12,563 disputed Riverside County absentee ballots will be counted

Yesterday a Riverside County judge ordered the Registrar of Voters to count 12,563 absentee ballots that the county failed to retrieve from a regional post office before the 8 p.m. cutoff on Tuesday, June 8.  This blunder rated as the worst election fiasco of the California Primary election season -- many, including myself, were incredulous that thousands of ballots that were cast in a timely manner would go uncounted because of bureaucratic mix-ups.  Fortunately a group of voters sued and a judge agreed that these voters should not be disenfranchised.

Today's Riverside Press-Enterprise features this excellent article by Duane Gang that summarizes the basis for the judge's decision and the implications of counting these ballots.  The story is below.

-------------
A Superior Court judge Friday ordered Riverside County elections officials to count 12,563 disputed mail-in ballots and include the results in the final tally from the June 8 primary.

County officials began counting the votes shortly after Riverside County Superior Court Judge Mac R. Fisher issued his ruling and expect to complete the task by tonight.

The results could affect the outcome of at least one state Senate race where only 12 votes separate the top two finishers.

"Voting is a right that many have sacrificed lives and liberty to protect," Fisher said Friday. "The court will not disenfranchise 12,563 voters."

A mix-up with the U.S. Postal Service kept the ballots out of the hands of elections officials until after the polls closed Election Day -- the legal deadline to count the ballots.

The Riverside County Democratic Central Committee and three Moreno Valley voters sued last week to have the ballots counted under the state Constitution. A 2002 amendment gave voters a right to have their ballots counted.

Fisher ordered Registrar of Voters Barbara Dunmore to count the ballots expeditiously in order to meet the California secretary of state's July 16 deadline to certify the statewide results.

Many in the packed Riverside court room exclaimed, "Thank you," and applauded after the judge issued his ruling.

"I am very happy that my vote is going to count," said Naomi Ingram, one of the three Moreno Valley voters to file the lawsuit.

For Jennifer Christina Riegel, another plaintiff in the suit, the June 8 election was her first. She said she was upset when she learned her ballot was among those that languished uncounted.

"I really wanted mine to count," she said.

Sherri Lynn Riegel, the third voter to join the lawsuit, said, "We are ecstatic."

Counting nonstop

County spokesman Ray Smith said elections officials will work around the clock until they're done counting the ballots.

As soon as the count is complete, Dunmore will certify the results and forward them to the secretary of state Monday, Smith said. According to Friday's court ruling, elections officials have until July 15 to certify the local results.

The disputed ballots were sorted at a U.S. Postal Service facility in Moreno Valley by 8:30 a.m. on Election Day. But no one from the registrar's office picked them up from the Moreno Valley site.

As they had done for the past 12 years, county officials retrieved ballots at the Chicago Avenue post office in Riverside twice June 8 and visited a distribution facility in Redlands in the evening to pick up ballots.

They had never gone to the Moreno Valley site before. But since officials had visited the processing facility in Redlands, the Postal Service assumed the registrar would check for ballots at the processing facility in Moreno Valley, according to statement of facts filed with the court.

When no one arrived in Moreno Valley, the ballots were loaded on a truck and taken to the Chicago Avenue post office where the registrar's office picked them up June 9.

James Harrison, an attorney for the voters and Democratic committee, argued that the Postal Service agreed to hold mail for pick up, rather than deliver it to the registrar's street address.

That meant the ballots were received on time and voters shouldn't be penalized for any glitch by two governmental agencies, Harrison said.

Voters approved Prop. 43 in March 2002 and amended the state constitution to give every voter a right to have his or her ballot counted. Under that provision, the votes must be counted, Harrison said.

The county did not dispute the fact that the ballots were sorted June 8. But County Counsel Pamela Walls argued the Postal Service is not an official agent for the registrar of voters.

Nonetheless, Walls said outside of court that the county was pleased by the judge's decision.

"We are very happy and relieved to get a decision so we can get the certification done," Walls said.

Smith said the county needed the court's intervention because the registrar was constrained by the law. Ballots not in the possession of the registrar by 8 p.m. on Election Day cannot be counted.

"We have said all along that we want to count every vote," Smith said.

The ballots were the most high-profile glitch from last month's election and could affect the outcome of at least one contest. The Board of Supervisors on Tuesday will discuss an election review, which recommends a formal agreement with the Postal Service, more ballot-counting machines and better communication with the public.

Only 12 votes separate frontrunner Juan Vargas and Assemblywoman Mary Salas in the fight for the Democratic nomination in the 40th state Senate District, which includes parts of Riverside and San Diego counties and all of Imperial County.

As many as 890 votes from the 40th Senate District may be among the 12,563, registrar of voters records show.

California voters pass open primary proposition, defeat big money measures

California voters spoke yesterday, and the results are in.  Prop. 14, which sets up a new open primary election system in California, passed by a wide margin.  This kind of surprised me, given that it was a Primary election and by definition more likely to attract partisans and less likely to draw out independents, who would benefit most from a change that would allow them to vote for any candidate of any primary.  But I guess partisan voters want that kind of flexibility, too.  


Frankly I was also surprised that California's minor parties came out so strongly against Prop. 14 – seems to me it is likely to boost their registration numbers because voters registered with a minor party, like the Green Party or Libertarian Party, could do so without having to sit out competitive primary elections in other parties. 

Prop. 16 was defeated, which was something of a relief.  If it passed I would be forced to revise my personal conventional wisdom about the initiative process in California.  As a twenty-year observer of California elections, I've long said that you can't win an initiative campaign without money, but you can't win with only money, either.  PG&E spent over $46 million getting Prop. 16 on the ballot and attempting to get this measure passed to change state law to benefit a single corporation.  Opponents raised less than $100,000.  It was truly a "David vs. Goliath" type of battle.


A lot of people I know, people who are smart and thoughtful and read the paper and listen to NPR, were unsure of how to vote on Prop. 16.  The commercials were so seductive - who doesn't want to protect their right to vote?  PG&E bought one of the best campaigns I have ever seen in this state.  And yet in the end voters defeated Prop. 16, and Prop. 17 as well, which also represented a single company's (Mercury General Insurance Corp.) attempt to bend California law in its favor.


I believe disclosure made a difference - not just timely and robust campaign finance disclosure, which enabled CVF and the news media to inform the voting public about the millions being spent by private companies to promote these measures, but also disclosure laws covering television ads and campaign committee names that require top donors to be identified. Such laws help level the political playing field, especially in high-stakes initiative battles such as we saw on this ballot.

Top Ten Do's and Don'ts for California Voters

I give a lot of interviews this time of year and get lots of questions from voters -- here are the top 10 voting do's and don'ts on my mind this election season:

1.  You DON'T have to vote on everything on the ballot.  You can skip contests if you like.

2. If you moved since the last election but didn't re-register, DO vote today if you moved within the same county.  Go to your new polling place, fill out a voter registration card and cast a provisional ballot.

3.  If you don't know where your polling place is, or if you are registered to vote, DO contact your county election office (some have polling place and registration lookup tools on their web sites).

4.  You DON'T have to show ID to vote, unless you are voting for the first time and are a newly-registered California voter.

5. You DO have to sign the poll book under penalty of perjury - signing and voting for someone else could land you in jail.

6.  If you are registered "decline-to-state" you DO have the right to cast a partisan ballot in either the Democratic or Republican party's primary.

7.  If you are a Decline-to-state voter, DON'T rely on your pollworker to ask you which ballot you want - procedures vary from county to county. Remember to speak up and ask for a partisan ballot at the polls if you choose to cast one.

8.  If you've misplaced or didn't receive your vote-by-mail ballot, DO still go to your polling place and vote today. You will be voting a provisional ballot so the county can verify you are not voting twice.

9. If you have a vote-by-mail ballot but didn't mail it yet, DO take it to your polling place, or any polling place in your county and cast it there.

10. DO check the back side of your ballot for additional contests - some ballots are double-sided.

KCRW election discussion hosted by Warren Olney

Yesterday I had the pleasure of interviewing with Warren Olney, host of KCRW's "Which Way LA?" program.  Other guests included Peter Schrag and Allan Hoffenblum - good discussion all around.  An archive of the show is available online.

Campaigns raise $70 million to support and oppose state ballot props

Today the California Voter Foundation issued this news release highlighting the findings of our recent campaign finance data analysis of state proposition fundraising.

Overall $70 million has been raised to support and oppose the five measures on the ballot.  Two-thirds of all the money raised comes from just one donor, Pacific Gas & Electric, which has donated $46 million in support of Prop. 16, a measure the company is sponsoring that would impose new two-thirds voter approval requirements for local public electricity providers if enacted.  CVF's online voter guide lists the top five donors for and against each measure - this kind of information is a great short cut for voters looking for last-minute, reliable information on the state propositions.

New study finds California lawmakers receive 79% of campaign money from out-of-district

This week Maplight, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization shining a light on money in politics, released a new study, titled Remote Control, highlighting the findings of a data analysis of California lawmakers' campaign contributions.  The study found that 79 percent of the funds raised by California lawmakers come from outside of the district.  Maplight uses data compiled by the National Institute for Money in State Politics, which gets its raw data from California's online campaign finance disclosure data.

The study highlights how many incumbents who are in what would be considered "safe seats" nonetheless raise hundreds of thousands of dollars, generally to ensure their place of power within their caucus in the Capitol.  Not surprisingly, the Remote Control study found that four zip codes in Sacramento rate among the top ten donor zip codes; Sacramento is home to hundreds of lobbyists who attend dozens of fundraisers every year in order to gain the access they need to succeed in the legislative process.

It's exciting to see this kind of advanced analysis being conducted of California political fundraising.  This is not the only eye-opening research study that Maplight has conducted; the web site offers a bounty of fascinating findings as well as the opportunity to look up your own legislator's outside money and donations from interest groups.  While the Secretary of State's Cal-Access disclosure site is a fantastic resource, many voters do not have the time, computing power or familiarity with campaign disclosure to make much sense of raw online campaign finance data.  Maplight is providing a great public service by analyzing that data and turning into knowledge that voters will find useful.

On Monday, May 24 at 10 a.m. I will be on Capital Public Radio's Insight show along with Maplight's executive director, Daniel Newman, discussing this new study and campaign finance trends in California. Tune in online for a live audiocast.

Santa Clara first county in the nation to accept voter registration forms signed via e-signature pad

Last Friday Santa Clara County announced it was accepting voter registration forms completed and signed using a new technology developed by California company VeraFirma.  Earlier this year VeraFirma made headlines when the company attempted to submit initiative petitions signed with an electronic-signature pad such as an iPad or iPhone. San Mateo County rejected those signatures, the matter went to the courts and the ruling came down on the side of the county (Verafirma is appealing the decision).

Things are going much better for Verafirma in the neighboring county, where the company won support from Santa Clara county supervisors, county counsel and registrar of voters Jesse Durazo to use its technology for voter registration.

I'm cautiously optimistic about these developments.  For many young people, using a computer screen to complete a voter registration form will be a much more user-friendly experience than filling out a paper form.  However, the state lacks standards, statutes and regulations to specifically govern these signatures and their use in elections and voting.  All of the election statutes that exist today are based on the presumption that voters are signing on paper, not an e-pad.  And as anyone who has signed with an e-pad knows, the signature that results may only vaguely resemble one made on paper.  If registrars are to verify an absentee ballot request that comes in on paper against a voter registration form signature that was made on an e-pad, will they be able to successfully do so?

Other counties may follow Santa Clara's lead and given the absence of a robust statewide voter registration database that would facilitate online voter registration, the Verafirma technology may be the next best avenue for utilizing new technology to get more of California's 6.5 million nonregistered, eligible voters into the voting habit.

For more on these developments, see Ken McLaughlin's May 14 story in the San Jose Mercury news. Excerpts are featured below.

Some election officials have raised concerns about possible voter fraud, as well as privacy and security issues, in regard to electronic signatures. But the founders of Verafirma point out that Wells Fargo Bank is so confident in the technology that it allows customers to open a bank account with an electronic signature. 

The new technology also appears to be speeding ahead of current election laws. Nicole Winger, spokeswoman for California Secretary of State Debra Bowen, expressed some concern that the state's election codes don't mention things such as the three-year-old iPhones or the brand-new iPad. But Bowen does not have the authority to tell the county registrar to reject the signatures of the Santa Clara County voters who agreed to be guinea pigs, Winger said. Unless someone sues to stop Durazo from registering the voters, the electronic signatures will stand.

Barry, who called electronic signatures "the future of voter registration," said Verafirma has developed new software on a website that will allow people to use the National Voter Registration Act form to produce a "secure electronic signature" in the same way shoppers sign their name after swiping a credit card at supermarkets and large drugstores.

Sacramento County pioneers Ballot-on-Demand in California

Today I became one of the first voters in California to receive a ballot-on-demand.  Sacramento county, where I live and vote, has implemented a new ballot-on-demand voting process where a voter can come to the county election office, request a ballot, and the ballot is printed on the spot.  This new approach to balloting will save Sacramento county potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars each election year by avoiding pre-printing thousands of ballots for early voting purposes.  In the long run, it may open the door to new approaches to voting altogether, enabling county-wide voting centers to serve voters from all precincts.  Kudos to Sacramento County for pioneering this innovation in California voting!