BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1799|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1799
Author: Fong (D)
Amended: 3/23/10 in Assembly
Vote: 21
SENATE ELECTIONS, REAP. & C. A. COMMITTEE : 3-1, 6/29/10
AYES: Hancock, DeSaulnier, Liu
NOES: Strickland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Denham
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 49-27, 5/13/10 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Voting: replacement ballots
SOURCE : California Association of Clerks and Election
Officials
DIGEST : This bill removes a requirement that a vote by
mail voter who requests a replacement ballot must provide a
statement under penalty of perjury that he/she has failed
to receive, lost, or destroyed the original ballot in order
to receive a replacement ballot. Requires the elections
official to verify that a replacement ballot will not be
counted if a voted original ballot is received.
ANALYSIS : Existing law requires the elections official
to include with the sample ballot an application for a vote
by mail (VBM) ballot. Existing law provides that the
elections official shall send a second VBM ballot to any
voter upon receipt of a statement under penalty of perjury
CONTINUED
AB 1799
Page
2
that the voter has failed to receive, lost, or destroyed
his or her original ballot. Existing law requires the
elections official to keep a record of each VBM ballot sent
to and received from a voter and to verify, prior to
counting any duplicate ballot that the voter has not
attempted to vote twice. If it is determined that a voter
has attempted to vote twice, both ballots shall be void.
This bill deletes the requirement that a voter who requests
a replacement VBM ballot provide a statement under penalty
of perjury that he or she has failed to receive, lost, or
destroyed an original ballot. This bill requires the
elections official to keep a record of each VBM ballot sent
to and received from a voter, and verify, prior to issuing
any replacement ballot, that the voter has not already cast
a ballot in the same election. This bill provides that if
an original VBM ballot is received from a voter who has
requested a replacement VBM ballot, that original ballot
shall be held until such time as it can be determined that
the voter does not intend to return the replacement ballot,
after which time it can be processed and tallied. This
bill maintains that in no event may more than one ballot of
a voter be processed and tallied in an election.
Background
VBM voting in California . In the past few elections, the
number of voters choosing to vote using a VBM ballot has
increased significantly, particularly since the enactment
of AB 1520 (Shelley), Chapter 922, Statutes of 2001, which
allowed any voter to become a permanent VBM voter.
Whereas, just over 25 percent of voters who participated in
the 1998 Statewide Primary Election voted by VBM ballot,
more than 41 percent of voters who participated in the last
six statewide elections voted by mail. These trends
suggest that the number of voters opting to vote a VBM
ballot will continue to increase.
Comments
According to the author, "The percentage of voters who vote
by mail has increased with every election and shows no
signs of abating. For instance, in California in the 1998
general election, 24 percent of the votes were cast with a
AB 1799
Page
3
vote by mail ballot and in the 2008 general election, 41
percent of votes casts were by vote by mail ballots. Due
to the increasing number of VBM ballots, it is not
practical, nor is there sufficient time to require a voter
to complete a written statement under penalty of perjury
prior to issuing a replacement ballot. AB 1799 will make
it easier for voters to request replacement ballots when
they have not received or have lost their original ballot
as well as save election officials the cost of processing
written request for second ballots. According to the
Sacramento County Registrar of Voters, in the November 2008
General Election, it cost the county approximately $30,000
to re-issue 4,042 ballots."
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 6/29/10)
California Association of Clerks and Election Officials
(source)
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Ammiano, Arambula, Bass, Beall, Block, Blumenfield,
Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan, Caballero, Charles
Calderon, Carter, Chesbro, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De
Leon, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani,
Galgiani, Hall, Hayashi, Hernandez, Hill, Huber, Huffman,
Jones, Lieu, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Monning,
Nava, V. Manuel Perez, Portantino, Ruskin, Salas,
Saldana, Solorio, Swanson, Torlakson, Torres, Torrico,
Yamada, John A. Perez
NOES: Adams, Anderson, Bill Berryhill, Tom Berryhill,
Blakeslee, Conway, Cook, DeVore, Emmerson, Fletcher,
Fuller, Gaines, Garrick, Gilmore, Harkey, Jeffries,
Knight, Logue, Miller, Nestande, Niello, Nielsen, Silva,
Smyth, Audra Strickland, Tran, Villines
NO VOTE RECORDED: Hagman, Norby, Skinner, Vacancy
DLW:mw 7/2/10 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
AB 1799
Page
4
**** END ****