BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1970
Page 1
Date of Hearing: March 30, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING
Shirley Weber, Chair
AB 1970
(Low) - As Introduced February 16, 2016
SUBJECT: Elections: vote by mail and provisional ballots.
SUMMARY: Requires the Secretary of State (SOS) to promulgate
regulations to establish guidelines for county elections
officials relating to the processing of vote by mail (VBM) and
provisional ballots.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Provides that a VBM ballot must be received by the elections
official from whom it was obtained, or by a precinct board in
that jurisdiction, no later than the close of polls on
election day in order for that ballot to be counted.
2)Requires a VBM ballot identification envelope to include
specified information, including the following:
a) A declaration, under penalty of perjury, stating that
the voter resides within the precinct in which he or she is
voting and is the person whose name appears on the
envelope;
b) The signature of the voter;
AB 1970
Page 2
c) The residence address of the voter as shown on the
affidavit of registration; and,
d) The date of signing.
3)Requires a county elections official, upon receiving a VBM
ballot, to compare the signatures
on the envelope with either of the following:
a) The signature appearing on the voter's affidavit of
registration or any previous affidavit of registration of
the voter; or,
b) The signature appearing on a form issued by an elections
official that contains the voter's signature and that is
part of the voter's registration record.
4)Permits a county elections official to use facsimiles of
voters' signatures when determining if the signatures match
provided that the method of preparing and displaying the
facsimiles complies with existing law.
5)Requires the elections official, if it is determined that the
signatures compare, to deposit the ballot, still in the
identification envelope, in a ballot container.
6)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.
7)Authorizes an elections official, in comparing signatures, to
use signature verification technology. Prohibits an elections
official, if the signature verification technology determines
the signatures does not compare, from rejecting the ballot
unless he or she visually examines the signatures and verifies
that the signatures do not compare.
AB 1970
Page 3
8)Prohibits a variation of a signature caused by the
substitution of initials for the first or middle name, or
both, to be grounds for the elections official to determine
that the signatures do not compare.
9)Allows 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, as specified.
10)Requires a county elections official to establish a free
access system that allows a VBM voter to learn if his or her
VBM or provisional ballot was counted and, if not, the reason
why the ballot was not counted.
11)Requires a voter, whose qualification or entitlement to vote
cannot be immediately established upon examination of the
index of registration for the precinct or upon examination of
the record on file with the county elections official, to be
entitled to vote a provisional ballot. Requires the elections
official to advise the voter of the voter's right to cast a
provisional ballot.
12)Requires a voter who is casting a provisional ballot to
execute, in the presence of an elections official, the written
affirmation stating that the voter is eligible to vote and
registered in the county where the voter desires to vote.
13)Requires the provisional ballot envelope to be a different
color than the color of, but printed substantially similar to,
the envelopes used for VBM ballots and to be completed in the
same manner as VBM envelopes.
14)Requires the elections official to use the VBM signature
comparison procedures in existing law to compare the
signatures of provisional ballots.
15)Permits the SOS to adopt appropriate regulations for the
purpose of ensuring the uniform application of laws regarding
AB 1970
Page 4
provisional voting.
16)Requires provisions of law pertaining to provisional voters
to be liberally construed in favor of the voter.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose of the Bill: According to the author:
Increasingly each year, more California voters are
choosing to cast their vote with a vote-by-mail (VBM)
ballot. The year 2012 marked the first time that more
than 50% of voters cast their vote with a VBM ballot
during a statewide general election. In my district in
Santa Clara County, the number of votes [cast] through
VBM has increased dramatically-in 2010, 68% of ballots
counted were VBM ballots, 70% in 2012, and 76% in
2014. A similar increasing rate is reflected in many
counties across the state.
As county election officials see an increase in the
number of VBM ballots returned to their office during
an election, so has the number of ballots returned
that are left uncounted. According to the Pew Center
on the States' Election Performance Index,
approximately 66,000 VBM ballots were not counted in
the 2012 general election. This was only a 0.5% VBM
rejection rate, but is still considerably high
compared to most states. Despite the high use rate of
VBM ballot in California, accurate, comprehensive data
AB 1970
Page 5
has not been collected at a statewide level to
identify the reasons why voters' ballots are rejected,
nor have we known the variation in how counties
process rejected VBM ballots.
The California Voter Foundation (CVF) did a partial
study, analyzing uncounted ballot data in three
counties, Sacramento, Santa Cruz, and Orange, during
the general elections from 2008 to 2012, as well as
the primary election in 2012. The study found that
while most ballots were counted, of the nearly 30,000
VBM ballots cast that were not counted, across the
three counties on average:
- Ballots arriving late comprised of 61% of
uncounted ballots
- Ballots lacking a signature accounted for 20%,
and:
- Ballots with signatures that did not adequately
compare to the signature on file accounted for 18%.
Further in Orange County, just six percent of
uncounted VBM ballots were due to a signature
mismatch; 34% in Sacramento County; and 15% in Santa
Cruz County.
AB 1970
Page 6
One reason for the difference in the number of
mismatched signatures across counties could be
attributed to the lack of guidelines or uniform
standards for workers who are comparing signatures on
a ballot envelope to a signature on file. Current law
and regulations set by the Secretary of State require
a voter's signature to be compared however not much is
provided in terms of how to compare said signatures.
AB 1970 will require the Secretary of State to draft
regulations establishing guidelines for county
elections relating to the processing of vote by mail
ballots.
The Elections Code allows election officials to
construe statutes on provisional ballots to find ways
to make a ballot count, versus finding ways to reject
it. In fact, the California Association of Clerks and
Elections Officials provide local officials with
guidelines to compare signatures on a provisional
ballot. The same practice should be available and
enforced for VBM ballots. By providing elections
officials with a proper and uniform set of guidelines,
there will be decreased number in uncounted VBM
ballots and an increased opportunity for citizens to
make their vote count.
2)Current Vote by Mail and Provisional Ballot Signature
Verification Practices: Current law requires a county
elections official, upon receiving a VBM ballot or a
provisional ballot, to compare the signature on the
AB 1970
Page 7
identification envelope with the signature appearing in the
voter's registration record. Specifically, existing law
requires a county elections official to compare the signatures
on the envelope with either the signature appearing on the
voter's affidavit of registration or any previous affidavit of
registration of the voter, or the signature appearing on a
form issued by an elections official that contains the voter's
signature and that is part of the voter's registration record.
If the signatures compare, current law requires the county
elections official to deposit the ballot, still in the
identification envelope, in a ballot container in his or her
office. If the signatures does not compare, existing law
requires the envelope to remain unopened and the ballot shall
not be counted.
Due to an increase in VBM and provisional ballots, and to make
the verification process more efficient, many county elections
officials use signature verification technology to compare and
verify signatures on ballot identification envelopes.
Existing law, however, prohibits elections officials, if the
signature verification technology determines the signatures
does not compare, from rejecting the ballot unless he or she
visually examines the signatures and verifies that the
signatures do not compare.
3)Lack of Signature Comparison Guidelines: Over the past
election cycles the number of voters choosing to vote by mail
has significantly increased. In 2012, for the first time in a
statewide general election, over 50% of voters chose to cast
their votes using a VBM ballot. As discussed below, the
increase in VBM voting has resulted in a significant increase
in the number of VBM ballots that go uncounted. One of the
top reasons VBM ballots are being rejected is due to signature
mismatch.
In an effort to better understand how California's VBM process
is working and to identify ways to improve mail ballot success
AB 1970
Page 8
rates, the California Voter Foundation, a nonpartisan,
501(c)(3) organization, conducted a three county (Sacramento,
Orange, and Santa Cruz) study, focusing on each county's VBM
process. Among its findings, the study points out that one of
the reasons why counties may have varying signature mismatch
rejection rates is because there are very few uniform
standards for signature verification. The study states that
while current state law requires county elections officials to
compare a voter's signature on a VBM identification envelope
to the signature on his or her affidavit of voter registration
or other forms used by the elections officials, as specified,
it is limited when it comes to what criteria should be used to
compare the signatures. Moreover, according to the study, all
three counties have written signature verification guidelines
with slightly difference processes for handling situations
when a voter's signature may not compare.
In an effort to address this issue, this bill requires the SOS
to develop regulations related to the processing of VBM and
provisional ballots.
While the author's intent and goal is laudable, it can be argued
that this bill does not go far enough to resolve the lack of
statewide uniform guidelines for processing VBM and
provisional ballots, particularly with respect to signature
verification. The author and the committee may wish to
consider amending the bill to add more specificity and detail
to the regulations promulgated by the SOS.
4)Provisional Ballot Guidelines: Existing law provides that any
voter claiming to be properly registered, but whose
qualifications cannot be immediately established upon
examination of the list of registered voters for the precinct
or the records on file with the county elections official, is
entitled to cast a provisional ballot. Moreover, current law
requires an elections official to advise a voter of his or her
right to cast a provisional ballot and requires the voter to
execute, in the presence of an elections official, a written
affirmation stating that the voter is eligible to vote and
registered in the county where the voter desires to vote.
AB 1970
Page 9
Elections officials are required to verify each provisional
voter's registration and eligibility to vote before counting a
provisional ballot.
To assist county elections officials in determining the
eligibility of provisional voters, the California Association
of Clerks and Election Officials has developed guidelines to
help aid elections officials in processing provisional
ballots. The goal of the guidelines is to provide some common
ground for all counties to determine whether to count a
provisional ballot. According to the background materials
provided to the committee, these guidelines represent a
majority of provisional situations and resolutions that will
meet the needs of most counties. However, there likely will
be times - due to provisional voting volume, logistics, time
left in the canvas, or other reasons - when the scenarios do
not perfectly resolve a given provisional ballot question. In
such cases, the guidelines recommend a county elections
official to document the situation, consult with their county
counsel, make the best decision possible based on the specific
facts involving the particular provisional ballot, and share
the situation and resolution with other counties.
In addition, existing law permits the SOS to develop and adopt
regulations for the purpose of processing provisional ballots.
The committee, however, is unaware of any regulations that
have been developed.
5)Vote by Mail and Provisional Ballot Rejection Rates: 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 rejection rates. According to their
September 2014 brief, entitled "California's Uncounted VBM
Ballots: Identifying Variation in County Processing," in 2012,
for the first time in a statewide general election, over 50
percent of California's voters chose to cast their ballot via
VBM. This totaled 6.6 million ballots. However,
AB 1970
Page 10
approximately one percent of those VBM ballots received by the
elections official were rejected during ballot processing.
That amounts to approximately 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 two
reasons for VBM ballot rejection.
According to the study, counties rely on voter signature images
to verify the identity of VBM voters and these images can
sometimes not compare to a VBM ballot received by counties due
to a change in voters' signatures over time or because the
initial images (typically voter registration or Department of
Motor Vehicles signatures) were not high quality or did not
accurately represent a voter's signature.
Moreover, the systems used to process VBM ballots and verify
voter signatures vary from county to county. According to the
report, 78% of counties utilize a manual-based processing
system, 20% employ an automated system, and one county uses
both. The study points out that ballot processing systems
have elements of subjectivity with regard to signature
comparison. For instance, manual-based systems rely on
individual county standards in signature comparison, while
automated systems, also known as signature verification
systems, vary in their threshold settings for verification
match. Furthermore, automated systems are from different
vendors with different software, which also results in lack of
signature threshold standardization.
According to the study, no identifiable pattern was found
between counties with high non-match signature rates and the
use of manual versus automated systems.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
AB 1970
Page 11
Support
Voting Rights Task Force
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by:Nichole Becker / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094