BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
AB 477 (Mullin) - Elections: ballots and the Green Party.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Version: July 1, 2015 |Policy Vote: E. & C.A. 4 - 0 |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Urgency: No |Mandate: Yes |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Hearing Date: August 17, 2015 |Consultant: Robert Ingenito |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill
Summary: AB 477 would (1) allow voters who failed to sign their
vote by mail (VBM) identification envelope to sign a statement
up to eight days after the election, as specified, in order to
have their ballot counted, and (2) establish procedures for the
Green Party to participate in the presidential primary, and
authorize the Green Party to establish county councils by
election.
Fiscal
Impact:
The bill would result likely result in state
reimbursable costs to local elections officials,
potentially exceeding $50,000 (General Fund).
Costs to the Secretary of State would be minor and
absorbable.
AB 477 (Mullin) Page 1 of
?
Background: The UC Davis California Civic Engagement Project conducted a
statewide survey the State's 58 county election offices to gain
a better understanding of California's use of VBM ballots,
including return methods. In 2012, for the first time in a
statewide general election, over 50 percent of California's
voters (6.6 million ballots) chose to cast their ballot via VBM.
However, approximately one percent of those VBM ballots received
were rejected during ballot processing, amounting to roughly
69,000 ballots. According to the survey, late receipt was the
most common reason why a VBM ballot was uncounted. Signature
issues, such as a missing signature or a mismatching signature,
were the other top reasons for VBM ballot rejection.
About one-quarter of VBM ballots were thrown out because the
signature on the ballot envelope did not match the signature on
record. With the advent of online voter registration, many
voters' signatures are pulled from their Department of Motor
Vehicles file. In many cases, this signature is out of date or
the voter was unable to sign clearly because they used an
electronic signature pad. In addition, about 17 percent of
ballots are not counted because the voter failed to sign his or
her ballot envelope altogether.
Current law does not require county elections officials to
contact a voter and inform them that his or her ballot was not
counted. However, in practice, when it comes to VBM ballots
being rejected due to 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.
According to the survey, nearly all counties utilize multiple
methods to contact a voter, such as contacting the voter by
phone, email, or mailing the VBM ballot back. However, because
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 a voter remain a challenge as a
voter's phone number and email may not be updated or available.
In the November 2014 General Election for a Chula Vista City
Council race, the winning candidate won by two votes. A legal
challenge by the opponent was filed contending the Registrar of
AB 477 (Mullin) Page 2 of
?
Voters (ROV) incorrectly rejected 10 provisional ballots
declared ineligible during review. Specifically at issue is how
some provisional ballots are handled. In the Chula Vista race,
the 10 provisional ballots that the ROV declared ineligible
involved voters writing down an address other than their
residential address.
Proposed Law:
This bill would provide remedies to VBM voters who fail to sign
their VBM identification envelope. Specifically, this bill
would, among other things, do the following:
Prohibit 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
8th day after the election, either (1) signs the
identification envelope at the elections official's office,
or (2) completes and submits an unsigned ballot statement,
as specified.
Require the elections official to compare the signatures
provided in the manner required under current law and to
accept the VBM ballot if the signatures compare.
Require SOS to include the unsigned ballot statement and
instructions on the SOS website along with contact
information for elections officials.
Related
Legislation: AB 1135 (Chapter 271, Statutes of 2013, Mullin) is
similar to the provision on signature comparison on VBM's as it
allows elections officials to use other documents to verify a
voter's signature, as long as the signatures show a progression
AB 477 (Mullin) Page 3 of
?
over time.
Staff
Comments: The bill would impose new duties on county elections
officials, thereby creating a reimbursable state mandate of
unknown costs.