BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS
AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
Senator Lou Correa, Chair
BILL NO: AB 293 HEARING DATE: 6/7/11
AUTHOR: HILL ANALYSIS BY: Frances Tibon
Estoista
AMENDED: AS INTRODUCED
FISCAL: YES
SUBJECT
Vote by mail ballots
DESCRIPTION
Existing law outlines procedures for voting by mail and
establishes requirements for elections officials to compare
the signature on a vote by mail (VBM) ballot envelope with
that appearing on the affidavit of registration. If the
ballot is rejected because the signatures do not compare,
the envelope shall not be opened and the ballot shall not
be counted. The cause of the rejection must be written on
the face of the identification envelope.
Existing law requires elections officials to establish
procedures to track and confirm the receipt of VBM ballots
and to make this information available by means of online
access using the county's elections division Internet
website. If the county does not have an elections division
Internet website, the elections official shall establish a
toll-free telephone number that may be used to confirm the
date a voted VBM ballot was received.
Existing law requires the Secretary of State (SOS) to
establish a free access system to allow any voter who casts
a provisional ballot to discover whether his or her
provisional ballot was counted and, if not, the reason why
it was not counted.
This bill requires the elections official to establish a
free access system that allows a VBM voter to find out
whether his or her VBM ballot was counted and, if not, the
reason why the ballot was not counted.
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% of voters who participated in the 1998
Statewide Primary Election voted by VBM ballot, more than
41% of voters who participated in the last five statewide
elections voted by mail. These trends suggest that the
number of voters opting to vote by VBM ballot will continue
to increase.
Reasons Why a VBM Ballot Might Not be Counted : Under
current law, there have been two primary reasons why a VBM
ballot that was completed and returned to the elections
officials may not be counted. One of the most common
reasons is that many ballots are received by the elections
office after Election Day, and state law requires that VBM
ballots be received by the close of polls on Election Day
in order to be counted. A voter who was under the
impression that his or her ballot would be counted as long
as the envelope was postmarked by Election Day could
repeatedly have his or her ballot not counted if that voter
regularly waited until Election Day to put their VBM ballot
in the mail.
The other primary reason why a VBM ballot might not be
counted is that the signature on the identification
envelope is missing or does not match the one on the
voter's affidavit of registration. Illness and age can be
factors that contribute to a signature changing over time.
For example, many older voters do not realize that the
signature on file with the registrar of voters no longer
matches their current signature and as a result their VBM
ballot may not be counted.
COMMENTS
1. According to the author : AB 293 seeks to provide the
ever increasing number of vote-by-mail voters the
opportunity to determine if their ballot was counted
and, if not, the reason it was rejected. Unlike polling
place voters who can actually see their ballot dropped
AB 293 (HILL) Page
2
in a box or otherwise registered, vote-by-mail voters
have no recourse to make sure their ballot was counted.
Currently, vote-by-mail voters can determine if their
ballot was received by elections officials, but they
have no way of knowing if their ballot was actually
counted.
Given that significant numbers of vote-by-mail ballots are
NOT counted in every election because of signature
verification problems, arriving after the deadline, or
other problems, voters should have the ability to
determine if their vote was tallied. If the ballot was
rejected for some reason, it is important for the voter
to know the reason so that it can be rectified prior to
the next election. Provisional voters have had the
ability to follow-up on their ballot for years, it is
time for the majority of Californians who vote-by-mail
to have the same protections.
The use of vote-by-mail ballots by the California
electorate has been steadily increasing for a number of
years. Less than 10% of votes cast in the 1988 Primary
were cast by mail. In the 2000 Primary that percentage
was 23% of all votes cast. The Secretary of State
reports that for the 2010 Primary, more than 57% of the
votes were vote-by-mail ballots. As greater and greater
numbers of California voters utilize and rely upon
vote-by-mail ballots to have their voices heard in
elections, transparency in the process and piece-of-mind
that their ballot was included are more important than
ever.
2. California's Statewide Voter Registration Database : In
2002, the Federal Government passed the Help America
Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002, which, among other things,
required every state to implement a single, computerized
statewide voter registration list. The SOS has begun
the procurement process for the implementation of
California's statewide database, to be known as VoteCal,
as required under HAVA. Once VoteCal is fully deployed,
it will include a feature to allow a VBM voter to track
the status of their VBM ballot and verify whether or not
it was counted, and if not, the reason why it was not
counted.
AB 293 (HILL) Page
3
3. Is Legislation Necessary ? Current law does not
prohibit a county elections official from voluntarily
providing the information requested by this bill. In
fact, many already provide this information upon request
by a voter. The Committee may wish to consider if
legislation to require county elections officials to
provide this information to voters is necessary given
that it is already permissible.
4. State Mandates : The Governor's proposed 2011-2012
State Budget includes the suspension of various state
mandates as a mechanism for cost savings. Included in
the list of possible suspensions are elections mandates.
If these mandates are suspended, counties would no
longer be required to mail ballots to people who ask to
be permanent VBM voters or tabulate VBM ballots by
precinct. The Committee may wish to consider whether it
is desirable to create additional mandates on counties,
when current mandates are under consideration of
suspension.
5. Previous Legislation : AB 2616 (Hill) of 2010, which
was substantially similar to this bill, was vetoed by
the Governor, who wrote in his veto message, "I cannot
support mandating additional costs in this time of
fiscal crisis. Nothing in current law prohibits county
elections officials from providing this information and
I would encourage them to do so as resources allow."
AB 84 (Hill) of 2009, which was substantially similar to
AB 2616, was also vetoed by the Governor who expressed
concern that it could result in additional costs to
local governments.
AB 2964 (Levine) or 2008, which was substantially similar
to AB 84, was vetoed by the Governor, though the
Governor did not express any policy objections to the
bill.
PRIOR ACTION
Assembly Elections and Redistricting Committee: 7-0
Assembly Appropriations Committee: 15-1
AB 293 (HILL) Page
4
Assembly Floor: 75-0
POSITIONS
Sponsor: Author
Support: American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees,
AFL-CIO
Asian Americans for Civil Rights and Equality
California Association of Clerks and Election
Officials
Californians for Electoral Reform
San Mateo County Board of Supervisors
Secretary of State
Oppose: None received
AB 293 (HILL) Page
5