(1)Existing law requires the Secretary of State to adopt regulations relating to the use of voting systems in recounting ballots.

This bill would also require the Secretary of State to revise and adopt regulations relating to procedures for recounting ballots, including regulations establishing guidelines for the charges a county elections official may impose when conducting a manual recount.

(2)Existing law establishes procedures by which a voter may request a recount of the votes cast in an election following completion of the official canvass. Existing law requires a voter to make this request within 5 days beginning on the 29th day after the election.

This bill would instead permit a voter to file a request for a recount within 5 days beginning on the 30th day after the election.

(3)Any time during the conduct of a recount and for 24 hours thereafter, existing law permits any other voter to request a recount of any precincts in an election for the same office, slate of presidential electors, or measure not recounted as a result of the original request. Existing law also provides that, where applicable, a voter requesting a recount may select whether the recount shall be conducted manually, or by means of the voting system used originally, or both.

This bill would instead require a voter to select, for each type of voting system used, whether the recount is to be conducted manually, or by means of the voting system used originally, but not both. This bill would also specify that if more than one voter requests a recount of the same office or measure, and at least one request is for a manual recount, then the county elections official of any county subject to multiple requests is only obligated to conduct one manual recount of the ballots subject to the request, and that those results will control.

(4)Under existing law, a voter seeking a recount is required, before the recount is commenced and at the beginning of each subsequent day, to deposit with the elections official the amount of money required by the elections official to cover the cost of the recount for that day.

This bill would permit the Governor or Secretary of State, as specified, to order a state-funded manual recount of all votes cast for a statewide office or a state ballot measure if the difference in the number of votes received is less than or equal to the lesser of 1,000 votes or 0.00015 of the number of all votes cast, as specified. This bill would also require a county elections official to review rejected ballots as part of a state-funded recount.

(5)Under existing law, upon completion of a recount showing that a different candidate was nominated or elected, that a different presidential slate of electors received a plurality of the votes, or that a measure was defeated instead of approved or approved instead of defeated, the result of the recount in each affected precinct is entered and is thereafter considered the official return of the affected precincts. Existing law provides that if an office, slates of presidential electors, or measure is voted on statewide, the results of any recount are null and void unless each vote cast for the office, slates, or measure in any county specified in the request for recount is recounted.

This bill would instead provide that if an office, slates of presidential electors, or measure is voted on statewide, the results of any recount are null and void unless each vote cast statewide for the office, slates, or measure is recounted.

(6)Existing law requires the Secretary of State to certify or conditionally approve a voting system prior to any election at which it is to be used, as specified. Existing law prohibits the Secretary of State from certifying or conditionally approving a voting system or part of a voting system that does not have certain technical capabilities.

This bill would also prohibit the Secretary of State from certifying or conditionally approving a voting system that cannot facilitate the conduct of a ballot level comparison risk-limiting audit; however, it would expressly permit the Secretary of State to approve a proposed change or modification to a noncompliant voting system even if the voting system would be unable to facilitate the conduct of a ballot level comparison risk-limiting audit after the change or modification.

By imposing new duties on local elections officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

(1)Existing law requires the Secretary of State to adopt regulations relating to the use of voting systems in recounting ballots.

This bill would also require the Secretary of State to revise and adopt regulations relating to procedures for recounting ballots, including regulations establishing guidelines for the charges a county elections official may impose when conducting a manual recount.

(2)Existing law establishes procedures by which a voter may request a recount of the votes cast in an election following completion of the official canvass. Existing law requires a voter to make this request within 5 days beginning on the 29th day after the election.

This bill would instead permit a voter to file a request for a recount within 5 days beginning on the 30th day after the election.

(3)Any time during the conduct of a recount and for 24 hours thereafter, existing law permits any other voter to request a recount of any precincts in an election for the same office, slate of presidential electors, or measure not recounted as a result of the original request. Existing law also provides that, where applicable, a voter requesting a recount may select whether the recount shall be conducted manually, or by means of the voting system used originally, or both.

This bill would instead require a voter to select, for each type of voting system used, whether the recount is to be conducted manually, or by means of the voting system used originally, but not both. This bill would also specify that if more than one voter requests a recount of the same office or measure, and at least one request is for a manual recount, then the county elections official of any county subject to multiple requests is only obligated to conduct one manual recount of the ballots subject to the request, and that those results will control.

(4)Under existing law, a voter seeking a recount is required, before the recount is commenced and at the beginning of each subsequent day, to deposit with the elections official the amount of money required by the elections official to cover the cost of the recount for that day.

This bill would permit the Governor or Secretary of State, as specified, to order a state-funded manual recount of all votes cast for a statewide office or a state ballot measure if the difference in the number of votes received is less than or equal to the lesser of 1,000 votes or 0.00015 of the number of all votes cast, as specified. This bill would also require a county elections official to review rejected ballots as part of a state-funded recount.

(5)Under existing law, upon completion of a recount showing that a different candidate was nominated or elected, that a different presidential slate of electors received a plurality of the votes, or that a measure was defeated instead of approved or approved instead of defeated, the result of the recount in each affected precinct is entered and is thereafter considered the official return of the affected precincts. Existing law provides that if an office, slates of presidential electors, or measure is voted on statewide, the results of any recount are null and void unless each vote cast for the office, slates, or measure in any county specified in the request for recount is recounted.

This bill would instead provide that if an office, slates of presidential electors, or measure is voted on statewide, the results of any recount are null and void unless each vote cast statewide for the office, slates, or measure is recounted.

(6)Existing law requires the Secretary of State to certify or conditionally approve a voting system prior to any election at which it is to be used, as specified. Existing law prohibits the Secretary of State from certifying or conditionally approving a voting system or part of a voting system that does not have certain technical capabilities.

This bill would also prohibit the Secretary of State from certifying or conditionally approving a voting system that cannot facilitate the conduct of a ballot level comparison risk-limiting audit; however, it would expressly permit the Secretary of State to approve a proposed change or modification to a noncompliant voting system even if the voting system would be unable to facilitate the conduct of a ballot level comparison risk-limiting audit after the change or modification.

By imposing new duties on local elections officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

(1)Existing law requires the Secretary of State to adopt regulations relating to the use of voting systems in recounting ballots.

This bill would also require the Secretary of State to revise and adopt regulations relating to procedures for recounting ballots, including regulations establishing guidelines for the charges a county elections official may impose when conducting a manual recount.

(2)Existing law establishes procedures by which a voter may request a recount of the votes cast in an election following completion of the official canvass. Existing law requires a voter to make this request within 5 days beginning on the 29th day after the election.

This bill would instead permit a voter to file a request for a recount within 5 days beginning on the 30th day after the election.

(3)Any time during the conduct of a recount and for 24 hours thereafter, existing law permits any other voter to request a recount of any precincts in an election for the same office, slate of presidential electors, or measure not recounted as a result of the original request. Existing law also provides that, where applicable, a voter requesting a recount may select whether the recount shall be conducted manually, or by means of the voting system used originally, or both.

This bill would instead require a voter to select, for each type of voting system used, whether the recount is to be conducted manually, or by means of the voting system used originally, but not both. This bill would also specify that if more than one voter requests a recount of the same office, slate of presidential electors, office or measure, and at least one request is for a manual recount, then the county elections official of any county subject to multiple requests is only obligated to conduct one manual recount of the ballots subject to the request, and that those results will control.

(4)Under existing law, the a voter seeking a recount is required, before the recount is commenced and at the beginning of each subsequent day, to deposit with the elections official the amount of money required by the elections official to cover the cost of the recount for that day.

This bill would permit a voter to request the Governor or Secretary of State, as specified, to order a state-funded manual recount of all votes cast for a statewide office, the office of President of the United States, office or a state ballot measure if the difference in the number of votes received is less than or equal to the lesser of 1,000 votes or 0.00015 of the number of all votes cast, as specified. This bill would also require a county elections official to review rejected ballots as part of a state-funded recount. This bill would repeal the provisions relating to state-funded recounts as of January 1, 2023.

(5)Under existing law, upon completion of a recount showing that a different candidate was nominated or elected, that a different presidential slate of electors received a plurality of the votes, or that a measure was defeated instead of approved or approved instead of defeated, the result of the recount in each affected precinct is entered and is thereafter considered the official return of the affected precincts. Existing law provides that if an office, slates of presidential electors, or measure is voted on statewide, the results of any recount are null and void unless each vote cast for the office, slates, or measure in any county specified in the request for recount is recounted.

This bill would instead provide that if an office, slates of presidential electors, or measure is voted on statewide, the results of any recount are null and void unless each vote cast statewide for the office, slates, or measure is recounted.

(6)Existing law requires the Secretary of State to certify or conditionally approve a voting system prior to any election at which it is to be used, as specified. Existing law prohibits the Secretary of State from certifying or conditionally approving a voting system or part of a voting system that does not have certain technical capabilities.

This bill would also prohibit the Secretary of State from certifying or conditionally approving a voting system that cannot facilitate the conduct of a ballot level comparison risk-limiting audit; however, it would expressly permit the Secretary of State to approve a proposed change or modification to a noncompliant voting system even if the voting system would be unable to facilitate the conduct of a ballot level comparison risk-limiting audit after the change or modification.

By imposing new duties on local elections officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

(1)Existing law prohibits a county elections official from opening a ballot after it is counted and sealed, except in certain circumstances, including a recount.

This bill would require a county elections official to store sealed ballots in a manner facilitating the retrieval of any particular ballot in that event.

(2)Existing law requires the Secretary of State to adopt regulations relating to the use of voting systems in recounting ballots.

This bill would also require the Secretary of State to revise and adopt regulations relating to procedures for recounting ballots, including regulations establishing guidelines for the charges a county elections official may impose when conducting a manual recount.

(3)Existing law establishes procedures by which a voter may request a recount of the votes cast in an election following completion of the official canvass. Existing law requires a voter to make this request within 5 days beginning on the 29th day after the election.

This bill would instead permit a voter to file a request for a recount within 5 days beginning on the 30th day after the election.

(4)Any time during the conduct of a recount and for 24 hours thereafter, existing law permits any other voter to request a recount of any precincts in an election for the same office, slate of presidential electors, or measure not recounted as a result of the original request. Existing law also provides that, where applicable, a voter requesting a recount may select whether the recount shall be conducted manually, or by means of the voting system used originally, or both.

This bill would instead require a voter to select, for each type of voting system used, whether the recount is to be conducted manually, or by means of the voting system used originally, but not both. This bill would also specify that if more than one voter requests a recount of the same office, slate of presidential electors, or measure, and at least one request is for a manual recount, then the county elections official of any county subject to multiple requests is only obligated to conduct one manual recount of the ballots subject to the request, and that those results will control.

(5)Under existing law, the voter seeking a recount is required, before the recount is commenced and at the beginning of each subsequent day, to deposit with the elections official the amount of money required by the elections official to cover the cost of the recount for that day.

This bill would permit a voter to request a state-funded manual recount of all votes cast for a statewide office, the office of President of the United States, or a state ballot measure if the difference in the number of votes received is less than or equal to the lesser of 1000 1,000 votes or 0.015%, 0.00015 of the number of all votes cast as specified. This bill would also require a county elections official to review rejected ballots as part of a state-funded recount. This bill would repeal the provisions relating to state-funded recounts as of January 1, 2023.

(6)Under existing law, upon completion of a recount showing that a different candidate was nominated or elected, that a different presidential slate of electors received a plurality of the votes, or that a measure was defeated instead of approved or approved instead of defeated, the result of the recount in each affected precinct is entered and is thereafter considered the official return of the affected precincts. Existing law provides that if an office, slates of presidential electors, or measure is voted on statewide, the results of any recount are null and void unless each vote cast for the office, slates, or measure in any county specified in the request for recount is recounted.

This bill would instead provide that if an office, slates of presidential electors, or measure is voted on statewide, the results of any recount are null and void unless each vote cast statewide for the office, slates, or measure is recounted.

(7)Existing law requires the Secretary of State to certify or conditionally approve a voting system prior to any election at which it is to be used, as specified. Existing law prohibits the Secretary of State from certifying or conditionally approving a voting system or part of a voting system that does not have certain technical capabilities.

This bill would also prohibit the Secretary of State from certifying or conditionally approving a voting system that cannot facilitate the conduct of a ballot level comparison risk-limiting audit; however, it would expressly permit the Secretary of State to approve a proposed change or modification to a noncompliant voting system even if the voting system would be unable to facilitate the conduct of a ballot level comparison risk-limiting audit after the change or modification.

By imposing new duties on local elections officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

(1)Existing law prohibits a county elections official from opening a ballot after it is counted and sealed, except in certain circumstances, including a recount.

This bill would require a county elections official to store sealed ballots in a manner facilitating the retrieval of any particular ballot in that event.

(2)Existing law requires the Secretary of State to adopt regulations relating to the use of voting systems in recounting ballots.

This bill would also require the Secretary of State to adopt regulations relating to the charges a county elections official may impose when conducting a manual recount.

(3)Existing law establishes procedures by which a voter may request a recount of the votes cast in an election following completion of the official canvass. Existing law requires a voter to make this request within 5 days beginning on the 29th day after the election.

This bill would instead permit a voter to file a request for a recount within 5 days beginning on the 30th day after the election.

(4)Any time during the conduct of a recount and for 24 hours thereafter, existing law permits any other voter to request a recount of any precincts in an election for the same office, slate of presidential electors, or measure not recounted as a result of the original request. Existing law also provides that, where applicable, a voter requesting a recount may select whether the recount shall be conducted manually, or by means of the voting system used originally, or both.

This bill would instead require a voter to select whether the recount is to be conducted manually, or by means of the voting system used originally, but not both. This bill would also specify that if more than one voter requests a recount of the same office, slate of presidential electors, or measure, and at least one request is for a manual recount, then the county elections official of any county subject to multiple requests is only obligated to conduct one manual recount of the ballots subject to the request, and that those results will control.

(5)Under existing law, the voter seeking a recount is required, before the recount is commenced and at the beginning of each subsequent day, to deposit with the elections official the amount of money required by the elections official to cover the cost of the recount for that day.

This bill would permit a voter to request a state-funded manual recount of all votes cast for a statewide office, the office of President of the United States, or a state ballot measure if the difference in the number of votes received is less than or equal to the lesser of 1000 votes or 0.015%, as specified. This bill would also require a county elections official to review rejected ballots as part of a state-funded recount. This bill would repeal the provisions relating to state-funded recounts as of January 1, 2023.

(6)Under existing law, upon completion of a recount showing that a different candidate was nominated or elected, that a different presidential slate of electors received a plurality of the votes, or that a measure was defeated instead of approved or approved instead of defeated, the result of the recount in each affected precinct is entered and is thereafter considered the official return of the affected precincts. Existing law provides that if an office, slates of presidential electors, or measure is voted on statewide, the results of any recount are null and void unless each vote cast for the office, slates, or measure in any county specified in the request for recount is recounted.

This bill would instead provide that if an office, slates of presidential electors, or measure is voted on statewide, the results of any recount are null and void unless each vote cast statewide for the office, slates, or measure is recounted.

(7)Existing law requires the Secretary of State to certify or conditionally approve a voting system prior to any election at which it is to be used, as specified. Existing law prohibits the Secretary of State from certifying or conditionally approving a voting system or part of a voting system that uses paper ballots if the paper cannot maintain its integrity and readability throughout the retention period. does not have certain technical capabilities.

This bill would also prohibit the Secretary of State from certifying or conditionally approving a voting system that cannot facilitate the conduct of a ballot level comparison risk-limiting audit; however, it would expressly permit the Secretary of State to approve a proposed change or modification to a noncompliant voting system even if the voting system would be unable to facilitate the conduct of a ballot level comparison risk-limiting audit after the change or modification.

By imposing new duties on local elections officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

(3)Existing law establishes procedures by which a voter may request a recount of the votes cast in an election following completion of the official canvass. Under Existing law requires a voter to make this request within 5 days beginning on the 29th day after the election.

(5)Under existing law, the voter seeking the a recount is required, before the recount is commenced and at the beginning of each subsequent day, to deposit with the elections official the amount of money required by the elections official to cover the cost of the recount for that day.

This bill would require the Secretary of State to order an automatic permit a voter to request a state-funded manual recount of all votes cast for a statewide office, the office of President of the United States, or a state ballot measure if the difference in the number of votes received is less than or equal to 0.1%, the lesser of 1000 votes or 0.015%, as specified. By imposing This bill would also require a county elections official to review rejected ballots as part of a state-funded recount. This bill would repeal the provisions relating to state-funded recounts as of January 1, 2023.

By imposing new duties on local elections officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

Existing law establishes procedures by which a voter may request a recount of the votes cast in an election following completion of the official canvass. Under existing law, the voter seeking the recount is required, before the recount is commenced and at the beginning of each subsequent day, to deposit with the elections official the amount of money required by the elections official to cover the cost of the recount for that day.

This bill would require the Secretary of State to order an automatic manual recount of all votes cast for a statewide office, the office of President of the United States, or a state ballot measure if the difference in the number of votes received is less than or equal to 0.1%, as specified. By imposing new duties on local elections officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 44

Author:(Mullin)

As Amended Ver:August 31, 2015

Majority vote

Original Committee Reference: E. & R.

SUMMARY: Creates a new state-funded recount process, as specified. Specifically, this bill:

1. Permits the Governor to order a state-funded manual recount of all votes cast for a statewide office or state ballot measure, as specified, if any of the following occurs:

   1. The official canvass of returns in a statewide primary election shows that the difference in the number of votes received by the second and third place candidates for a statewide office is less than or equal to the lesser of 1,000 votes or 0.00015 of the number of all votes cast for that office;

   2. The official canvass of returns in a statewide general election shows that the difference in the number of votes received by the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes for a statewide office is less than or equal to the lesser of 1,000 votes or 0.00015 of the number of all votes cast for that office; or,

   3. The official canvass of returns in a statewide election shows that the difference in the number of votes cast for and against a state ballot measure is less than or equal to the lesser of 1,000 votes or 0.00015 of the number of all votes cast on the measure.

2. Prohibits another recount from being conducted if a state-funded recount is conducted pursuant to the provisions of this bill.

3. Requires the state to reimburse counties for costs resulting from conducting a manual recount, pursuant to this bill, in an expeditious manner upon the certification of those costs.

4. Requires a county elections official, while conducting a recount pursuant to the provisions of this bill, to also review ballots rejected in accordance with existing law to ensure that no ballots were improperly discarded during the initial canvass.

5. Requires the Secretary of State (SOS), no later than January 1, 2018, to revise and adopt regulations specifying procedures for recounting ballots, including regulations establishing guidelines for charges a county elections official may impose when conducting a manual recount.

6. Requires a county elections official, if more than one voter requests a recount for the same office, slate of presidential electors, or measure, and at least one request is for a manual recount, to conduct only one manual recount of the ballots subject to recount, the result of which shall be controlling.

7. Provides that if an office, slate of presidential electors, or measure are voted on statewide, the results of any recount will be declared null and void if each vote cast statewide for the office, slates, or measure is not recounted.

8. Prohibits the SOS from certifying or conditionally approving a voting system that cannot facilitate the conduct of a ballot level comparison risk-limiting audit, as specified.

The Senate amendments:

1. Delete provisions of the bill that permitted any voter to request a state-funded manual recount and instead authorizes the Governor to order a state-funded manual recount, as specified.

2. Prohibit the Governor from ordering a state-funded manual recount of all votes cast for the office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) pursuant to the provisions of this bill unless the official canvass of returns in a statewide primary election shows either of the following:

   1. The number of votes received by the candidate receiving the greatest number of votes was either of the following:

      1. Between 0.49985 and 0.50015, inclusive, of the number of all votes cast; or,

      2. Within 1,000 votes of 50% of the number of all votes cast.

   2. No candidate for the office of SPI received votes on a majority of all the ballots cast for candidates for that office and the difference in the number of votes received by the second and third place candidates for that office was less than or equal to the lesser of 1,000 votes or 0.00015 of the number of all votes cast for that office.

3. Permit the SOS, not the Governor, to order a state-funded manual recount of all votes cast for the office of the Governor, as specified.

4. Provide that a county elections official shall only be required to conduct a state-funded manual recount pursuant to the provisions of this bill to the extent that funds are appropriated for the purposes of a state-funded manual recount in the annual Budget Act or other statute.

5. Delete provisions of the bill that required the state-funded manual recount provisions to sunset on January 1, 2023.

6. Make other technical conforming changes.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

1. State costs to reimburse counties for a state-funded recount would depend in part on the number of votes cast for the particular office or measure and whether or not a recount is ordered, but could potentially reach the low millions of dollars per recount.

2. The SOS would incur a one-time cost of $55,000 (General Fund) to promulgate regulations.

COMMENTS: According to the author, "In the June 2014 primary, former Assembly Speaker John Pérez trailed Board of Equalization Member Betty Yee by only 481 votes out of roughly four million. This very narrow margin prompted him to request a recount, which current law permits. When he did so, deep flaws in California’s existing recount process were revealed: it allows statewide results to be overturned by a partial recount and it favors candidates who can afford to pay…"

The Senate amendments make substantive and technical changes to the bill. First, the Senate amendments delete provisions of the bill that permitted any voter to request a state-funded manual recount and instead permit the Governor to order a state-funded manual recount, as specified. Second, the amendments permit the SOS, instead of the Governor, to order a state-funded manual recount of all votes cast for the office of the Governor. Third, the amendments clarify when a state-funded manual recount for the office of SPI may be ordered by the Governor. Fourth, the amendments delete provisions of the bill that required the state-funded manual recount provisions to sunset on January 1, 2023. In addition, the amendments provide that a county elections official shall only be required to conduct a state-funded manual recount pursuant to the provisions of this bill to the extent that funds are appropriated for the purposes of a state-funded manual recount in the annual Budget Act or other statute. Finally, the amendments make other technical conforming changes.

Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion of this bill.

Analysis Prepared by: Nichole Becker / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094 FN: 0001800

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 44

Author: Mullin (D), et al.

Amended: 8/31/15 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE ELECTIONS & C.A. COMMITTEE: 4-0, 6/30/15

AYES: Allen, Anderson, Hertzberg, Liu

NO VOTE RECORDED: Hancock

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 8/27/15

AYES: Lara, Beall, Hill, Leyva, Mendoza

NOES: Bates, Nielsen

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 74-4, 6/2/15 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Elections: statewide recounts

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST: This bill creates a new state-funded recount process, as specified.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1) Allows any voter, within five days following the completion of the official canvass and following the completion of any postcanvass risk-limiting audit conducted pursuant to existing law, to request in writing that the elections official responsible for conducting an election commence a recount of the votes cast for candidates for any office or for or against any measure, provided the office or measure is not voted on statewide. Allows a recount for an election that is conducted in more than one county to be conducted in any or all of the affected counties.

2) Allows any voter, following the completion of the official canvass and within five days beginning on the 29th day after a statewide election, to file with the Secretary of State (SOS) a written request for a recount of the votes cast for candidates for any statewide office or for or against any measure voted on statewide. Allows any voter, within five days following the completion of any postcanvass risk-limiting audit conducted pursuant to existing law, to file with the SOS a written request for a recount of the votes cast for candidates for any statewide office or for or against any measure voted on statewide. Requires a request filed to specify in which county or counties the recount is sought and specify on behalf of which candidate, slate of electors, or position on a measure it is filed. Permits a request to specify the order in which the precincts shall be recounted.

3) Permits any other voter, at any time during the conduct of a recount and for 24 hours thereafter, to request the recount of any precincts in an election for the same office, slate of presidential electors, or measure not recounted as a result of the original request.

4) Requires a voter seeking the recount, before the recount is commenced and at the beginning of each subsequent day, to deposit with the elections official the amount of money required by the elections official to cover the cost of the recount for that day.

5) Requires the recount to commence not more than seven days following the receipt by the elections official of the request for the recount and to continue daily, Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays excepted, for not less than six hours each day until completed.

6) Provides that if in the election which is to be recounted the votes were recorded by means of a punchcard voting system or by electronic or electromechanical vote tabulating devices, the voter who files the declaration requesting the recount may select whether the recount shall be conducted manually, or by means of the voting system used originally, or both.

7) Requires the recount to be conducted publicly.

8) Permits all ballots, whether voted or not, and any other relevant material, to be examined as part of any recount if the voter filing the declaration requesting the recount so requests.

9) Requires the SOS, within the SOS's existing budget, to adopt regulations no later than January 2008, for each voting system approved for use in the state and specify the procedures for recounting ballots, including vote-by-mail and provisional ballots, using those voting systems.

This bill:

1. Provides that, within five days after the SOS files a statement of the vote, the Governor may order a state-funded manual recount of all votes cast for a statewide office or state ballot measure if any of the following occurs, except as provided in 3) below:
   
   

   1. The official canvass of returns in a statewide primary election shows that the difference in the number of votes received by the second and third place candidates for a statewide office is less than or equal to the lesser of 1,000 votes or 0.00015 of the number of all votes cast for that office;
      
      

   2. The official canvass of returns in a statewide general election shows that the difference in the number of votes received by the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes for a statewide office is less than or equal to the lesser of 1,000 votes or 0.00015 of the number of all votes cast for that office; or,
      
      

   3. The official canvass of returns in a statewide election shows that the difference in the number of votes cast for and against a state ballot measure is less than or equal to the lesser of 1,000 votes or 0.00015 of the number of all votes cast on the measure.
      
      

2. Prohibits the Governor from ordering a state-funded manual recount of all votes cast for the office of Superintendent of Public Instruction unless the official canvass of returns in a statewide primary election shows either of the following:
   
   

   1. The number of votes received by the candidate receiving the greatest number of votes was either of the following:

1. Between 0.49985 and 0.50015, inclusive, of the number of all votes cast.

2. Within 1,000 votes of 50 percent of the number of all votes cast.
   
   

1. No candidate for the office of Superintendent of Public Instruction received votes on a majority of all the ballots cast for candidates for that office and the difference in the number of votes received by the second and third place candidates for that office was less than or equal to the lesser of 1,000 votes or 0.00015 of the number of all votes cast for that office.
   
   

1. Provides that, if the conditions set forth above are satisfied with respect to the number of votes cast for the office of Governor, the Secretary of State, but not the Governor, may order a state-funded manual recount pursuant to this bill.
   
   

2. Defines “statewide office,” for the purposes of this bill, to mean the office of Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Controller, Insurance Commissioner, SOS, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Treasurer, or Member of the United States Senate.
   
   

3. Prohibits another recount from being conducted if a state-funded recount is conducted pursuant to the provisions of this bill.
   
   

4. Requires the state to reimburse counties for costs resulting from conducting a manual recount, pursuant to this bill, in an expeditious manner upon the certification of those costs.
   
   

5. Requires the SOS, upon the Governor or the SOS ordering a recount, to notify the elections official of each county and direct the county elections official to recount all the votes cast for the office or for and against the state ballot measure.
   
   

6. Requires a county elections official, while conducting a recount, to also review ballots rejected in accordance with existing law to ensure that no ballots were improperly discarded during the initial canvass. Requires the process for reviewing rejected ballots to be open to members of the public, including persons associated with a campaign or measure.
   
   

7. Requires the elections official in each county to complete a state-funded recount as follows:

   1. In a primary election, by three business days before the SOS issues the certified list of candidates for the associated general election; or,

   2. In a general election, within 60 days of the Governor or the SOS ordering the recount.
      
      

8. Permits the SOS to adopt, amend, and repeal rules and regulations necessary for the administration of the provisions of this bill.
   
   

9. Specifies that a county elections official shall only be required to conduct a recount to the extent funds are appropriated for recount purposes in the annual Budget Act or other statute.
   
   

10. Requires the SOS, no later than January 1, 2018, to revise and adopt regulations specifying procedures for recounting ballots, including regulations establishing guidelines for charges a county elections official may impose when conducting a manual recount.
    
    

11. Changes the starting day on which a recount may be requested for a recount that is conducted in more than one county from the 29th day after the election to the 31st day after the election.
    
    

12. Requires a county elections official, if more than one voter requests a recount for the same office or measure, and at least one request is for a manual recount, to conduct only one manual recount of the ballots subject to recount, the result of which shall be controlling.

15. Repeals provisions of law that permitted a voter who files a declaration requesting a recount to select whether the recount is conducted manually, or by means of the voting system used originally, or both, and instead requires if the votes subject to recount were cast or tabulated by a voting system, the voter requesting the recount shall, for each set of ballots cast or tabulated by a type of voting system to only select whether the recount is conducted manually, or by means of the voting system used originally. Only one method of recount may be used for all ballots cast or tabulated by the same type of voting system.
    
    

16. Provides that if an office, slate of presidential electors, or measure are voted on statewide, the results of any recount will be declared null and void if each vote cast statewide for the office, slates, or measure is not recounted.
    
    

17. Prohibits the SOS from certifying or conditionally approving a voting system that cannot facilitate the conduct of a ballot level comparison risk-limiting audit.
    
    

18. Defines a voting system that is “noncompliant” as a voting system that cannot facilitate the conduct of a ballot level comparison risk-limiting audit.
    
    

19. Allows the SOS, until January 1, 2021, to approve a proposed change or modification to a noncompliant voting system even if the voting system will remain noncompliant after the change or modification.
    
    

20. Makes other technical and corresponding changes.

Background

Existing law permits any registered voter to request a recount within five days following the completion of the official canvass. The voter requesting the recount must specify on behalf of which candidate, slate of electors, or position on a measure it is filed. Additionally, at any time during the conduct of a recount and for 24 hours thereafter, current law allows any voter other than the original requestor to request a recount of additional precincts. The voter filing the request for the recount is required to deposit, before the recount commences and at the beginning of each day following, sums as required by the elections official to cover the cost of the recount for that day. If upon completion of the recount, the results are reversed, the deposit shall be returned.

Comments

1. According to the author, in the June 2014 primary, former Assembly Speaker John Perez trailed Board of Equalization Member Betty Yee by only 481 votes out of roughly four million. This very narrow margin prompted him to request a recount, which current law permits. When he did so, deep flaws in California’s existing recount process were revealed: it allows statewide results to be overturned by a partial recount and it favors candidates who can afford to pay.
   
   Current law allows candidates to specify the counties they want to recount, and if they make up the vote difference in those counties, the entire outcome of the election changes. In response, their opponent can take a turn in selecting counties in an effort to recover the lost votes. This inefficient back and forth could continue until every vote is counted or until a candidate runs out of money. It raises the question of fairness: Should the person with the deepest pockets be able to “out-recount” his opponent?
   
   The obvious answer is “no.” In statewide elections, where millions of ballots are cast, the state should be responsible for ensuring the accuracy of the vote, not a candidate or voter. Above all, our system of governance demands that the election process is fair and transparent for all voters and candidates.
   
   AB 44 creates a more equitable elections process by authorizing a state-funded option for recounts at the discretion of the Governor, when the difference is below a threshold of 1,000 votes or 0.015 percent, whichever is smaller. When this option is utilized, the state will fund a full hand recount of all ballots cast, while also re-examining any rejected ballots. Ensuring accurate election outcomes should be a priority for the state, and by creating a state-funded option for very close contests, AB 44 accomplishes this important goal.
   
   

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• State costs to reimburse counties for a state-funded recount would depend in part on the number of votes cast for the particular office or measure, but could potentially reach the low millions of dollars per recount.

• The SOS Office would incur a one-time cost of $55,000 (General Fund) to promulgate regulations.

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/28/15)

Secretary of State Alex Padilla

California Association of Clerks and Election Officials

FairVote

Los Angeles County Democratic Party

Santa Clara Board of Supervisors

VerifiedVoting.org

Voting Rights Task Force

Wellstone Democratic Renewal Club

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/28/15)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: Secretary of State Alex Padilla states in support of this bill:

AB 44 would make substantial improvements to election recount and audit laws for statewide candidates and ballot measures. AB 44 provides for efficient and cost effective recount practices; specifies the timeline for requesting a recount and authorizes voters to choose between a manual or system recount type – but not both. Given the cost concerns for recounts, this bill also tasks my office with crafting uniform guidelines for costs that a county may charge to those who request a recount. This bill also helps ensure that elections officials will have access to the most workable recount technology going forward. For new voting systems, AB 44 prohibits the Secretary of State from certifying or conditionally approving a system that cannot facilitate the conduct of a ballot level comparison risk-limiting audit.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 74-4, 6/2/15

AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Perea, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Atkins

NOES: Travis Allen, Beth Gaines, Harper, Patterson

NO VOTE RECORDED: Calderon, Chávez

Prepared by: Frances Tibon Estoista / E. & C.A. / (916) 651-4106

8/31/15 8:33:32

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular Session

AB 44 (Mullin) - Elections: statewide recounts.

*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********

The following information is revised to reflect amendments

adopted by the committee on August 27, 2015

Bill Summary:

AB 44 would create a state-funded vote recount process, as specified.

Fiscal Impact:

• State costs to reimburse counties for a state-funded recount would depend in part on the number of votes cast for the particular office or measure and whether or not a recount is ordered, but could potentially reach the low millions of dollars per recount.

• The Secretary of State’s Office (SOS) would incur a one-time cost of $55,000 (General Fund) to promulgate regulations.

Author Amendments:

Specify that, in addition to having to meet specified criteria, the recount would not occur unless ordered by the Governor (or Secretary of State if a gubernatorial election meets the recount criteria). They also delete the sunset.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular Session

AB 44 (Mullin) - Elections: statewide recounts.

This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.

Bill Summary:

AB 44 would, until January 1, 2023, create a state-funded vote recount process, as specified.

Fiscal Impact:

• State costs to reimburse counties for a state-funded recount would depend in part on the number of votes cast for the particular office or measure, but could potentially reach the low millions of dollars per recount.

• The Secretary of State’s Office (SOS) would incur a one-time cost of $55,000 (General Fund) to promulgate regulations.

Background:

Under current law, any registered voter can request a recount within five days following the completion of the official canvass, and must specify on behalf of which candidate, slate of electors, or position on a measure it is filed. Additionally, at any time during the conduct of a recount and for 24 hours thereafter, current law allows any voter other than the original requestor to request a recount of additional precincts. The voter filing the request for the recount is required to deposit, before the recount commences and at the beginning of each day following, sums as required by the elections official to cover the cost of the recount for that day. If upon completion of the recount, the results are reversed, the deposit is returned.

Proposed Law:

This bill would, among other things, do the following:

• Permit any voter, within five days after SOS files a statement of the vote, to request a state-funded manual recount of all votes cast for a statewide office, as specified, or state ballot measure if any of the following occurs:

  • The official canvass of returns in a statewide primary election shows that the difference in the number of votes received by the second and third place candidates for a statewide office is less than or equal to the lesser of 1,000 votes or 0.00015 percent of the number of all votes cast.

  • The official canvass of returns in a statewide general election shows that the difference in the number of votes received by the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes for a statewide office is less than or equal to the lesser of 1,000 votes or 0.00015 percent of the number of all votes cast.

  • The official canvass of returns in a statewide election shows that the difference in the number of votes cast for and against a state ballot measure is less than or equal to the lesser of 1,000 votes or 0.00015 percent of the number of all votes cast.

  • Prohibit a voter from requesting a state-funded manual recount of all votes cast for the office of Superintendent of Public Instruction unless the official canvass of returns in a statewide primary election shows that the number of votes received by the candidate receiving the greatest number of votes was (1) between 0.49085 and 0.50015, inclusive, of the number of all votes cast, or (2) within 1,000 votes of 50 percent of the number of all votes cast.

• Permit any voter, within five days after the SOS files a statement of the vote, to request a state-funded manual recount of all votes cast for the office President of the United States if the official canvass of returns in a statewide general election shows that the difference in the number of votes received by the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes for the office of President is less than or equal to the lesser of 1,000 votes or 0.00015 percent of the number of all votes cast.

• Prohibit another recount from being conducted if a state-funded recount is conducted pursuant to the provisions of this bill.

• Require the State to reimburse counties for costs resulting from conducting a manual recount, pursuant to this bill, in an expeditious manner upon the certification of those costs.

• Require a county elections official, while conducting a recount pursuant to the provisions of this bill, to also review ballots rejected in accordance with existing law to ensure that no ballots were improperly discarded during the initial canvass. Require the process for reviewing rejected ballots to be open to members of the public, including persons associated with a campaign or measure.

• Require the elections official in each county to complete a state-funded recount according to specified timelines.

• Permit SOS to adopt, amend, and repeal rules and regulations necessary for the administration of the provisions of this bill, and require SOS, no later than January 1, 2018, to revise and adopt regulations specifying procedures for recounting ballots, including regulations establishing guidelines for charges a county elections official may impose when conducting a manual recount.

• Repeal provisions of law that permitted a voter who files a declaration requesting a recount to select whether the recount is conducted manually, or by means of the voting system used originally, or both, and instead requires if the votes subject to recount were cast or tabulated by a voting system, the voter requesting the recount shall, for each set of ballots cast or tabulated by a type of voting system to only select whether the recount is conducted manually, or by means of the voting system used originally. Only one method of recount may be used for all ballots cast or tabulated by the same type of voting system.

• Provide that if an office, slate of presidential electors, or measure are voted on statewide, the results of any recount will be declared null and void if each vote cast statewide for the office, slates, or measure is not recounted.

• Contain a January 1, 2023 sunset date for the bill’s state-funded manual recount provisions.

Related Legislation:

AB 2194 (Mullin, 2014) would have required SOS to order an automatic manual recount of all votes cast for a statewide office or state ballot measure if the difference in the number of votes received is less than or equal to 0.1 percent. The bill failed the 2/3’s vote requirement for rule suspensions in order to be heard after the policy committee hearing deadline.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

ELECTIONS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS

Senator Ben Allen, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular

Bill No: AB 44 Hearing Date: 6/30/15

Subject: Elections: statewide recounts

DIGEST

Creates a new state-funded recount process, as specified.

ANALYSIS

Existing law:

1) Allows any voter, within five days following the completion of the official canvass and following the completion of any postcanvass risk-limiting audit conducted pursuant to existing law, to request in writing that the elections official responsible for conducting an election commence a recount of the votes cast for candidates for any office or for or against any measure, provided the office or measure is not voted on statewide. Allows a recount for an election that is conducted in more than one county to be conducted in any or all of the affected counties.

2) Allows any voter, following the completion of the official canvass and within five days beginning on the 29th day after a statewide election, to file with the Secretary of State (SOS) a written request for a recount of the votes cast for candidates for any statewide office or for or against any measure voted on statewide. Allows any voter, within five days following the completion of any postcanvass risk-limiting audit conducted pursuant to existing law, to file with the SOS a written request for a recount of the votes cast for candidates for any statewide office or for or against any measure voted on statewide. Requires a request filed to specify in which county or counties the recount is sought and specify on behalf of which candidate, slate of electors, or position on a measure it is filed. Permits a request to specify the order in which the precincts shall be recounted.

3) Permits any other voter, at any time during the conduct of a recount and for 24 hours thereafter, to request the recount of any precincts in an election for the same office, slate of presidential electors, or measure not recounted as a result of the original request.

4) Requires a voter seeking the recount, before the recount is commenced and at the beginning of each subsequent day, to deposit with the elections official the amount of money required by the elections official to cover the cost of the recount for that day.

5) Requires the recount to commence not more than seven days following the receipt by the elections official of the request for the recount and to continue daily, Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays excepted, for not less than six hours each day until completed.

6) Provides that if in the election which is to be recounted the votes were recorded by means of a punchcard voting system or by electronic or electromechanical vote tabulating devices, the voter who files the declaration requesting the recount may select whether the recount shall be conducted manually, or by means of the voting system used originally, or both.

7) Requires the recount to be conducted publicly.

8) Permits all ballots, whether voted or not, and any other relevant material, to be examined as part of any recount if the voter filing the declaration requesting the recount so requests.

9) Required the SOS, within the SOS's existing budget, to adopt regulations no later than January 2008, for each voting system approved for use in the state and specify the procedures for recounting ballots, including VBM and provisional ballots, using those voting systems.

This bill:

1. Permits any voter, within five days after the SOS files a statement of the vote, to request a state-funded manual recount of all votes cast for a statewide office or state ballot measure if any of the following occurs:
   
   

   1. The official canvass of returns in a statewide primary election shows that the difference in the number of votes received by the second and third place candidates for a statewide office is less than or equal to the lesser of 1,000 votes or 0.00015 percent of the number of all votes cast for that office;
      
      

   2. The official canvass of returns in a statewide general election shows that the difference in the number of votes received by the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes for a statewide office is less than or equal to the lesser of 1,000 votes or 0.00015 percent of the number of all votes cast for that office; or,
      
      

   3. The official canvass of returns in a statewide election shows that the difference in the number of votes cast for and against a state ballot measure is less than or equal to the lesser of 1,000 votes or 0.00015 percent of the number of all votes cast on the measure.
      
      

2. Prohibits a voter from requesting a state-funded manual recount of all votes cast for the office of Superintendent of Public Instruction unless the official canvass of returns in a statewide primary election shows that the number of votes received by the candidate receiving the greatest number of votes was either of the following:
   
   

   1. Between 0.49085 and 0.50015, inclusive, of the number of all votes cast.
      
      

   2. Within 1,000 votes of 50 percent of the number of all votes cast.
      
      

3. Defines “statewide office,” for the purposes of this bill, to mean the office of Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Controller, Insurance Commissioner, SOS, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Treasurer, or Member of the United State Senate.

   1. Permits any voter, within five days after the SOS files a statement of the vote, to request a state-funded manual recount of all votes cast for the office President of the United States if the official canvass of returns in a statewide general election shows that the difference in the number of votes received by the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes for the office of President is less than or equal to the lesser of 1,000 votes or 0.00015 percent of the number of all votes cast for the office of President.
      
      

4. Prohibits another recount from being conducted if a state-funded recount is conducted pursuant to the provisions of this bill.
   
   

5. Requires the state to reimburse counties for costs resulting from conducting a manual recount, pursuant to this bill, in an expeditious manner upon the certification of those costs.
   
   

6. Requires the SOS, upon ordering a recount pursuant to the provisions of this bill, to notify the elections official of each county and direct the county elections official to recount all the votes cast for the office or for and against the state ballot measure.
   
   

7. Requires a county elections official, while conducting a recount pursuant to the provisions of this bill, to also review ballots rejected in accordance with existing law to ensure that no ballots were improperly discarded during the initial canvass. Requires the process for reviewing rejected ballots to be open to members of the public, including persons associated with a campaign or measure.
   
   

8. Requires the elections official in each county to complete a state-funded recount as follows:

   1. In a primary election, by three business days before the SOS issues the certified list of candidates for the associated general election; or,

   2. In a general election, within 60 days of the voter’s request for the recount.
      
      

9. Permits the SOS to adopt, amend, and repeal rules and regulations necessary for the administration of the provisions of this bill.
   
   

10. Requires the elections official to store sealed ballots in a manner facilitating the retrieval of any particular ballot in the event of a recount.
    
    

11. Requires the SOS, no later than January 1, 2018, to revise and adopt regulations specifying procedures for recounting ballots, including regulations establishing guidelines for charges a county elections official may impose when conducting a manual recount.
    
    

12. Changes the starting day on which a recount may be requested for a recount that is conducted in more than one county from the 29th day after the election to the 31st day after the election.
    
    

13. Requires a county elections official, if more than one voter requests a recount for the same office, slate of presidential electors, or measure, and at least one request is for a manual recount, to conduct only one manual recount of the ballots subject to recount, the result of which shall be controlling.

14. Repeals provisions of law that permitted a voter who files a declaration requesting a recount to select whether the recount is conducted manually, or by means of the voting system used originally, or both, and instead requires if the votes subject to recount were cast or tabulated by a voting system, the voter requesting the recount shall, for each set of ballots cast or tabulated by a type of voting system to only select whether the recount is conducted manually, or by means of the voting system used originally. Only one method of recount may be used for all ballots cast or tabulated by the same type of voting system.
    
    

15. Provides that if an office, slate of presidential electors, or measure are voted on statewide, the results of any recount will be declared null and void if each vote cast statewide for the office, slates, or measure is not recounted.
    
    

16. Contains a January 1, 2023 sunset date for the state-funded manual recount provisions of this bill.
    
    

17. Prohibits the SOS from certifying or conditionally approving a voting system that cannot facilitate the conduct of a ballot level comparison risk-limiting audit.
    
    

18. Defines a voting system that is “noncompliant” as a voting system that cannot facilitate the conduct of a ballot level comparison risk-limiting audit.
    
    

19. Allows the SOS, until January 1, 2021 to approve a proposed change or modification to a noncompliant voting system even if the voting system will remain noncompliant after the change or modification.
    
    

20. Makes other technical and corresponding changes.

BACKGROUND

Existing law permits any registered voter to request a recount within five days following the completion of the official canvass. The voter requesting the recount must specify on behalf of which candidate, slate of electors, or position on a measure it is filed. Additionally, at any time during the conduct of a recount and for 24 hours thereafter, current law allows any voter other than the original requestor to request a recount of additional precincts. The voter filing the request for the recount is required to deposit, before the recount commences and at the beginning of each day following, sums as required by the elections official to cover the cost of the recount for that day. If upon completion of the recount, the results are reversed, the deposit shall be returned.

COMMENTS

1. According to the author, In the June 2014 primary, former Assembly Speaker John Perez trailed Board of Equalization Member Betty Yee by only 481 votes out of roughly four million. This very narrow margin prompted him to request a recount, which current law permits. When he did so, deep flaws in California’s existing recount process were revealed: it allows statewide results to be overturned by a partial recount and it favors candidates who can afford to pay.
   
   Current law allows candidates to specify the counties they want to recount, and if they make up the vote difference in those counties, the entire outcome of the election changes. In response, their opponent can take a turn in selecting counties in an effort to recover the lost votes. This inefficient back and forth could continue until every vote is counted or until a candidate runs out of money. It raises the question of fairness: Should the person with the deepest pockets be able to “out-recount” his opponent?
   
   The obvious answer is “no.” In statewide elections, where millions of ballots are cast, the state should be responsible for ensuring the accuracy of the vote, not a candidate or voter. Above all, our system of governance demands that the election process is fair and transparent for all voters and candidates.
   
   AB 44 creates a more equitable elections process by authorizing a state-funded option for recounts, available at or below a threshold of 1,000 votes or 0.00015 percent, whichever is smaller. When this option is utilized, the state will fund a full hand recount of all ballots cast, while also re-examining any rejected ballots. When the state-funded threshold is not met, the bill permits candidates to fund their own statewide recounts, reimbursing them if the original results are overturned. Ensuring accurate election outcomes should be a priority for the state, and by creating a state-funded option for very close contests, AB 44 accomplishes this important goal.
   
   

2. Changes to the Current Recount Process: This bill not only creates a state-funded manual recount process it also makes changes to the current recount process. For instance, this bill repeals provisions of law that permit a voter who files a declaration requesting a recount to select whether the recount is conducted manually, or by the voting system used originally, or both, and instead requires a voter requesting a recount to only select whether the recount is conducted manually, or by the voting system used originally. In other words, this bill requires a recount to be conducted in one manner throughout each jurisdiction.
   
   In addition, this bill makes changes to how recount costs are calculated. While the SOS has adopted regulations that specify procedures for recounting ballots, current regulations do not provide detailed guidance for the charges a county elections official may impose when conducting a recount. The regulations require an elections official to estimate the costs necessary to produce relevant material and require the requestor to pay an advance deposit of the estimated amount at least one day prior to the materials being produced. Regulations define "relevant materials" to include, but not be limited to, unvoted ballots, VBM and provisional ballot envelopes, voting system redundant vote data, ballot definition files, language translation files and the central database or other electronic repository of results for the election in which the contest subject to recount occurred, election data media devices, audit logs, system logs, pre-and post-election logic and accuracy testing plans and results, polling place event logs, precinct tally results, central count tally results and consolidated results in a structured non-proprietary format, surveillance video recordings and chain of custody logs, including logs of security seals and access to election-related storage areas. In addition to the relevant materials produced, actual recount costs may also include additional supervision hours, security guard hours, the elections official's staff hours, space rental, transportation of ballots, and materials and administrative costs.
   
   While there is no standardized pricing for a recount, not all recounts are the same. As mentioned above the requestor has the ability to request a recount to be conducted manually, by the voting system used, or both. In addition, a recount may or may not include the examination of all ballots, including those ballots that were rejected. All of these variables and others also contribute to the cost of a recount. A search done by the Assembly Elections & Redistricting Committee staff found that in Los Angeles County the cost of one recount board is $5,054.71 per day, in Orange County the fee for a four-member counting board is $600.00 per day, and in Santa Cruz County the cost for one recount board and supervisor pay is $1,008 per day.
   
   While many factors contribute to the cost of a recount, the significant cost variations may warrant more review and detailed guidance. In an effort to address this issue, this bill requires the SOS, not later than January 1, 2018, to revise and adopt regulations establishing uniform guidelines for charges a county elections official may impose when conducting a manual recount.
   
   Furthermore, as mentioned above in the author's statement, existing law does not require all of the ballots cast in the entire state to be recounted in order to change the result in a statewide contest. Existing law only requires that all the ballots in each county included in a recount request be recounted in order to change the result. This means that if the ballots recounted in the counties listed in the voter's request make up the vote difference in those counties, then the entire outcome of the election contest may change. In addition, existing law permits any other voter to request a recount as long as he or she selects different counties that were not originally included in the previous request. This back and forth could continue until every vote is counted or until a candidate runs out of money. In an effort to try to address this issue, this bill requires a recount for a statewide office or measure to be null and void unless each vote cast for the statewide office or measure is recounted.
   
   Finally, current law permits any other voter to request a recount of any precincts in an election for the same office, slate of presidential electors, or measure that were not included in the original recount request. According to county elections officials, current law does not clarify what would happen should another voter request the same precincts as the original recount request, but request for that recount to be conducted in a different manner. This bill will address this situation and make certain that should multiple requests be made to recount the same precincts, but differ in method, that the request for the precincts to be manually recounted will prevail. Specifically, this bill requires a county elections official, if more than one voter requests a recount for the same office, slate of presidential electors, or measure, and at least one request is for a manual recount, to conduct only one manual recount of the ballots subject to the recount, the result of which shall be controlling.

RELATED/PRIOR LEGISLATION

AB 2194 (Mullin of 2014) would have required the SOS to order an automatic manual recount of all votes cast for a statewide office or state ballot measure if the difference in the number of votes received is less than or equal to 0.1%. AB 2194 failed to receive the 2/3’s vote required for rule suspensions in order to be heard after the policy committee hearing deadline.

PRIOR ACTION

POSITIONS

Sponsor: Author

Support: California Association of Clerks and Election Officials

FairVote

Los Angeles County Democratic Party

Santa Clara Board of Supervisors

VerifiedVoting.org

Voting Rights Task Force

Wellstone Democratic Renewal Club

Oppose: None received

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 44

Author:(Mullin)

As Amended Ver:April 27, 2015

Majority vote

SUMMARY: Creates a new state-funded recount process, as specified. Specifically, this bill:

1. Permits any voter to request a state-funded manual recount of all votes cast for a statewide office or state ballot measure, as specified, if any of the following occurs:

   1. The official canvass of returns in a statewide primary election shows that the difference in the number of votes received by the second and third place candidates for a statewide office is less than or equal to the lesser of one thousand votes or 0.015% of the number of all votes cast for that office;

   2. The official canvass of returns in a statewide general election shows that the difference in the number of votes received by the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes for a statewide office is less than or equal to the lesser of one thousand votes or 0.015% of the number of all votes cast for that office; or,

   3. The official canvass of returns in a statewide election shows that the difference in the number of votes cast for and against a state ballot measure is less than or equal to the lesser of one thousand votes or 0.015% of the number of all votes cast on the measure.

2. Prohibits another recount from being conducted if a state-funded recount is conducted pursuant to the provisions of this bill.

3. Requires the state to reimburse counties for costs resulting from conducting a manual recount, pursuant to this bill, in an expeditious manner upon the certification of those costs.

4. Requires a county elections official, while conducting a recount pursuant to the provisions of this bill, to also review ballots rejected in accordance with existing law to ensure that no ballots were improperly discarded during the initial canvass.

5. Requires the elections official in each county to complete a state-funded recount as specified.

6. Requires the Secretary of State (SOS), no later than January 1, 2018, to adopt regulations establishing uniform guidelines for charges a county elections official may impose when conducting a manual recount.

7. Requires a county elections official, if more than one voter requests a recount for the same office, slate of presidential electors, or measure, and at least one request is for a manual recount, to conduct only one manual recount of the ballots subject to recount, the result of which shall be controlling.

8. Repeals provisions of law that permitted a voter who files a declaration requesting a recount to select whether the recount is conducted manually, or by means of the voting system used originally, or both and instead requires a voter who files a declaration requesting a recount to only select whether the recount is conducted manually, or by means of the voting system used originally. Permits a county to recount vote by mail (VBM) and provisional ballots in a manner other than that requested by the voter.

9. Provides that if an office, slate of presidential electors, or measure are voted on statewide, the results of any recount will be declared null and void if each vote cast statewide for the office, slates, or measure is not recounted.

10. Contains a January 1, 2023, sunset date for the state-funded manual recount provisions of this bill.

11. Prohibits the SOS from certifying or conditionally approving a voting system that cannot facilitate the conduct of a ballot level comparison risk-limiting audit, as specified.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, state costs to reimburse counties for a state-funded recount would depend in part on the number of votes cast for the particular office or measure, but would likely be from a few million dollars to several million dollars per recount.

COMMENTS: According to the author, "In the June 2014 primary, former Assembly Speaker John Pérez trailed Board of Equalization Member Betty Yee by only 481 votes out of roughly four million. This very narrow margin prompted him to request a recount, which current law permits. When he did so, deep flaws in California’s existing recount process were revealed: it allows statewide results to be overturned by a partial recount and it favors candidates who can afford to pay…

"AB 44 creates a more equitable elections process by authorizing a state-funded option for recounts, available at or below a threshold of 1,000 votes or 0.015 percent, whichever is smaller. When this option is utilized, the state will fund a full hand recount of all ballots cast, while also re-examining any rejected ballots. When the state-funded threshold is not met, the bill permits candidates to fund their own statewide recounts, reimbursing them if the original results are overturned. Ensuring accurate election outcomes should be a priority for the state, and by creating a state-funded option for very close contests, AB 44 accomplishes this important goal."

Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion on this bill.

Analysis Prepared by: Nichole Becker / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094 FN: 0000620

Date of Hearing: May 6, 2015

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Jimmy Gomez, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 44

Author:(Mullin) – As Amended Ver:April 27, 2015

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: Yes

SUMMARY:

This bill, until January 1, 2023, establishes a state-funded recount process for elections involving statewide elective offices and state ballot measures. Specifically, this bill:

1. Permits any voter, within five days after the Secretary of State (SOS) files a statement of the vote, to request a state-funded manual recount of all votes cast for a statewide office or state ballot measure if the difference in votes received is less than or equal to the lesser of 1,000 votes or 0.015 of one percent of the number of all votes cast for a state ballot measure or:

   1. For the second and third place candidates for a statewide office in a statewide primary election, or

   2. For the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes for a statewide office in a statewide general election.

2. Defines “statewide office,” for the purposes of this bill, to mean the office of Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Controller, Insurance Commissioner, SOS, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Treasurer, or Member of the United State Senate.

3. Permits any voter, within five days after the SOS files a statement of the vote for a statewide general election, to request a state-funded manual recount of all votes cast for the office President of the United States if the difference in votes received by the two candidates receiving the most votes is the same as the parameters in (1) above.

4. Stipulates that the state shall expeditiously reimburse counties for the costs of the recount upon certification of those costs, and requires the SOS to adopt regulations, by January 1, 2018, establishing uniform guidelines for counties' charges for a recount,

5. Requires county elections officials, while conducting a recount, to also review ballots previously rejected during the initial canvas and to complete the recounts:

   1. Following a primary election, by three days before the ballot-printing deadline.

   2. Following a general election, within 60 days of the voter's request for a recount.

FISCAL EFFECT:

State costs to reimburse counties for a state-funded recount would depend in part on the number of votes cast for the particular office or measure, but would likely be from a few million dollars to several million dollars per recount.

COMMENTS:

Purpose. According to the author, "In the June 2014 primary, former Assembly Speaker John Perez trailed Board of Equalization Member Betty Yee by only 481 votes out of roughly four million. This very narrow margin prompted him to request a recount, which current law permits. When he did so, deep flaws in California’s existing recount process were revealed: it allows statewide results to be overturned by a partial recount and it favors candidates who can afford to pay.

"Current law allows candidates to specify the counties they want to recount, and if they make up the vote difference in those counties, the entire outcome of the election changes. In response, their opponent can take a turn in selecting counties in an effort to recover the lost votes. This inefficient back and forth could continue until every vote is counted or until a candidate runs out of money. It raises the question of fairness: Should the person with the deepest pockets be able to “out-recount” his opponent?

"The obvious answer is “no.” In statewide elections, where millions of ballots are cast, the state should be responsible for ensuring the accuracy of the vote, not a candidate or voter. Above all, our system of governance demands that the election process is fair and transparent for all voters and candidates.

"AB 44 creates a more equitable elections process by authorizing a state-funded option for recounts, available at or below a threshold of 1,000 votes or 0.015 [of one] percent, whichever is smaller. When this option is utilized, the state will fund a full hand recount of all ballots cast, while also re-examining any rejected ballots. When the state-funded threshold is not met, the bill permits candidates to fund their own statewide recounts, reimbursing them if the original results are overturned. Ensuring accurate election outcomes should be a priority for the state, and by creating a state-funded option for very close contests, AB 44 accomplishes this important goal."

Analysis Prepared by: Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 15, 2015

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING

Sebastian Ridley-Thomas, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 44

Author:(Mullin) – As Amended Ver:April 8, 2015

SUBJECT: Elections: statewide recounts.

SUMMARY: Creates a new state-funded recount process, as specified. Specifically, this bill:

1. Permits any voter, within five days after the Secretary of State (SOS) files a statement of the vote, to request a state-funded manual recount of all votes cast for a statewide office or state ballot measure if any of the following occurs:

   1. The official canvass of returns in a statewide primary election shows that the difference in the number of votes received by the second and third place candidates for a statewide office is less than or equal to the lesser of one thousand votes or one-and-a-half of one percent of the number of all votes cast for that office;

   2. The official canvass of returns in a statewide general election shows that the difference in the number of votes received by the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes for a statewide office is less than or equal to the lesser of one thousand votes or one-and-a-half of one percent of the number of all votes cast for that office; or,

   3. The official canvass of returns in a statewide election shows that the difference in the number of votes cast for and against a state ballot measure is less than or equal to the lesser of one thousand votes or one-and-a-half of one percent of the number of all votes cast on the measure.

2. Prohibits a voter from requesting a state-funded manual recount of all votes cast for the office of Superintendent of Public Instruction if the official canvass of returns in a statewide primary election shows that a candidate received a majority of all votes cast.

3. Defines “statewide office,” for the purposes of this bill, to mean the office of Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Controller, Insurance Commissioner, SOS, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Treasurer, or Member of the United State Senate.

4. Permits any voter, within five days after the SOS files a statement of the vote, to request a state-funded manual recount of all votes cast for the office President of the United States if either of the following occurs:

   1. The official canvass of returns in a statewide presidential primary election for a political party that received the greatest or second-greatest number of votes in that presidential primary election shows that the difference in the number of votes received by the first and second place candidates for the nomination of that party for the office of President is less than or equal to the lesser of one thousand votes or one-and-a-half of one percent of the number of all votes cast for the office of President, or;

   2. The official canvass of returns in a statewide general election shows that the difference in the number of votes received by the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes for the office of President is less than or equal to the lesser of one thousand votes or one-and-a-half of one percent of the number of all votes cast for the office of President.

5. Prohibits another recount from being conducted if a state-funded recount is conducted pursuant to the provisions of this bill.

6. Requires the state to reimburse counties for costs resulting from conducting a manual recount, pursuant to this bill, in an expeditious manner upon the certification of those costs.

7. Requires the SOS, upon ordering a recount pursuant to the provisions of this bill, to notify the elections official of each county and direct the county elections official to recount all the votes cast for the office or for and against the state ballot measure.

8. Requires a county elections official, while conducting a recount pursuant to the provisions of this bill, to also review ballots rejected in accordance with existing law to ensure that no ballots were improperly discarded during the initial canvass. Requires the process for reviewing rejected ballots to be open to members of the public, including persons associated with a campaign or measure.

9. Requires the elections official in each county to complete a state-funded recount as follows:

   1. In a primary election, by three business days before the ballot-printing deadline for the general election; or,

   2. In a general election, within 60 days of the voter’s request for the recount.

10. Permits the SOS to adopt, amend, and repeal rules and regulations necessary for the administration of the provisions of this bill.

11. Requires the elections official to store sealed ballots in a manner facilitating the retrieval of any particular ballot in the event of a recount.

12. Requires the SOS, no later than January 1, 2018, to adopt regulations establishing uniform guidelines for charges a county elections official may impose when conducting a manual recount.

13. Changes the starting day on which a recount may be requested for a recount that is conducted in more than one county from the 29th day after the election to the 30th day after the election.

14. Requires a county elections official, if more than one voter requests a recount for the same office, slate of presidential electors, or measure, and at least one request is for a manual recount, to conduct only one manual recount of the ballots subject to recount, the result of which shall be controlling.

15. Repeals provisions of law that permitted a voter who files a declaration requesting a recount to select whether the recount is conducted manually, or by means of the voting system used originally, or both and instead requires a voter who files a declaration requesting a recount to only select whether the recount is conducted manually, or by means of the voting system used originally. Permits a county to recount vote by mail (VBM) and provisional ballots in a manner other than that requested by the voter.

16. Provides that if an office, slate of presidential electors, or measure are voted on statewide, the results of any recount will be declared null and void if each vote cast statewide for the office, slates, or measure is not recounted.

17. Contains a January 1, 2023 sunset date for the state-funded manual recount provisions of this bill.

18. Prohibits the SOS from certifying or conditionally approving a voting system that cannot facilitate the conduct of a ballot level comparison risk-limiting audit.

19. Makes other technical and corresponding changes.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Allows any voter, within five days following the completion of the official canvass and following the completion of any postcanvass risk-limiting audit conducted pursuant to existing law, to request in writing that the elections official responsible for conducting an election commence a recount of the votes cast for candidates for any office or for or against any measure, provided the office or measure is not voted on statewide. Allows a recount for an election that is conducted in more than one county to be conducted in any or all of the affected counties.
   
   

2. Allows any voter, following the completion of the official canvass and within five days beginning on the 29^th day after a statewide election, to file with the SOS a written request for a recount of the votes cast for candidates for any statewide office or for or against any measure voted on statewide. Allows any voter, within five days following the completion of any postcanvass risk-limiting audit conducted pursuant to existing law, to file with the SOS a written request for a recount of the votes cast for candidates for any statewide office or for or against any measure voted on statewide. Requires a request filed to specify in which county or counties the recount is sought and specify on behalf of which candidate, slate of electors, or position on a measure it is filed. Permits a request to specify the order in which the precincts shall be recounted.
   
   

3. Permits any other voter, at any time during the conduct of a recount and for 24 hours thereafter, to request the recount of any precincts in an election for the same office, slate of presidential electors, or measure not recounted as a result of the original request.
   
   

4. Requires a voter seeking the recount, before the recount is commenced and at the beginning of each subsequent day, to deposit with the elections official the amount of money required by the elections official to cover the cost of the recount for that day.
   
   

5. Requires the recount to commence not more than seven days following the receipt by the elections official of the request for the recount and to continue daily, Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays excepted, for not less than six hours each day until completed.
   
   

6. Provides that if in the election which is to be recounted the votes were recorded by means of a punchcard voting system or by electronic or electromechanical vote tabulating devices, the voter who files the declaration requesting the recount may select whether the recount shall be conducted manually, or by means of the voting system used originally, or both.

7. Requires the recount to be conducted publicly.

8. Permits all ballots, whether voted or not, and any other relevant material, to be examined as part of any recount if the voter filing the declaration requesting the recount so requests.
   
   

9. Required the SOS, within the SOS's existing budget, to adopt regulations no later than January 2008, for each voting system approved for use in the state and specify the procedures for recounting ballots, including VBM and provisional ballots, using those voting systems.
   
   

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. State-mandated local program: contains reimbursement direction.

COMMENTS:

1. Purposed of the Bill: According to the author:

In the June 2014 primary, former Assembly Speaker John Perez trailed Board of Equalization Member Betty Yee by only 481 votes out of roughly four million. This very narrow margin prompted him to request a recount, which current law permits. When he did so, deep flaws in California’s existing recount process were revealed: it allows statewide results to be overturned by a partial recount and it favors candidates who can afford to pay.

Current law allows candidates to specify the counties they want to recount, and if they make up the vote difference in those counties, the entire outcome of the election changes. In response, their opponent can take a turn in selecting counties in an effort to recover the lost votes. This inefficient back and forth could continue until every vote is counted or until a candidate runs out of money. It raises the question of fairness: Should the person with the deepest pockets be able to “out-recount” his opponent?

The obvious answer is “no.” In statewide elections, where millions of ballots are cast, the state should be responsible for ensuring the accuracy of the vote, not a candidate or voter. Above all, our system of governance demands that the election process is fair and transparent for all voters and candidates.

AB 44 creates a more equitable elections process by authorizing a state-funded option for recounts, available at or below a threshold of 1,000 votes or 0.015 percent, whichever is smaller. When this option is utilized, the state will fund a full hand recount of all ballots cast, while also re-examining any rejected ballots. When the state-funded threshold is not met, the bill permits candidates to fund their own statewide recounts, reimbursing them if the original results are overturned. Ensuring accurate election outcomes should be a priority for the state, and by creating a state-funded option for very close contests, AB 44 accomplishes this important goal.

2. New Recount Process for Statewide Offices: Existing law permits any registered voter to request a recount within five days following the completion of the official canvass. The voter requesting the recount must specify on behalf of which candidate, slate of electors, or position on a measure it is filed. Additionally, at any time during the conduct of a recount and for 24 hours thereafter, current law allows any voter other than the original requestor to request a recount of additional precincts. The voter filing the request for the recount is required to deposit, before the recount commences and at the beginning of each day following, sums as required by the elections official to cover the cost of the recount for that day. If upon completion of the recount, the results are reversed, the deposit shall be returned.
   
   This bill creates a new recount method for statewide offices. It sets up a new process for a state-funded manual recount for statewide offices and measures. Specifically, this measure permits any voter, within five days after the SOS files a statement of the vote, to request a state-funded manual recount of all votes cast for a statewide office or state ballot measure in a statewide primary or general election if there is a difference in the number of votes received that is less than or equal to the lesser of one thousand votes or one-and-a-half of one percent of the number of all votes cast for that office or measure. For instance, in a general election, if the vote threshold between the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes for a statewide office is less than or equal to the lesser of one thousand votes or one-and-a-half of one percent of the number of all votes cast for that office, then it would trigger a manual recount that the state would pay for. This bill sets up similar state-funded manual recount triggers for candidates in a statewide presidential primary or general election. This is a groundbreaking new policy for California.

3. Other New Recount Procedures for State-Funded Manual Recounts: This bill makes a variety of new policy changes to the conduct of a recount that applies to a state-funded manual recount. First, this bill prohibits another recount from being conducted for the same contest if a state-funded manual recount is being conducted pursuant to the provisions of this bill. This means that if a state-funded manual recount is triggered and a voter requests for the recount to occur, this bill would prohibit another voter from requesting a simultaneous recount. This is a departure from current law, which permits another voter, at any time during the conduct of a recount and for 24 hours thereafter, to request a recount of any precincts in an election for the same office, slate of presidential electors, or measure not recounted as a result of the original request.
   
   Second, this bill sets up deadlines for when a state-funded manual recount is required to be finished. For example, in a primary election, this bill requires the recount to be completed by three business days before the ballot-printing deadline. And for a general election, this bill requires the recount to be completed within 60 days of the voter’s request for the recount. Currently, there are no hard deadlines in place for when a recount needs to be completed. This has been problematic for past recounts, especially when there is a recount requested for a primary election. If a recount occurring after the primary is not completed in a timely manner, it may make it difficult for county elections officials to comply with the statutory deadlines for the printing and mailing of voter materials for the general election.
   
   Third, current law permits all ballots, whether voted or not, and any other relevant material, to be examined as part of any recount if the voter filing the declaration requesting the recount so requests. This bill, instead, requires a county elections official, while conducting a state-funded manual recount, to also review the ballots rejected in accordance with existing law to ensure that no ballots were improperly discarded during the initial canvass.
   
   

4. Changes to the Current Recount Process: This bill not only creates a state-funded manual recount process it also makes changes to the current recount process. For instance, this bill repeals provisions of law that permit a voter who files a declaration requesting a recount to select whether the recount is conducted manually, or by the voting system used originally, or both, and instead requires a voter requesting a recount to only select whether the recount is conducted manually, or by the voting system used originally. In other words, this bill requires a recount to be conducted in one manner throughout each jurisdiction, with the exception of VBM and provisional ballots. This bill permits a county, if the county has different processes for VBM or provisional ballots, to allow those ballots to be recounted in a manner other than that requested by the voter. According to the author's office, this change will ensure all ballots are treated the same, while providing flexibility for counties that use different machines or methodologies for counting VBM and provisional ballots.
   
   In addition, this bill makes changes to how recount costs are calculated. While the SOS has adopted regulations that specify procedures for recounting ballots, including VBM and provisional ballots, current regulations do not provide detailed guidance for the charges a county elections official may impose when conducting a recount. The regulations require an elections official to estimate the costs necessary to produce relevant material and require the requestor to pay an advance deposit of the estimated amount at least one day prior to the materials being produced. Regulations define "relevant materials" to include, but not be limited to, unvoted ballots, VBM and provisional ballot envelopes, voting system redundant vote data, ballot definition files, language translation files and the central database or other electronic repository of results for the election in which the contest subject to recount occurred, election data media devices, audit logs, system logs, pre-and post-election logic and accuracy testing plans and results, polling place event logs, precinct tally results, central count tally results and consolidated results in a structured non-proprietary format, surveillance video recordings and chain of custody logs, including logs of security seals and access to election-related storage areas. In addition to the relevant materials produced, actual recount costs may also include additional supervision hours, security guard hours, the elections official's staff hours, space rental, transportation of ballots, and materials and administrative costs.
   
   While there is no standardized pricing for a recount, not all recounts are the same. As mentioned above the requestor has the ability to request a recount to be conducted manually, by the voting system used, or both. In addition, a recount may or may not include the examination of all ballots, including those ballots that were rejected. All of these variables and others also contribute to the cost of a recount. A quick search done by committee staff found that in Los Angeles County the cost of one recount board is $5,054.71 per day, in Orange County the fee for a four-member counting board is $600.00 per day, and in Santa Cruz County the cost for one recount board and supervisor pay is $1,008 per day.
   
   While many factors contribute to the cost of a recount, the significant cost variations may warrant more review and detailed guidance. In an effort to address this issue, this bill requires the SOS, not later than January 1, 2018, to adopt regulations establishing uniform guidelines for charges a county elections official may impose when conducting a manual recount.
   
   Furthermore, as mentioned above in the author's statement, existing law does not require all of the ballots cast in the entire state to be recounted in order to change the result in a statewide contest. Current law only requires that all the ballots in each county included in a recount request be recounted in order to change the result. This means that if the ballots recounted in the counties listed in the voter's request make up the vote difference in those counties, then the entire outcome of the election contest may change. In addition, current law permits any other voter to request a recount as long as he or she selects different counties that were not originally included in the previous request. This back and forth could continue until every vote is counted or until a candidate runs out of money. In an effort to try to address this issue, this bill requires a recount for a statewide office or measure to be null and void unless each vote cast for the statewide office or measure is recounted.
   
   Finally, current law permits any other voter to request a recount of any precincts in an election for the same office, slate of presidential electors, or measure that were not included in the original recount request. According to county elections officials, current law does not clarify what would happen should another voter request the same precincts as the original recount request, but request for that recount to be conducted in a different manner. This bill will address this situation and make certain that should multiple requests be made to recount the same precincts, but differ in method, that the request for the precincts to be manually recounted will prevail. Specifically, this bill requires a county elections official, if more than one voter requests a recount for the same office, slate of presidential electors, or measure, and at least one request is for a manual recount, to conduct only one manual recount of the ballots subject to the recount, the result of which shall be controlling.
   
   

5. Fairvote Report: A 2011 survey and analysis conducted by FairVote, a national non-partisan organization that works to promote fair, functional and representative democracy for voters, examined statewide election recount outcomes and practices in the United States, using data from elections taking place in the years 2000 to 2009. The report quantified various aspects of statewide recounts in the United States in elections from 2000-2009, including how often they occur, how often they change outcomes, how much vote totals change and how these figures vary with the size of the electorate. The report’s major findings include: 1) statewide recounts are rare; 2) outcome reversals are even rarer; 3) margin shifts in recounts are small; 4) margin shifts are smaller and recounts rarer in larger electorates; and 5) most states should revise their laws governing statewide recounts.
   
   According to the report, states with automatic recount provisions for state and federal elections are based on a specified threshold. Some states automatically conduct a recount within a margin of 0.5 percent between the top two candidates, other states automatically hold a recount if the margin is one percent or less, some do so at margins of 0.1 percent up to 0.25 percent, and some conduct automatic recounts for margins equal to or below 2,000 votes. Finally, some states do not have automatic recounts although allow recounts in the case of an exact tie.
   
   According to the report, recounts uphold the value of every vote when an outcome is in doubt and for that reason the report makes certain recommendations to states. First, the report recommends that states without provisions for automatic recounts should establish them. In addition, the report recommends that states with provisions for automatic recounts in elections won initially by 0.5 percent or more should reduce those triggers to reflect current realities of what is a realistic change in a recount when there is no evidence of systematic fraud or error. While a recount trigger of 0.5 percent can make sense for local and state legislative races with small electorates, the trigger for automatic recounts funded by taxpayers in statewide races should be smaller. Furthermore, given the data on margin shifts in statewide recounts with modern voting machines, the report recommends 0.1 percent as an automatic trigger for most states, perhaps rising to 0.2 percent for the smallest population states. Finally, the report recommends that recount laws should go hand-in-hand with rigorous post-election audit procedures designed to identify outcomes that may be questionable due to fraud or error no matter what the initial margin.

6. Arguments in Support: In support of this bill, FairVote, writes,

FairVote supports the provisions of AB 44 that modernize California's recount law. According to FairVote's research of all statewide recounts occurring since 2000, full statewide recounts are rarely necessary, as the average change in victory margin is less than 0.03%, with that number generally becoming smaller as a state's electorate becomes bigger. Automatic triggers for recounts in most states are unnecessarily high; a better approach would be a system of risk-limiting audits to be ready to establish confidence in outcomes no matter what the original margin…

We would support improving the bill with a provision to allow candidates, parties, or individual taxpayers in statewide races to pay for an accelerated initial count. This provision is particularly critical in presidential races because, under its current schedule, California simply could not resolve a close statewide contest for allocating its electoral votes in a timely way. We propose that each county be required to show how it could accelerate its count and what doing so would cost, with any costs for an accelerated count being paid for by the entity requesting it.

7. Arguments in Opposition: The Peace and Freedom Party of California, who is opposed unless amended, writes:

The point of holding an automatic recount is that when results are so close that it is uncertain based on the initial count which candidate(s) would be nominated or elected, or whether or not a ballot measure would be approved, the ballots should be recounted. However, the language for presidential primary elections doesn't serve this purpose…[There] are at least four specific problems:

1. Recounts are only triggered by close races in the two largest parties' presidential primaries.
   
   
   

2. Presidential primaries nominate neither the leading nor the leading two candidates.
   
   
   

3. It is unclear whether automatic recounts would be of all parties' presidential primaries or only of the party's which triggered the recount.
   
   
   

4. Many candidates whose names appear on California presidential primary ballots are no longer running by the time recounts would happen.

8. Suggested Amendments: There are a few amendments the committee may wish to consider. The first is an author's amendment concerning the threshold in this bill. This bill currently requires the threshold that triggers a state-funded manual recount of all votes cast for a statewide office or state ballot measure to be the difference in the number of votes received that is less than or equal to the lesser of 1000 votes or one-and-a-half of one percent of the number of all votes cast for that office or measure. According to the author, there is an error in the threshold and the threshold currently in the bill is much too high. Consequently, the author requests amending the bill to delete all references to "one-and-a-half of one percent" and instead insert "0.015 percent."
   
   Second, this bill prohibits the SOS from certifying or conditionally approving a voting system that cannot facilitate the conduct of a ballot level comparison risk-limiting audit. According to the author's office, the purpose of these provisions is to begin setting the foundation for future voting systems that will have the ability to conduct of risk-limiting audits. It is unclear, however, whether these provisions will impact existing voting systems and possible upgrades to those systems. As a result, the committee may wish to amend the bill to add clarifying language to ensure voting systems that are currently in use or counties that are in the process of making upgrades to those systems are not required to abide by this new standard.
   
   Finally, as mentioned above, the Peace and Freedom Party of California are opposed unless amended, stating in their letter that the provisions of this bill pertaining to the presidential primary election do not take into account the different parties’ differing delegate selection rules, as specified. In order to remedy this, the author requests that the committee amend the bill to delete provisions of the bill that permit a state-funded manual recount to occur in a statewide presidential primary election, as specified.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

FairVote

VerifiedVoting.org

Voting Rights Task Force

Wellstone Democratic Renewal Club

One Individual

Opposition

Peace and Freedom Party of California (unless amended)

Analysis Prepared by: Nichole Becker / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094