BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2089
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 27, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
AB
2089 (Quirk) - As Amended March 17, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Elections and Redistricting |Vote:|4 - 2 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: YesReimbursable:
Yes
SUMMARY:
This bill requires county elections official to notify voters if
their vote-by-mail (VBM) ballot was not counted.
AB 2089
Page 2
FISCAL EFFECT:
Minor annual state reimbursable General Fund costs. Assuming an
average cost of one dollar per card for preparation and mailing,
based on results from the relatively high-turnout November 2012
election, statewide costs would be about $60,000.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. According to the author, "?59,370 vote-by-mail
ballots were not counted by county registrars throughout the
state during the November 2012 election?Assembly Bill 2089
requires election officials to notify voters when their ballot
was not counted in the last election cycle."
2)Background. In their 2014 report "Improving California's
Vote-by-Mail Process: A Three-County Study," the California
Voter Foundation explored VBM voting in California by examing
four elections taking place in Orange, Sacramento and Santa
Cruz counties from 2008 to 2012. Three primary reasons why
VBM ballots went uncounted in there elections were:
a) Arriving too late. (61%)
b) Lacking a signature. (20%)
c) The signature on the envelope that did not match the one
on the voter's affidavit of registration. (18%)
3)Comment. Simply informing a voter by mail that their VBM was
AB 2089
Page 3
not counted would likely beg the question from these voters as
to the underlying reason for rejection, thus county elections
officials will be fielding and responding to phone calls in
this regard. The author may wish to consider whether the
notification should include the reason for rejection of the
voter's ballot. This may increase up-front costs, but reduce
the burden associated with follow-up contacts.
4)Prior Legislation: SB 589 (Hill), Chapter 280, Statutes of
2013, enacted provisions to require elections officials to
establish a free access system by which a VBM voter may learn
whether his or her ballot was counted and, if not, the reason
why it was not counted.
5)Another Mandate? As with the last five state Budget Acts, the
Governor's proposed 2016-2017 budget would suspend various
state mandates, including elections mandates, as a cost-saving
mechanism. In light of recent history, and the Governor's
proposal, should additional mandates be enacted?
Analysis Prepared by:Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916)
319-2081