BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 589
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 589 (Hill)
As Amended August 12, 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)Clarifies that a county elections official may use a free
access system for provisional ballots established by the
county pursuant to the federal Help America Vote Act of 2002
to implement the requirements of this bill.
3)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:
SB 589
Page 2
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.
c) The voter is furnished a VBM ballot in accordance with
existing law.
4)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.
5)Requires the elections official, if it elects not to mail a
sample ballot to a voter pursuant to specified provisions in
this bill, to use any savings achieved to offset the costs
associated with establishing the free access system for VBM
voters before the savings may be used for any other purpose
6)Makes technical changes to avoid chaptering out problems with
AB 1135 (Mullin).
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
SB 589
Page 3
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 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
SB 589
Page 4
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: 0001613