BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 945
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 12, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING
Paul Fong, Chair
AB 945 (Donnelly) - As Amended: March 25, 2011
SUBJECT : Elections: voting procedures.
SUMMARY : Makes various significant changes to voting
procedures. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires a voter who is returning a vote by mail (VBM) ballot
to provide the last four digits of his or her California
driver's license number or California identification card
number or, if the voter has neither, the last four digits of
his or her Social Security Number (SSN) on the VBM ballot
identification envelope.
2)Prohibits a VBM ballot from being counted unless the voter's
signature and numeric identifying information is verified as
being consistent with the voter's state or federal records,
prior to counting the ballot.
3)Requires the VBM ballot identification envelope to contain a
security flap or sleeve to conceal the voter's signature and
identifying information during mailing.
4)Allows a VBM ballot of a member of the Armed Forces of the
United States who is an "absent uniformed services voter," as
defined, to arrive up to 21 days after election day and still
be counted, provided that the ballot is postmarked or signed
and dated on or before election day.
5)Requires a person desiring to vote to first produce and show
to the precinct worker at the polling place a valid,
state-issued form of photographic identification.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires a voter who appears at the polling place to vote to
announce his or her name and address to a precinct officer.
Requires the precinct officer, upon finding the name in the
roster of voters, to repeat the voter's name and address.
Requires the voter to then write his or her name and residence
address on a roster of voters, whereupon the voter is provided
AB 945
Page 2
a ballot.
2)Authorizes a member of the precinct board to challenge the
ability of a person to vote on various grounds, including that
the voter is not the person whose name appears on the index,
is not a precinct resident, is not a U.S. citizen, has already
voted on that day, or is on parole for the conviction of a
felony.
3)Provides that any person who votes more than once, attempts to
vote more than once, or impersonates or attempts to
impersonate a voter at an election is guilty of a crime
punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months
or two or three years, or in a county jail not exceeding one
year.
4)Requires a voter who submits his or her voter registration
form by mail and who has not previously voted to present one
of a number of specified documents to establish identity
before receiving a ballot. This requirement only applies the
first time an individual votes after registering to vote.
5)Requires all VBM ballots to be received by the elections
official from whom they were obtained or by the precinct board
no later than the close of polls on election day in order to
be counted.
6)Prohibits a VBM ballot from being counted unless the signature
on the VBM ballot identification envelope matches that voter's
signature on his or her affidavit of registration.
7)Makes fraud or the attempt to commit fraud in connection with
any vote cast a felony, punishable by imprisonment for up to
three years.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. State-mandated local program; contains
reimbursement direction.
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose of the Bill : According to the author, "AB 945 will
help safeguard our right to vote and instill public confidence
in the security and integrity of our elections system. It
will: (1) Require voters to show a photo ID at the polls in
order to receive a ballot; (2) Require vote by mail voters to
AB 945
Page 3
identify themselves by writing the last four digits of either
their CA driver's license, identification card, or SS # on a
concealed flap of the ballot return envelope and; (3) Allow
ballots cast by members of the U.S. armed forces stationed
overseas to be counted if they arrive up to 21 days after the
election, so long as they were voted on or before Election
Day."
2)Voter Fraud Prevention : According to background information
provided by the author's office, the author argues that
California's current system of elections serves as an open
invitation to fraud and is urgently in need of reform.
However, the author has not provided any evidence that voter
fraud of the type that would be prevented by identification
requirements at the polls and on VBM ballots is a problem in
need of a solution.
California law already requires the elections official to
compare the signature on a VBM ballot envelope with the
signature on that voter's affidavit of registration before the
VBM ballot may be counted. If those signatures do not match,
the ballot will not be counted. A person who casts a
fraudulent VBM ballot at an election can be charged with a
number of different felonies, any one of which is punishable
by up to three years in state prison. Given that a signature
comparison is already done on every VBM ballot before the
ballot is counted to protect against fraud, and given that
casting a fraudulent VBM ballot is a felony, it is unlikely
that VBM ballot fraud is widespread.
In addition, a voter who wishes to vote at the polls on election
day must have and confirm his or her name and address on the
roster of voters. If a voter's name is not on the roster,
that person is allowed to vote a provisional ballot, which is
later reviewed by the elections official to determine the
person's right to vote, before being included in the official
canvass. As such, the roster of voters plays a big role on
election day to minimize the occurrence of fraud. Current law
requires county election officials to take several steps to
ensure that the voter rolls are accurate, such as continuous
review and maintenance of the rolls to remove obsolete,
duplicative, and non-eligible names.
Other efforts required by law to reduce potential fraud include
a voter fraud hotline maintained by the Secretary of State
AB 945
Page 4
(SOS), the ability of a member of a precinct board to
challenge any person attempting to vote at the polls if the
voter's qualifications to vote are in question, and vigorous
prosecutions by local law enforcement agencies working
together with the SOS's office.
Furthermore, according to information provided by the
Secretary of State's Election Fraud Investigation Unit, from
1994 to 2010, there have been 23 convictions for double
voting, 6 convictions for fraudulent voting, and 4 convictions
for non citizen voting. However, it is unclear whether these
acts occurred while a voter was attempting to vote at the
polls, or if the these violations occurred by a VBM voter.
However, given the small number of convictions in the past
decade, it is reasonable to believe that the current efforts
to thwart voter fraud are working.
3)Will This Bill Disenfranchise Voters Due to Inadvertent
Errors ? While it seems unlikely that this bill will provide
any meaningful protection against fraud, it also seems likely
that one consequence of this bill will be the invalidation of
a number of legally cast ballots. For instance, if a voter
transposed two of the digits from his or her driver's license
number, identification card number, or SSN, his or her ballot
would be rejected under the provisions of this bill even if
the signature on the ballot was a match to the signature on
that voter's registration card. Similarly, to the extent that
a person neglected to provide the last four digits of his or
her driver's license number, identification card number, or
SSN, or failed to provide that information due to fear of
identity theft, this bill would require that the ballot be
invalidated even if there was no question that the ballot was
cast by the voter to whom it was issued.
4)Voters Who Lack ID : A November 2006 survey by the Brennan
Center for Justice found that 11% of United States citizens do
not have government-issued photo identification. To the
extent that this figure is reflective of the California
electorate, it is possible that a significant number
Californians who are eligible and registered to vote do not
have a form of identification that would meet the requirements
of this bill. This same survey also demonstrated that certain
groups - primarily poor, elderly, and minority citizens - are
less likely to possess these forms of identification.
AB 945
Page 5
This bill would require an individual desiring to vote to obtain
a state-issued form of photographic identification. This
requirement could pose some difficulty for voters who may not
have the appropriate form of identification. For example, in
order to be issued a California identification card, an
individual must go to a DMV office during business hours, pay
a fee of $26, and provide, among other things, verification of
birth date by submitting documents such as a certified copy
from the state or local vital statistics office of the
individual's US Birth Certificate. Such documentation may be
difficult to obtain and typically requires an additional fee.
In addition, this bill does not take into consideration those
voters who may have a religious objection to be photographed.
Under the provisions of this bill, those individuals, who are
fully eligible to vote and have a state-issued identification
card, but that card does not have a photo, will not be allowed
to vote.
5)Delayed Canvass : Under existing law, by the close of polls on
election day, county elections officials have received all the
materials necessary to complete the official canvass of
ballots. This bill would require county elections officials
to begin the official canvass of ballots before they have
received all the ballots that will be included in the final
official canvass. While many smaller counties have no
difficulty completing the official canvass of ballots in the
28 day deadline, larger counties frequently take the full
amount of time available to certify election results.
Especially since larger counties would likely receive the
largest number of ballots after election day, this bill could
hinder the ability of a number of counties to certify election
results by the 28th day after an election, as required by law.
Even in elections with relatively low turnout, allowing ballots
to arrive up to 21 days after the election and still be
counted could create problems for elections officials. When
elections officials finish processing all the ballots in their
possession and complete all the other tasks required as part
of the official canvass of an election, the election commonly
is certified at that point, even though the deadline for
certifying an election may be days away. In the case of
special elections held to fill vacancies in the Legislature or
Congress, for instance, it is not uncommon for an election to
be certified just a few days after the election took place.
AB 945
Page 6
Under the provisions of this bill, however, the elections
official would have to wait until at least the 21st day after
an election before completing the official canvass and
certifying election results. This could delay the filling of
vacancies and, in the case of primary elections, could delay
the preparation and printing of ballots for a subsequent
general or runoff election. To the extent that this bill
delays the completion of the official canvass at a primary
election, this bill could actually make it less likely that an
overseas voter will have adequate time to vote and return a
ballot for the general or runoff election, because the delay
of finalizing the official canvass while awaiting the
potential arrival of overseas ballots could delay the
production and mailing of ballots for the general or runoff
election.
6)Alternative Voting Methods : In March 2002, San Francisco
voters approved an initiative requiring the city to use
Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) for city elections. San Francisco
voters first used IRV in an election in November 2004. Under
IRV, voters rank candidates for each office, and the voters'
first choices are tallied. If no candidate receives a
majority of first choices, the candidate who was ranked first
on the fewest number of ballots is eliminated, and the vote
from each voter who had ranked that candidate first is
transferred to the next ranked candidate on that voter's
ballot. This process is repeated until one candidate receives
a majority of votes. In addition to San Francisco, voters in
Berkeley, Oakland, and San Leandro used IRV for municipal
elections for the first time last year.
This bill could complicate efforts for local governments to
adopt such alternative voting methods. Because IRV requires
all ballots to be tabulated in a first round before votes can
be reallocated to other candidates, it appears that
jurisdictions utilizing IRV must receive all ballots before
they can begin the final tabulation of election results.
Jurisdictions using IRV could have their election results
delayed by days or even weeks as the election official waits
for the receipt of additional VBM ballots that contain a
postmark on or before election day.
7)No Way to Know if a Voter is in the Military : There is
nothing on a VBM ballot application indicating the request was
AB 945
Page 7
made by military personnel, nor do voter registration forms
include a space on which an individual can indicate that he or
she is a member of the military. It would be difficult, if
not impossible, for elections officials to determine if a VBM
ballot received within the 21 day period after the election
was in fact from a member of the military.
8)Not Limited to Overseas Voters : Unlike many of the previous
legislative proposals to allow ballots to arrive after
election day and still be counted, this bill does not require
a voter to be overseas in order for the extended deadline to
apply. Instead, the provisions of this bill apply to any
member of the armed forces who is an "absent uniformed
services voter" as that term is defined under federal law.
Federal law defines an "absent uniformed services voter" as "a
member of a uniformed service on active duty, who, by reason
of such active duty, is absent from the place of residence
where the member is otherwise qualified to vote." This
definition also extends to the spouse or dependent of the
uniformed service member. As such, the provisions of this
bill could apply to a member of the military and their family
who are in California on election day if that member was on
active duty at a military base that is outside the county
where the voter is registered to vote.
9)Changing Procedures : This bill would change the procedures
that voters are currently used to when going to the polls on
election day. If a voter shows up to the polls to vote on
election day without the appropriate identification, that
person will not be allowed to vote. These new requirements
could lead to significant voter disenfranchisement, if
appropriate steps to inform the public of these changes in
procedure at the polls are not taken. In addition, increased
voter confusion due to these new requirements could
significantly slow the processing of voters and commensurately
increase wait times at polling places. To the extent that
this bill results in longer lines at polling places, this bill
could also result in reduced voter participation by those
voters who are not willing or able to wait in the longer
polling place lines.
10)Elections Mandates : The 2011-2012 State Budget that was
approved by the Legislature on March 17, 2011, suspends most
existing state-mandated local programs as a mechanism for cost
savings. Among the mandates that were suspended were a
AB 945
Page 8
requirement for counties to allow any voter to become a
permanent VBM voter and a requirement for counties to tabulate
VBM ballots by precinct. In fact, all six existing
elections-related mandates were suspended in the 2011-2012
budget bill. The Committee may wish to consider whether it is
desirable to establish new election mandates on counties when
the Legislature has voted to suspend the existing election
mandates.
11)Arguments in Opposition : Asian Americans for Civil Rights
and Equality and the American Civil Liberties Union, in
opposition to this bill, argue that VBM voters are already
required to write down several pieces of information on their
VBM envelope, and common problems include voters neglecting to
sign or date their VBM envelope and these problems are
multiplied for voters who face significant barriers to voting
such as new voters and limited English proficient voters.
They also argue that California should strive to make the VBM
process easier and more accessible for voters rather than
making it more difficult.
12)Related Legislation : AB 663 (Morrell), which is also being
heard in this committee today, requires a voter to present
proof of identification before being permitted to sign the
roster of voters and receive a ballot.
AB 477 (Valadao), which is pending in the Assembly
Appropriations Committee, allows a ballot from a special
absentee voter, as defined, to arrive up to 10 days after the
election and still be counted, provided that the ballot is
postmarked by the United States Postal Service or the Military
Postal Service Agency on or before election day.
SB 802 (Runner), which is pending in the Senate Elections and
Constitutional Amendments Committee, requires a voter to
present proof of identity before receiving a ballot at the
polling place, among other provisions.
13)Previous Legislation : AB 1415 (Adams) of 2009, would have
imposed various new limits and restrictions on voting similar
to those in this bill. AB 1415 failed passage in this
committee.
AB 1356 (Bill Berryhill) of 2009, would have required a voter to
present photo identification before receiving a ballot at the
AB 945
Page 9
polling place. AB 1356 failed passage in this committee.
AB 1367 (Fletcher) of 2009, would have allowed VBM ballots from
certain members of the military to arrive up to 21 days after
election day and still be counted provided that the ballot was
postmarked or signed and dated by election day. AB 1424
(Knight) of 2009, would have required a completed VBM ballot
identification envelope to contain the last four digits of the
voter's California driver's license number, identification
card number, or SSN in order for that ballot to be counted.
Both of these failed passage in this committee.
SB 370 (Runner) of 2009, would have required a person who
desires to vote at the polls on election day to show specified
proof of identification and would have required the Department
of Motor Vehicles to waive the fee for an identification card
requested for satisfying this requirement, among other
provisions. SB 465 (Huff) of 2009, would have required all
voters, prior to receiving a ballot at the polls, to present
photo identification issued by the United States, the State of
California, or a tribal government. Both of these bills
failed passage in the Senate Committee on Elections,
Reapportionment and Constitutional Amendments.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Bill Jones, Former California Secretary of State
Capitol Resource Family Impact
Opposition
American Civil Liberties Union
Asian Americans for Civil Rights and Equality
California Immigrant Policy Center
Disability Rights California
Analysis Prepared by : Maria Garcia / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094