BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 477
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 29, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Jimmy Gomez, Chair
AB
477 (Mullin) - As Amended April 8, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Elections and Redistricting |Vote:|4 - 2 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: YesReimbursable:
Yes
SUMMARY:
This bill provides remedies to a vote-by-mail (VBM) voter who
fails to sign his or her VBM identification envelope.
Specifically, this bill:
AB 477
Page 2
1)Prohibits an elections official from rejecting the ballot of a
VBM voter who has failed to sign their VBM identification
envelope if the voter, by 5:00 p.m. on the 10th day after the
election, either:
a) Signs the identification envelope at the elections
official's office; or
b) Completes and submits an unsigned ballot statement, as
specified.
2)Requires the elections official to compare the signatures
provided via (1) in the manner required under current law and
to accept the VBM ballot if the signatures compare.
3)Requires the Secretary of State (SOS) to include the unsigned
ballot statement and instructions on the SOS website along
with contact information for elections officials.
FISCAL EFFECT:
1)Costs to elections officials would be state reimbursable, but
AB 477
Page 3
should be minor such that mandate claims would be unlikely,
but if filed would not exceed $30,000 statewide.
2)Any costs to the SOS would be minor and absorbable.
COMMENTS:
Background and Purpose. The UC Davis California Civic Engagement
Project conducted a statewide survey of California's 58 county
election offices to gain a better understanding of California's
use of VBM ballots, including return methods. The project found
that, of the 6.6 million VBM ballots returned in the November
2012 general election, about one percent were rejected during
ballot processing. According to this survey, late receipt was
the most common reason why a VBM ballot was uncounted. The
other top two reasons were signature issues, such as a missing
signature or a mismatching signature.
SB 29 (Correa)/Chapter 618, Statutes of 2014, was an effort to
remedy the significant VBM ballot rejection rate, by allowing
VBM ballots to be counted if they are cast by election day and
received by the elections official by mail no later than three
days after the election.
According to the author, this bill is intended to address those
VBM ballots arriving with no signature. AB 477 will help remedy
this problem by prohibiting an elections official, if a voter
has failed to sign the VBM identification envelope, from
rejecting the VBM ballot, as specified. Instead, the bill
creates a new process that permits a voter to either sign the
identification envelope of his or her VBM ballot at the
elections official's office or complete and submit an unsigned
AB 477
Page 4
ballot statement before 5 p.m. on the 10th day after the
election, as specified.
Though not required to do so, when VBM ballots arrive with
missing signatures, county elections officials attempt to
contact the voter prior to election day in order to provide them
the opportunity to correct their ballot. Since current law does
not require a voter to provide a phone number or email when an
individual registers to vote or requests a VBM ballot, efforts
to contact such a voter in a timely manner are a challenge.
Given that contact by mail is then the only recourse, this bill,
which permits an unsigned ballot statement to be received by an
elections official up to 10 days after election day,
theoretically will provide county elections officials with
sufficient time to alert a voter of their unsigned VBM
identification envelope and allow a voter time to provide the
required signature.
Analysis Prepared by:Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916)
319-2081