BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 589
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 589 (Hill)
As Amended June 4, 2013
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :25-10
ELECTIONS 6-0 APPROPRIATIONS 17-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Fong, Donnelly, |Ayes:|Gatto, Harkey, Bigelow, |
| |Bocanegra, Bonta, Hall, | |Bocanegra, Bradford, Ian |
| |Perea | |Calderon, Campos, |
| | | |Donnelly, Eggman, Gomez, |
| | | |Hall, Holden, Linder, |
| | | |Pan, Quirk, Wagner, Weber |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
SB 589
Page 2
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.
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.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:
1)Given that similar notifications are already required for
provisional ballots and that VBM voters may already obtain
information regarding whether their ballot was received, any
additional reimbursable costs to inform a VBM voter should be
minor.
2)Potential minor savings to counties in printing and mailing costs
from omitting sample ballot language from the voter information
guide sent to permanent VBM voters.
COMMENTS : 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
SB 589
Page 3
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 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."
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.
Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion on
this bill.
Analysis Prepared by : Nichole Becker / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094
FN:
0001577