail
ballots were rejected by county registrars throughout
the state. Roughly 1% of vote-by-mail voters in
California submitted their ballots and thought they
voted, not knowing that their ballots were rejected. SB
589 allows vote-by-mail voters to contact their local
registrar of voters to determine if their ballot was
counted. If their ballot was rejected, the bill
requires the registrar to inform the vote-by-mail voter
why their ballot was rejected so they can remedy the
problem for future elections. Under current law these
vote-by-mail voters have no way of knowing there's a
problem and don't know to fix the problem.
The "free access system" requirement in the bill provides
county registrars with flexibility to determine how they
want to comply with the provisions of the bill. County
registrars can comply with the bill by informing voters
on a walk-in basis, informing voters over the phone, or
informing voters online.
SB 589 also provides county registrars with flexibility on
printing requirements in order to reduce redundancy for
voters. The bill allows county registrars to omit the
sample ballot language when they mail the voter
information guide to vote-by-mail voters. This is a
reasonable option since vote-by-mail voters will receive
the actual ballot containing complete ballot language
for all measures shortly after the voter information
guide is delivered. Instead of receiving the ballot
language twice, vote-by-mail voters will only receive it
once when they receive their ballot.
2. What about L.A. County : L.A. County has been using
the InkaVote Plus Voting System for all their
elections since 2003. This device uses an ink marker
and requires each voter to insert their ballot card
into the voting device, or vote recorder, securing the
ballot over fixed red pins and then "inks" the ovals on
their ballot card accordingly.
According to staff with the L.A. County Registrar
Recorder's Office, for VBM voters, in addition to their
SB 589 (HILL)
Page 4
ballot card, voters receive a VBM instruction
guide/sample ballot. All candidates and measures up
for election have corresponding numbers printed inside
the instruction guide and correspond to the numbers
printed on the voter's ballot. The ballot can
accommodate up to 360 offices and or measures.
3. Related legislation : AB 293 (Hill) of 2011 would have
required the elections official to establish a free
access system that allows a VBM voter to find out
whether his or her VBM ballot was counted and, if not,
the reason why the ballot was not counted. AB 293 was
vetoed by the Governor, who, although he supported the
author's intent, vetoed the measure based on the new
mandate.
AB 2616 (Hill) of 2010, which was substantially similar to
AB 293, was vetoed by the Governor, who wrote in his
veto message, "I cannot support mandating additional
costs in this time of fiscal crisis. Nothing in current
law prohibits county elections officials from providing
this information and I would encourage them to do so as
resources allow."
AB 84 (Hill) of 2009, which was substantially similar to
AB 2616, was also vetoed by the Governor who expressed
concern that it could result in additional costs to
local governments.
AB 2964 (Levine) of 2008, which was substantially similar
to AB 84, was vetoed by the Governor, though the
Governor did not express any policy objections to the
bill.
POSITIONS
Sponsor: Secretary of State
Support: California State Council of the Service Employees
International Union
(SEIU)
California Association of Clerks and Election
Officials
SB 589 (HILL)
Page 5
Oppose: None received
SB 589 (HILL)
Page 6