BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 882|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 882
Author: Gordon (D)
Amended: 8/5/14 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE ELECTIONS & CONST. AMEND. COMMITTEE : 5-0, 6/24/14
(pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10)
AYES: Padilla, Anderson, Hancock, Jackson, Pavley
SENATE ELECTIONS & CONST. AMEND. COMMITTEE : 4-0, 6/4/13
AYES: Anderson, Hancock, Yee, Torres
NO VOTE RECORDED: Padilla
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 76-0, 4/25/13 (Consent) - See last page for
vote
SUBJECT : Voter registration and recall elections
SOURCE : Secretary of State
DIGEST : This bill corrects an inconsistency in current
election law regarding the process governing the verification of
signatures on a recall petition.
Senate Floor Amendments of 8/5/14 add a provision stating that
if the elections official decides to use a document other than a
new voter registration affidavit, "it would still need to be
certified under penalty of perjury," similar to other provisions
CONTINUED
AB 882
Page
2
of existing law.
ANALYSIS :
Existing law:
1. Provides that, upon each submission of a section of a
petition for the recall of a state officer to a county
elections official, the official shall count the number of
signatures on the section and submit those results to the
Secretary of State (SOS). If 500 or more signatures are
submitted, the elections official may verify, using a random
sampling technique, either 3% of the signatures submitted, or
500 signatures, whichever is less.
2. Requires elections officials, when using a random sampling
technique to determine the number of valid signatures on a
petition for the recall of a local officer, to examine at
least 500 signatures or 5% of the signatures, whichever is
greater.
3.Requires, if a county elections official receives an affidavit
of voter registration that does not include all required
information, and the elections official is not able to collect
the missing information by telephone, but the mailing address
of the affiant is legible, the elections official to inform
the affiant of the reason for rejection of the affidavit and
send to the affiant a new voter registration card.
This bill:
1.Corrects an inconsistency in current election law regarding
the process governing the verification of signatures on a
recall petition.
2.Provides that if 500 or more signatures are submitted to an
elections official on a petition for the recall of a state
officer, the elections official may verify, using a random
sampling technique, either 3% of the signatures submitted or
500 signatures, whichever is greater, instead of verifying the
lesser of the two amounts.
3.Permits a county elections official, if the affidavit of
registration does not contain all of the information required,
CONTINUED
AB 882
Page
3
and the elections official is not able to collect the missing
information by telephone, but the mailing address of the
affiant is legible, the county elections official shall inform
the affiant of the reason for rejection and shall send to the
affiant either of the following:
A. A new voter registration card.
B. Any other document, as determined by the elections
official, on which the affiant may provide the missing
information. An affiant who provides information pursuant
to this paragraph shall certify under penalty of perjury
that the information provided is true and correct.
Background
Random sampling . Existing law permits elections officials to
use a random sampling technique when verifying the signatures on
petitions in certain situations where officials are presented
with petitions with large numbers of signatures. Under this
technique, officials select a specified number of signatures
from the petition at random, check the validity of those
signatures, and based on that check of a small number of
signatures, project the total number of valid signatures on the
petition. Because this technique only provides a projection of
the number of valid signatures on the petition, rather than an
actual hard count of the number of valid signatures, existing
law generally provides that the results of a random sample of
signatures can only be substituted for a full verification of
all signatures on the petition when the projected number of
signatures is either significantly above or significantly below
the number of signatures needed. If the number of signatures
that are projected to be valid is neither significantly more nor
significantly less than the number of signatures required on the
petition in question, elections officials generally are required
to determine the validity of each signature on the petition
before making a final determination whether the petition
contains a sufficient number of signatures.
In situations where the random sampling technique projects that
the number of signatures on the petition is significantly higher
than the number of signatures required on the petition, the
petition is deemed to have a sufficient number of signatures
without the need for a full examination, and if the random
sampling results in a projection that the number of signatures
CONTINUED
AB 882
Page
4
is significantly lower than the number needed, the petition is
deemed to have an insufficient number of signatures without the
need for a full examination. By avoiding the need to examine
every signature on every petition filed with an elections
official, the random sampling technique can significantly reduce
the time and expense associated with verifying signatures on
petitions.
In almost every case in which existing law provides for a random
sampling process for verifying signatures on petitions, the law
requires the elections official to verify either a certain
number of signatures, or a certain percentage of the total
number of signatures submitted, whichever is larger. As a
general rule, this policy means that petitions with a larger
number of signers will have a larger number of signatures chosen
for verification as part of the random sampling process.
However, in the case of petitions for the recall of a state
officer, for any petition that has 500 signatures or more,
existing law provides that the elections official must examine
either 500 signatures or three percent of the signatures on the
section of the petition, whichever is less. This is the only
situation in which the Elections Code establishes a standard
where an official using a random sampling technique would base
the number of signatures that needed to be verified on the
lesser of the two numbers.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/6/14)
Secretary of State (source)
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the Secretary of State,
the sponsor of this bill:
When a prospective voter doesn't include all of the required
information in his or her voter registration application,
elections officials must contact the applicant by phone or
send a new registration application to the person. This bill
allows the elections official to mail a document other than a
voter registration card to collect the missing information so
the registration application can be completed. Allowing the
CONTINUED
AB 882
Page
5
elections official to use an alternate form will make it
easier for prospective voters to provide missing information
and complete their registration applications.
Current law is inconsistent when describing the requirements
for verifying the signatures of recall petitions. Several
statutes set the verification threshold at a random sampling
of at least 500 or 3 percent of signatures, whichever is
greater. One statute sets the threshold for the recall of
state officials at a random sampling of at least 500 or 3
percent of the signatures, whichever is less.
AB 882 clarifies that for state offices, the random sample of
signatures on a recall petition that must be verified will be
500 signatures or 3 percent of the signatures, whichever is
greater. AB 882 will ensure a clear and consistent process by
eliminating the conflicting statute. This technical
correction is consistent with current practice and historical
advice provided by the Secretary of State's office.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 76-0, 4/25/13
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Bigelow, Bloom,
Blumenfield, Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta, Bradford, Brown,
Buchanan, Ian Calderon, Campos, Chau, Ch�vez, Chesbro, Conway,
Dahle, Daly, Dickinson, Donnelly, Eggman, Fong, Fox, Frazier,
Beth Gaines, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gordon, Gorell, Gray,
Grove, Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Roger Hern�ndez, Holden, Jones,
Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Linder, Logue, Maienschein, Mansoor,
Medina, Melendez, Mitchell, Morrell, Mullin, Muratsuchi,
Nestande, Olsen, Pan, Patterson, Perea, V. Manuel P�rez,
Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Rendon, Salas, Skinner, Stone, Ting,
Torres, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wieckowski, Wilk, Williams,
Yamada, John A. P�rez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Cooley, Lowenthal, Nazarian, Vacancy
RM:k 8/6/14 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED
AB 882
Page
6
CONTINUED