BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 589
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 11, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING
Paul Fong, Chair
SB 589 (Hill) - As Amended: June 4, 2013
SENATE VOTE : 25-10
SUBJECT : Vote by mail ballots: sample ballots.
SUMMARY : Makes changes to vote by mail (VBM) procedures and
sample ballot mailings. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires the county elections official 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. Requires the elections official to
make the free access system available to a VBM voter upon the
completion of the official canvass and for 30 days thereafter.
2)Permits a county elections official to elect not to mail a
sample ballot to a voter if all of the following are
satisfied:
a) The voter is one of the following:
i) A permanent VBM voter pursuant to existing law;
ii) A voter in an all-mail ballot election conducted
pursuant to existing law; or,
iii) A voter in an all-mail ballot precinct pursuant to
existing law.
b) The elections official prepares and mails to each voter
a voter information guide containing all of the information
required to be included in, and accompanied with all the
election materials required to accompany, the sample
ballot, except for both of the following:
i) An application for a VBM ballot; and,
ii) A notice that a VBM ballot application is enclosed.
SB 589
Page 2
c) The voter is furnished a VBM ballot in accordance with
existing law.
3)Provides that for each voter to whom the elections official
elects not to mail a sample ballot pursuant to the provisions
of this bill, the election official may cause to be printed
one less copy of the sample ballot.
SB 589
Page 3
EXISTING LAW :
1)Outlines procedures for voting by mail and establishes
requirements for elections officials to compare the signature
on a VBM ballot envelope with that appearing on the affidavit
of registration. 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. Requires the
cause of the rejection to be written on the face of the
identification envelope.
2)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. Provides that
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.
3)Requires the Secretary of State to establish a free access
system to allow any voter who casts a provisional ballot to
discover whether his or her provisional ballot was counted
and, if not, the reason why it was not counted.
4)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.
5)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.
6)Requires every ballot to contain all of the following:
a) The title of each office;
b) The names of all qualified candidates;
c) The titles and summaries of measures; and,
d) Instructions to voters.
7)Requires the sample ballot to contain, among other things, the
SB 589
Page 4
following items:
a) A copy of the official ballot used in the election;
b) A notice of the polling place to each voter;
c) A complete copy of each local measure;
d) A copy of the arguments and rebuttals for and against
each local measure; and,
e) A copy of the analysis of each local measure.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. State-mandated local program: contains
an offsetting savings disclaimer.
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose of the Bill : According to the author:
For the first time in California's history, a majority of
voters in a general election cast their ballots by mail.
Fifty-one percent, or 6,753,688 out of the 13,202,158
Californians who voted in the November 6, 2012 election,
voted by mail. Unfortunately, 59,370 vote-by-mail ballots
were rejected by county registrars throughout the state
during the November 6, 2012 election. These vote-by-mail
voters submitted their ballots and thought they voted, not
knowing that their ballots were actually rejected.
Existing law already provides voters who cast a provisional
ballot at a polling place with the ability to verify with
county election officials if their provisional ballot was
counted, and if not, to learn why it was not counted.
Vote-by mail voters do not have this same ability.
SB 589 would also allow 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 most common reasons for a
rejected vote-by-mail ballot are late submission (registrar
receives the ballot in the mail after the election) and the
SB 589
Page 5
signature on the ballot not matching with the signature on
the registration form.
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)VBM Voting in California : Since the passage of AB 1520
(Shelley), Chapter 922, Statutes of 2001, which allowed any
voter to become a permanent VBM voter, the number of voters
choosing to vote using a VBM ballot has increased
significantly. In the 2000 general election, 24.5% of votes
cast were VBM ballots, compared to 41.6% in the 2008 general
election, 48.4% in the 2010 general election, and 51.1% in the
2012 general election. These trends suggest that the number
of voters opting to vote by VBM ballot will continue to
increase in the future.
3)Reasons Why a VBM Ballot Might Not be Counted : Historically,
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 counted. A voter who was
under the mistaken 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 the VBM
ballot in the mail.
SB 589
Page 6
The other primary reason why a VBM ballot might not be counted
is that the signature on the identification envelope 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. In addition,
recent county reports show that there has been an increase in
signatures being rejected for "no match" among young voters.
According to Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder's November 6,
2012 General Presidential Election Report, at the November
2010 election, they found that voters less than 50 years of
age and clustered in the 20-39 age groups represented a
disproportionately high number of rejected ballots for no
signature match.
This bill provides a mechanism for voters to verify if their
ballot has been counted and, if not, a reason why it was not
counted. Voters whose ballots were not counted would be able
to take appropriate steps to ensure their VBM ballots are
counted in the future.
4)Will This Be Helpful to Counties ? As mentioned above, current
law requires county elections officials to send all voters,
including VBM voters, a sample ballot that is an identical
copy of the official ballot. In addition to a copy of the
official ballot, current law requires the sample ballot to
contain, among other things, a notice of the polling place to
each voter, a complete copy of each local measure, and an
analysis of each measure. This bill instead would allow
county elections officials to elect not to send a sample
ballot to a VBM voter, as specified, as long as the
information that accompanies the sample ballot is provided to
the voter. Proponents argue that the sample ballot duplicates
the information on the VBM ballot already being sent to those
same voters and that this bill will simplify the information
going to VBM voters, increase efficiency, and reduce printing
and postage costs incurred by county elections officials.
While this option may be helpful to some county elections
officials, others will not be able to utilize this option.
For example, Los Angeles County has been using the InkaVote
Plus Voting System for all their elections since 2003. This
SB 589
Page 7
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 Los Angeles County Registrar
Recorder's Office, in addition to their ballot card, VBM
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. Consequently,
Los Angeles County would likely be unable to elect not to send
sample ballots to VBM voters, as specified.
On the other hand, according to the proponents of the bill,
other counties do currently have the infrastructure and
capability to elect to not mail sample ballots to voters, as
specified. Moreover, depending on the county, this bill could
be beneficial and result in a reduction in printing and
mailing costs. Additionally, proponents of the bill state
that this option may also help reduce voter confusion, as VBM
voters will only receive ballot language once when they
receive their official ballot. With the continued increase in
voters choosing to vote by mail, this bill could be a helpful
option for some counties.
5)Related Legislation : AB 1135 (Mullin), which is pending in
the Senate Elections & Constitutional Amendments Committee,
allows an elections official to use supporting documents, as
specified, in the voter's file when comparing the signature on
the voter's VBM ballot. AB 1135 passed this committee on a
5-2 vote.
6)Previous Legislation : AB 293 (Hill) of 2011, which is similar
to this bill, was vetoed by Governor Brown. In his veto
message, the Governor stated that while he supports the
author's goal, under existing law, local governments can
already implement this type of database on their own.
AB 2616 (Hill) of 2010, which is similar to this bill, was
vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger. In his veto message, the
Governor wrote, "I cannot support mandating additional costs
in this time of fiscal crisis. Nothing in current law
prohibits county elections officials from providing this
SB 589
Page 8
information and I would encourage them to do so as resources
allow."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Secretary of State Debra Bowen (sponsor)
California Common Cause
California Federation of Teachers
California State Council of the Service Employees International
Union
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Nichole Becker / E. & R. / (916)
319-2094