BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1970|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1970
Author: Low (D), et al.
Introduced:2/16/16
Vote: 21
SENATE ELECTIONS & C.A. COMMITTEE: 4-1, 6/21/16
AYES: Allen, Hancock, Hertzberg, Liu
NOES: Anderson
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 8/11/16
AYES: Lara, Beall, Hill, McGuire, Mendoza
NOES: Bates, Nielsen
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 52-26, 4/21/16 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Elections: vote by mail and provisional ballots
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill 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.
ANALYSIS:
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.
AB 1970
Page 2
2) 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.
3) 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;
c) The residence address of the voter as shown on the
affidavit of registration; and,
d) The date of signing.
4) 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.
5) 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.
6) 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.
7) Provides that if the ballot is rejected because the
signatures do not compare, the envelope shall not be opened
AB 1970
Page 3
and the ballot shall not be counted. Requires the cause of
the rejection to be written on the face of the
identification envelope.
8) 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.
9) 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.
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
AB 1970
Page 4
signatures of provisional ballots.
15) Permits the SOS to adopt appropriate regulations for the
purpose of ensuring the uniform application of laws
regarding provisional voting.
16) Requires provisions of law pertaining to provisional
voters to be liberally construed in favor of the voter.
This bill requires the SOS promulgate regulations establishing
guidelines for county elections officials relating to the
processing of VBM, and provisional ballots.
Background
Current Vote by Mail and Provisional Ballot Signature
Verification Practices: Existing law requires a county
elections official, upon receiving a VBM ballot or a provisional
ballot, to compare the signature on the 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, the
county elections official is required to deposit the ballot,
still in the identification envelope, in a ballot container in
his or her office. If the signatures do not compare, existing
law requires the envelope to remain unopened and the ballot 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 do not
compare, from rejecting the ballot unless he or she visually
examines the signatures and verifies that the signatures do not
AB 1970
Page 5
compare.
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, existing 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.
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 canvass, 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.
AB 1970
Page 6
Comments
1) 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 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
AB 1970
Page 7
County; and 15% in Santa Cruz County.
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 SOS 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.
1) VBM 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% of
California's voters chose to cast their ballot via VBM. This
totaled 6.6 million ballots. However, approximately 1% 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
AB 1970
Page 8
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.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee: SOS indicates
that it would incur a one-time cost of $55,000 (General Fund) to
promulgate the regulations.
SUPPORT: (Verified8/11/16)
AB 1970
Page 9
Voting Rights Task Force
OPPOSITION: (Verified8/11/16)
None received
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 52-26, 4/21/16
AYES: Alejo, Arambula, Atkins, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brown,
Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper,
Dababneh, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Cristina Garcia,
Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray,
Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Lopez,
Low, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Quirk,
Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Mark Stone,
Thurmond, Ting, Weber, Williams, Wood, Rendon
NOES: Achadjian, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Brough, Chávez,
Dahle, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Grove, Harper, Jones, Kim,
Lackey, Linder, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, Melendez,
Obernolte, Olsen, Patterson, Steinorth, Wagner, Waldron, Wilk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Chang, Hadley
Prepared by:Frances Tibon Estoista / E. & C.A. / (916) 651-4106
8/15/16 19:36:13
**** END ****