BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS, REAPPORTIONMENT AND
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
BILL NO: AB 787 HEARING DATE:7/7/09
AUTHOR: HILL ANALYSIS BY: Frances Tibon
Estoista
AMENDED: 6/1/09
FISCAL: YES
SUBJECT
Elections: vote by mail ballots
DESCRIPTION
Existing law provides that all vote by mail (VBM) ballots
must be voted on or before the day of the election and must
be received by either the elections official from whom it
came or the precinct board no later than the close of polls
on election day.
Existing law requires the elections official to deliver
voting materials to each qualified applicant for a VBM
ballot, including an identification envelope in which to
return the VBM ballot. The identification envelope shall
contain the following:
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;
The signature of the voter;
The residence address of the voter as shown on the
affidavit of registration;
The date of signing;
A notice that the envelope contains an official ballot
and is to be opened only by the canvassing board;
A warning plainly stamped or printed on it that the
voter must sign the envelope in his or her own
handwriting in order for the ballot to be counted;
A statement that the voter has neither applied, nor
intends to apply, for a VBM ballot from any other
jurisdiction for the same election; and,
The name and signature of the person, if any,
authorized to return the VBM ballot.
This bill requires the elections official, if he or she
determines that more than one first-class stamp or
equivalent postage is required to return a VBM ballot, to
provide a notification to the voter of how many first-class
stamps or equivalent postage is required.
This bill requires the elections official to use the most
cost-effective means available to notify the voter of the
need for additional postage.
BACKGROUND
Information taken from an October 2006 letter to the
Governor and legislative leadership from then Secretary of
State Bruce McPherson indicated that vote-by-mail voters in
at least 24 California counties would be required to put
more than one first-class stamp on their vote-by-mail
ballot envelope in order to return their voted ballot for
the November 7, 2006 General Election. It was later
determined that in at least one county, some voters had to
include more than 2 first-class stamps on their ballot to
return it by mail.
Counties responded to this situation by individually
negotiating with the United States Postal Service (USPS) to
ensure that any vote-by-mail ballot with at least one stamp
was delivered to the county, even if postage was
insufficient. The counties then agreed to pay the USPS for
the cost of the insufficient postage. In addition, many
counties included a notification to the voters of the
amount of postage that would be required to return the
ballot. However, some vote-by-mail ballots went out
without such a notification, while other counties simply
notified voters that "additional postage may be required"
in order for a voter to return his or her vote-by-mail
ballot, without notifying the voters whether additional
postage was required, and if so, how much additional
postage was required.
COMMENTS
1. According to the author : The number of Californians
who vote by mail has swelled in recent years. In the
AB 787 (HILL) Page
2
November 2000 General Election, approximately 24% of the
11.1 million ballots were cast by mail rather than at
polling places. During the last presidential election
four years ago, 32.6% of the 12.6 million Californian
ballots came in by mail. In the primary elections in
February and June of this year, 41.7% and 58.7% of
ballots were cast by mail, respectively.
As more voters cast their ballots by mail, stamps are
becoming an election issue. During the November race,
election blogs throughout California were busy with
questions from voters who were worried that their ballot
was going to be returned due to lack of proper postage.
However, while local elections officials don't advertise
it, some counties in the state have arrangements with
the Postal Service to deliver ballots and other
election-related mail - even if it is short on stamps.
Despite this agreement, the idea is not to subsidize the
cost of a ballot. AB 787 simply seeks to inform the
voter of the postage necessary for their ballot to be
delivered to the registrar's office and save local
governments money.
2. Prior Legislation : AB 984 (Price) of 2008, would have
required elections officials to notify VBM voters when
more than one first-class stamp was required to return
their VBM ballot, but was held on the Senate
Appropriations Committee's suspense file.
AB 1167 (Nava) of 2007, which was vetoed by the
Governor, would have required county elections officials
to negotiate with the USPS to ensure that all VBM
ballots would be delivered regardless of whether
sufficient postage was provided and required elections
officials to provide a notice to VBM voters when more
than one first-class stamp was required to return their
VBM ballot. In his veto message, the Governor indicated
that he was vetoing the bill because he "cannot support
the provision of this bill that requires local election
officials to negotiate with the USPS to ensure all
[vote-by-mail] ballots are delivered even if they have
AB 787 (HILL) Page
3
insufficient postage." The Governor expressed his
concern that such a provision was "unnecessary and
fail[ed] to appropriately recognize the responsibility
of [vote-by-mail] voters to use sufficient postage when
returning their ballot."
However, the Governor also indicated in his veto message
that he thought that the requirement for election
officials to notify VBM voters if a ballot will require
more than one stamp to return in the mail was "a common
sense proposal that appropriately places shared
responsibility on all parties."
PRIOR ACTION
Assembly Elections and Redistricting Committee: 7-0
Assembly Appropriations Committee: 13-4
Assembly Floor: 74-1
POSITIONS
Sponsor: Author
Support: California Common Cause
California Teachers Association
Secretary of State
Oppose: Department of Finance
AB 787 (HILL) Page
4