Voting Integrity in California

Issues and Concerns in the 21st Century

__________________________________

A Report of the California Advisory Committee to the

United States Commission on Civil Rights

June 2017
This report is the work of the California Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil 

Rights. The report, which may rely on studies and data generated by third parties, is not subject to 

an independent review by Commission staff. State Advisory Committee reports to the Commission 

are wholly independent and generally reviewed by Commission staff only for legal and procedural 

compliance with Commission policies and procedures. Neither an editorial nor legal sufficiency 

review was completed on this report. This report may or (may not) comply with the 

Commission’s standards for form, legal citations, or methodology. Advisory Committee 

reports are not subject to Commission approval, fact-checking, or policy changes. The views 

expressed in this report and the findings and recommendations contained herein are those of a 

majority of the Advisory Committee members and do not necessarily represent the views of the 

Commission or its individual members, nor do they represent the policies of the U.S. Government. 
State Advisory Committees to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

By law, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has established an advisory committee in each of 

the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The committees are composed of state citizens who 

serve without compensation. The committees advise the Commission of civil rights issues in their 

states that are within the Commission’s jurisdiction. More specifically, they are authorized to 

advise the Commission in writing of any knowledge or information they have of any alleged 

deprivation of voting rights and alleged discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, age, 

disability, or national origin, or in the administration of justice; advise the Commission on matters 

of their state’s concern in the preparation of Commission reports to the President and the Congress; 

receive reports, suggestions, and recommendations from individuals, public officials, and 

representatives of public and private organizations to committee inquiries; forward advice and 

recommendations to the Commission, as requested; and observe any open hearing or conference 

conducted by the Commission in their states. 

California Advisory Committee to the

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights*

Percy Duran, Chair Velma Montoya, Vice-Chair**

Los Angeles Hollywood

James Bolton Nancy Eisenhart **

Altadena Woodland Hills

Debra Fong Javier Gonzalez

Pasadena San Jose

Susan Jester Jonathan Melrod

San Diego Sebastopol

Brian Moriguchi Ralph Rossum

Stevenson Ranch Claremont

Rachel Sigman Robin Toma

South Lake Tahoe Los Angeles

Betty Wilson **

Los Angeles

** Members of the voting rights sub-committee
Letter of Transmittal

California Advisory Committee to the

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

The California Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights submits this report, 

Voting Integrity in California: Issues and Concerns in the 21st Century, as part of its responsibility 

to examine and report on civil rights issues in the state under the jurisdiction of the Commission. 

On July 23, 2002, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 20021to reform the 

nation's voting process. Under HAVA, states are required to implement programs and procedures 

in the following areas: (1) provisional voting; (2) voter information; (3) statewide voter 

registration databases; (4) updated and upgraded voting equipment; (5) voter registration

identification procedures; and (6) administrative complaint procedures.2 To help meet these 

requirements, HAVA provides the states with funds– a portion of which are to be disseminated 

to specific counties to assist local entities meet the provisions of the Act. HAVA has provided 

more than $380 million in federal funding to California to help improve the state's administration 

of elections.3

An assessment of all 50 states’ election performances in 2012 and 2014 by an independent nonprofit organization reported that California performed well below the national average. 

California’s low performance prompted the California Advisory Committee to undertake an 

examination questioning the implementation of HAVA, and the integrity of the voting process in 

California.

A public hearing was held on August 28, 2015, at the Central Library of the City of Los Angeles. 

The scope of the hearing was the general compliance by the State with HAVA. Invited presenters 

included, among others, the California Secretary of State, the California State Auditor, election 

officials in Los Angeles and San Diego Counties, representatives from the Pew Charitable Trust, 

Everyone Counts, the Election Integrity Project, and the public.4

Based upon its research and public hearing, the California State Advisory Committee concludes 

and recommends the following:

Conclusions

1. Insufficient training in election laws for poll workers and on-site election officials

pursuant to witnesses Linda Paine and Ruth Weiss of the Election Integrity Project5; 

 

1 Help America Vote Act of 2002 ("HAVA"), 42 U.S.C. § 15301 et seq., available at

http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/workflow_staging/Page/41.PDF.

2

Ibid.

3 California Office of the Secretary of State, Audit of the administration of the federal Help America Vote Act of 

2002 at https://www.bsa.ca.gov/reports/summary/2012-112.pdf, August 2013 (last accessed Nov. 22, 2014).

4 A listing of all presenters at the August 28, 2015, public hearing is in Appendix 1, and the complete transcript of 

the proceedings is posted on the Commission’s website at www.usccr.gov.

5 Linda Paine and Ruth Weiss, Election Integrity Project, Testimony before the California Advisory Committee to 

the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Transcript, Hearing on Help America Vote Act, Los Angeles, CA, Aug. 28, 

2015, pp. 158-191 (hereafter referred to as Help America Vote Act (HAVA) Transcript), available at

https://www.justice.gov/crt/text-proposed-regulations.
Training materials6

fail to provide for the implementation of California Election Code 

§14216, voter self-identification, which states:

“Any person desiring to vote shall announce his or her name and address in an 

audible tone of voice, and when one of the precinct officers finds the name in the 

index, the officer shall in a like manner repeat the name and address. The voter 

shall then write his or her name and residence address . . . “.

2. Disabled voters face unnecessary obstacles, according to testimony by Lillibeth Navarro, 

representative of Communities Actively Living Independent and Free;

3. VoteCal, the mandated statewide voter database, is not ready (SOS testimony);

4. Explanations about the decision-making process of the Secretary of State for potential 

voting system developers are required after doubts raised from materials provided by 

State Auditor Elaine Howle, which state:

“The Office paid $4.6 million to develop a replacement database – Vote Cal - but 

terminated a critical contract because the vendor failed to provide key deliverables. 

In its second attempt to hire a new vendor to complete the VoteCal project, the Office 

appears to have limited the bidder competition to only one bidder, raising concerns 

for future success.”7

5. The methodology used to report HAVA expenditures in California’s spending plan has 

not been explained, according to the testimony of State Auditor Elaine Howle;

6. Deceased, inactive and ineligible voters remain on voter lists;

7. The delayed and multi-stage human handling of vote-by-mail ballots creates openings for 

tampering or mishandling, according to Ruth Weiss’s testimony and EIP’s written 

testimony;

8. In 2012, California cast forty percent of the provisional ballots in the nation.8 Though the 

official intent is to allow for convenient voting and options that support participation, 

inadequate poll worker training in following the law likely contributes to the 

indiscriminate use of provisional ballots;

9. Prohibitive costs to citizens to purchase voter roll data;

 

6

Ibid., p. 177. 

7

Ibid., p. 46

8 See supra note 5 p. 171.
10. Indiscriminate use of Permanent Absentee Voting;

11. Statewide voting and election irregularities in many counties, both large and small, 

require further investigation;9

12. Antiquated election laws prohibit the introduction of modern voting technology, 

according to testimonies of SOS and Everyone Counts; 

13. Inadequate utilization of online voting with military-grade encryption for military and 

overseas voters, according to Pew testimony; 

14.Citizens have concerns about the new “Motor Voter Law “AB 1461, its implementation 

and confidentiality. A good third of the eighty-plus Post-Hearing written testimonies were 

about this bill. 

Recommendations:

1. Training for Election Officials and Poll Workers

a. Include awareness and knowledge of applicable election laws (HAVA, NVRA, 

California Election codes, and the U.S. Constitution) and of the poll workers’ 

authorities; 

b. Increase length of training time of election workers;

c. Verify that an election official or poll worker completed recommended online 

training instruction;

d. Establish citizen oversight ensure training materials correspond to the law; 

e. Train poll workers to follow California Election Code §14215, asking voters to state 

their names and addresses - in their own words -to avoid voter impersonation.

2. Citizen Oversight 

a. Provide expert citizen election integrity oversight for the pending VoteCal statewide 

voter registration database; 

b. To ensure instructions to poll workers and election officials correspond to election 

laws, provide expert citizen oversight of training procedures and materials, and voting 

and election materials. 

3. The Disabled Voter

a. Legislation required to assure that current and future digital or computerized voting 

systems are accessible and will accommodate voters with disabilities;

b. Poll workers shall be provided training, communication, and accommodations for 

voters with disabilities; 

c. All polling sites shall be accessible to voters with disabilities.

 

9 Testimony of Mark Sonnenklar, Business Attorney, HAVA Transcript, p. 109.
4. Office of the Secretary of State

a. Appoint a non-partisan citizen election integrity and oversight organization with 

authority to assess VoteCal, its methods, and test results; 

b. Clarify the state’s current standards for voting, election processes, voting equipment 

and systems and assure procedures and equipment are in compliance with state and 

federal disability laws;

c. Clarify the process by which the Secretary of State verifies that the person applying 

to vote, whether through online registration, DMV registration, or in-person 

registration, is eligible to vote;

d. Inform public agencies that only those agencies mandated to examine and verify 

proof of citizenship shall process voter registration applications; 

e. Create and advertise the complaint procedure by which citizen complaints about the 

administration of elections are addressed and rectified;

f. Recommend to the California legislature an upgrade of all coded obstacles to the 

modernization of California’s election process and voting systems (Election Code 

Article 4, Sections §19217, §9217, §19250 (a),§14223 (b));

g. Recommend each California county standardize its forms and costs for citizen 

organizational purchases of voter data; 

h. Verify that every poll location is accessible to voters with disabilities;

i. Clearly state the methodology used to report prior HAVA expenditures in the HAVA 

spending plan.

5. County Registrars of Voters 

a. To prevent inaccurate voter turnout statistics and possible election results, follow 

HAVA and California Election Code procedures for the distribution of 

provisional ballots; 

b. To ensure voters’ privacy and ballot integrity during handling, redesign absentee 

ballot forms and improve current processing procedures for security;

c. To prevent impersonation and fraud, timely remove deceased, inactive and 

ineligible voters from voter lists according to HAVA’s suggestions; 

d. Establish standard fee schedules for citizen groups requesting public documents 

and lists;

e. Verify that every poll location is accessible for voters with disabilities;

f. In accord with election laws, train election officials and poll workers in the 

handling of provisional, absentee, and in-person ballots;

g. Clarify the procedures by which registrars of voters process and rectify election 

complaints;

h. Provide citizen oversight of training manuals and materials, poll worker training, 

and at election polls and voting centers; 

i. Train poll workers and election officials in the proper use of California Election 

Code §14216, which, without a voter ID requirement, provides for selfidentification.

6. Upgrade Outdated Election Laws (Legislation Required)
a. Modernization requirements -

1. Upgrade outdated California Election Codes (Article 4, Sections §19217, 

§9217, §19250 (a),and §14223 (b)):

i. Permit digital and telephone access for voter systems;

ii. Allow connectivity to the internet;

iii. Allow electronic transmission of election data through exterior 

communication networks;

iv. Allow wireless communications or wireless data transfers;

v. Allow a remote server to store any voter’s identifiable selections and 

tabulate votes using military grade encryption; 

2. Reconsider the requirements of federal qualification and accessible voter 

verified paper audit trails for voting systems; 

b. Upgrade and revise the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act of 2009 

(MOVE) to incorporate military grade encryption for secure online voting; 

c. Allow poll workers to redact voters’ street addresses when posting precinct voter lists 

near poll entrances to prevent harvesting of data used for voter impersonation.

7. California’s “Motor Voter” Law – AB1461

a. Pass AB 2067 amending AB 1461 to -

1. Create a clear, mandated procedure by which the citizenship status of all 

potential registrants will be verified prior to uploading information to the 

Secretary of State;

2. Establish oversight provisions; 

3. Authorize ongoing education and/ training for Department of Motor Vehicles 

(DMV) personnel

This report was approved as amended by the members of the California Advisory Committee by a 

vote of 6- yes, and 0 no with no abstentions on Wednesday, June 1, 2016. 

Respectfully,

Percy Duran, Chair

California Advisory Committee
Table of Contents

I. INTRODUCTION 1

A. California Advisory Committee to U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 1

B. Help America Vote Act of 2002 1

C. Non-Government Reports on Election Integrity 4

1. Pew Charitable Trusts’ Election Performance Index Report 4

2. Election Integrity Project Report 6

D. Public Hearing on Election Administration in California 7

II. BACKGROUND 8

1. Ballot Integrity and Voter Registration 8

2. Election Administration 9

3. Expanding Access to Elections 9

B. State Differences in Accessibility to the Right to Vote 10

1. State Variance in Voter Identification Laws 10

2. Ex-Felon Voting Rights 11

3. Mail Ballots and Provisional Voting 11

III. STATE COMPLIANCE WITH HAVA 12

A. 2005 Memorandum of Agreement with Department of Justice 12

B. State Auditor Report on State Compliance with HAVA 13

C. California Secretary of State Comment on Election Administration 16

1. Statewide Voter Registration Improvement Efforts: Database 16

2. Improvements to Voter Registration 17

IV. ELECTION ADMINISTRATION IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY CALIFORNIA 19

A. Voter Responsibility of Los Angeles County Clerk and Registrar 19

B. Comment on Election Administration by Los Angeles County Registrar 20

1. Establishment of a Statewide Voter Registration Database 20

2. Duplicate Voter Registration in Los Angeles County 21

3. Provisional Voting in Los Angeles County 22

4. Election Official Training in Los Angeles County 23

V. ELECTION ADMINISTRATION IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY CALIFORNIA 25

A. Voter Responsibility of San Diego County Clerk and Registrar 25
B. Comment on Election Administration by San Diego County Registrar 26

1. Establishment of a Statewide Voter Registration Database 26

2. Duplicate Voter Registrants in San Diego County 27

3. Provisional Voting in San Diego County 28

4. Election Official Training in San Diego County 29

VI. ORGANIZATION AND PUBLIC COMMENT ON ELECTION ADMINISTRATION 31

A. Comment on Election Administration from the Pew Charitable Trusts, Election Integrity Project, Everyone 

Counts, Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, and Mark Sonnenklar 31

1. The Pew Charitable Trusts 31

2. The Election Integrity Project 35

3. Everyone Counts 36

4. Communities Actively Living Independent and Free 38

5. Mark Sonnenklar 39

COMMITTEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 41

APPENDIX I. PRESENTERS AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AUGUST 28, 2015, AND PUBLIC COMMENTERS 45

A. Invited Presenters (in order of presentation) 45

B. Citizens Making Public Comments (in order of presentation) 45

C. Summary of Post-Hearing Public Comments 46

APPENDIX II. DISSENT FROM CALIFORNIA ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBER 47

Figures

a. Figure 1: Map of Los Angeles County California 24

b. Figure 2: Map of San Diego County California 30 

c. Figure 3: Pew EPI Index for California 33 

Tables

a. Table 1: California Population by Percent by Race/Ethnicity, 2000 and 2014 2 

b. Table 2: Rate of Irregularities by County 7

c. Table 3: Los Angeles County, California, Adult Population 20

d. Table 4: San Diego County, California, Adult Population 26
1

I. Introduction

A. California Advisory Committee to U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) is an independent, bipartisan agency 

established by Congress and directed to study and collect information relating to denial of the 

right to vote because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, national origin, or in the 

administration of justice.10 The Civil Rights Act of 1957

11 created the U.S. Commission on Civil 

Rights. Since then, Congress has reauthorized or extended the legislation creating the 

Commission several times; the last reauthorization was in 1994 pursuant to the Civil Rights 

Commission Amendments Act of 1994.12

Established as an independent, bipartisan, fact-finding federal agency, its mission is to inform the 

development of national civil rights policy and enhance enforcement of federal civil rights laws. 

The Commission pursues this mission by studying alleged deprivations of voting rights and 

alleged discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, or in 

the administration of justice. The Commission plays a vital role in advancing civil rights through 

objective and comprehensive investigation, research, and analysis on issues of fundamental 

concern to the federal government and the public.13

The Commission has established an advisory committee in each of the 50 states and the District 

of Columbia. These state advisory committees are composed of state citizens who serve without 

compensation and advise the Commission of civil rights issues in their states that are within the 

Commission’s jurisdiction. More specifically, they are authorized to advise the Commission in 

writing of any knowledge or information they have of any alleged deprivation of voting rights 

and alleged discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin

and other matters under the jurisdiction of the Commission.

B. Help America Vote Act of 2002

On July 23, 2002, a bipartisan Congress passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 200214 to 

assess compliance and suggest reforms to the nation's voting process. HAVA made

recommendations for improvements to voting systems and voter access15 and established:

1) new mandatory minimum standards for states to follow in several key areas of 

election administration;

16

2) funding to help states meet these new standards, replace voting systems and 

improve election administration;.

17

 

10 Civil Rights Act of 1957, Pub.L. 85–315, 71 Stat. 634, et seq, (1957).

11 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000d, et seq.

12 Civil Rights Commission Amendment Acts of 1994, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1975, et seq.

13 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights at www.usccr.gov.

14 Help America Vote Act of 2002 ("HAVA"), 42 U.S.C. § 15301 et seq., available at

http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/workflow_staging/Page/41.PDF.

15 United States Election Assistance Commission at http://www.eac.gov/about_the_eac/help_america_vote_act.aspx

(last accessed Nov. 22, 2014). http://doodle.com/poll/947m69wbxmgrs8uz

16 Ibid., HAVA, §§ 101-906 (2002), available at http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/workflow_staging/Page/41.PDF.

17 Ibid.
2

3) the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to assist the states regarding HAVA 

compliance and to distribute HAVA funds to the states.18 EAC is also charged 

with creating voting system guidelines and operating the federal government's 

first voting system certification program.19

Under HAVA, states are required to implement programs and procedures in the following areas:

(1) provisional voting; (2) voter information; (3) statewide voter registration databases; (4) 

updated and upgraded voting equipment (5) voter registration identification procedures; and (6) 

administrative complaint procedures.20 To help meet these requirements, HAVA provides the 

states with funds– a portion of which are to be disseminated to specific counties to assist local 

entities meet the provisions of the Act. HAVA has provided more than $380 million in federal 

funding to California to help improve the state's administration of elections

An assessment of election performances between states in 2012 and 2014 by an independent 

non-profit organization reported that California performed well below the national average. The 

effectiveness and implementation of HAVA and the integrity of the voting process is of 

particular concern in California because of the growth and reported difficulty of voter access of 

various potential voter populations, including Latinos, Asian-Americans, and the voters with 

disabilities.

Table 1: California Population by Percent by Race/Ethnicity, 2000 and 2014

Percent of population

2000 2014

White 46.6 38.8

African American 6.4 5.8

Asian 11.1 13.0

American Indian 1.0 0.8

Latino 32.3 39.0

Two or more races 2.6 2.6

Source: California Advisory Committee from Census data.

With respect to provisional voting, many eligible citizens in the United States are denied the 

right to cast ballots and have them counted on Election Day. Many voters are turned away from 

polls because their names do not appear on a list of registered voters for varied reasons– at times

the responsibility of the individual voter. To correct this problem, the “fail-safe” provisional 

voting requirements in the HAVA require election officials to first provide aid to those 

individuals who are not listed on the official list of registered voters by helping them locate their 

proper polling place, and, if not resolved, then to provide provisional ballots. After an election, 

once in-person and absentee ballots are counted, and the appropriate election officials determine 

that the individual is eligible to vote, the provisional ballot is counted. 

 

18 HAVA, § 201, available at http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/workflow_staging/Page/41.PDF.

19 United States Election Assistance Commission at http://www.eac.gov/about_the_eac/help_america_vote_act.aspx

(last accessed Nov. 22, 2014).

20 Ibid.
3

A key component of HAVA regarding statewide voter registration databases is that each state 

must establish a statewide voter registration database.21 This database must include the name, 

address, birthdate and other registration information for every legally registered voter within 

each state. The state is also to assign a “unique identifier” to each applicant. The list is to be 

coordinated with other agency databases within each state, and accessible electronically to local 

election officials and individual voters. HAVA also regulates the maintenance of these lists, 

requiring states to ensure that the name of each voter appears on the list, and that the names of 

voters who are not registered, inactive (including the deceased), or ineligible, and duplicate 

names, be eliminated.

This section of HAVA further requires that voters provide either their driver's license number or 

social security number or the last four numbers of their Social Security number. In the case of 

applicants lacking any of the three items, the state is to assign a unique identifying numbers for 

each applicant.

22 States are required to establish agreements with their state motor vehicle 

agencies and the Commissioner of Social Security, through which identification numbers can be 

"matched" to verify accuracy and legitimacy of the voter registration application information.23

The effective date of HAVA's statewide registration database requirement was January 1, 2004, 

but was extended for good cause to January 1, 2006. California planned to implement a “bottomup” system, with the counties maintaining the voter file and precinct and district boundaries, and 

transmitting this information to the state. The statewide system was not in place by the January 1, 

2006, deadline nor implemented for another decade. During a state audit, the California Deputy 

Secretary of State for HAVA activities explained that in addition to its agreement with Justice, 

the Secretary of State (SOS) pursued VoteCal because its previous system—CalVote—was a

failure.24 With so many years of failing to create the mandated state-wide voter database 

(California is the only state without that compliance with HAVA), there were concerns about any 

state-wide system meeting the HAVA requirements of interactivity to allow local election 

official immediate electronic access to voter information as well as electronic transmission of 

voter registration data into the single system. 

All 58 counties are now engaged in the process of VoteCal implementation prior to its expected 

June 2016 certification as the State’s system of record. Even though all counties are actively 

engaged, many tasks must be completed before VoteCal can be certified. These include a mock 

election, on-going performance testing, and analyzing and monitoring the data in VoteCal. The 

VoteCal project team, with assistance from county election officials, intends to focus on these 

activities in the coming weeks.25

The current SOS is committed to the implementation of Vote Cal; the expectation is for June 

2016 after VoteCal is successfully deployed to all counties and the SOS and the Election Audit 

 

21 HAVA, § 303(a).

22 Ibid.

23 Daniel Tokaji, Moritz College of Law, available at 

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/ebook/part5/hava.html#_edn11 (last accessed Nov. 22, 2014). 

24 California Office of the Secretary of State, Audit of the Administration of the Federal Help America Vote Act of 

2002 at https://www.bsa.ca.gov/reports/summary/2012-112 (last accessed Nov. 22, 2014).

25 Testimony of Alex Padilla, California Secretary of State, VoteCal News, available at

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voter-registration/votecal-project/news/ (last accessed May 27, 2016).
4

Committee (EAC) test and validate that VoteCal is fully and accurately functional, VoteCal will 

be declared certified as the official system of record for voter registration in California, almost 

11years after the passing of HAVA.

26

Other issues raised by HAVA mandates reflect that the 21st century is experiencing a new era in 

voting. Electronic voting systems are being scrutinized for integrity and reliability. Expensive, 

antiquated purpose-built hardware-based systems and manual and paper processes are being 

transformed with systems designed to result in increased accessibility and improved accuracy for 

all elections, as well as enhanced security, increased auditability, and significant cost savings.

 

Apart from HAVA, it is important to understand the legislation with respect to other Federal 

voting rights legislation, such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA);

27 the National Voting 

Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) that requires state governments to offer voter registration 

opportunity to eligible citizens who apply for or renew a driver's license or seek public 

assistance;

28 and the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) that 

requires states and U.S. territories to allow certain U.S. citizens to register and vote by absentee 

ballot in federal elections.29 Along with HAVA, these respective Federal Acts need to be 

understood in context with the California Election Code30 and the California Code of 

Regulations, such as Title 24, which is the building code section. So, although it is an important 

piece of legislation in its own right, focusing solely on HAVA may not provide the full breadth 

and extent of what election officials at the state and local level confront in their obligations to 

conducting fair and impartial elections. 

C. Non-Government Reports on Election Integrity

1. Pew Charitable Trusts’ Election Performance Index Report 

The Pew Charitable Trusts’ (Pew) Elections Performance Index, or EPI, reports comparisons 

between all states regarding election effectiveness. The Pew EPI profile analyzes 17 key 

indicators of election administration and scores each state’s performance by indicator.

The EPI is based on a snapshot in time and on data that is not always commonly collected or 

comparable across state lines. The intent of the EPI is to draw policy level attention to election 

administration at the state level. By its nature the EPI is set up to more favorably reflect states 

with centralized election administration and states that have adopted policy changes advanced by 

Pew research, i.e, same day registration and participation in interstate data matching for file 

maintenance. The application of election laws are not indicators used in Pew analyses.

 

Pew reported that California’s EPI average increased slightly from 2008 to 2012, but at a rate 

well below the national average. In 2008, 2010, 2012, and 2014, the state was the 49th lowestperforming states, and one of only six states in the bottom 25 percent in all four years. California 

 

26 Ibid.

27 Pub. L. 89-110, codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973 to 1973aa-6.

28 Pub. L. 103-31, (52 U.S.C. § 20501 - 52 U.S.C. § 20511) (formerly 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973gg–1973gg-10),

29 Pub. L. 99-410, codified at 42 U .S .C . § 1973ff.

30 California Elections Code, Stats. 1994, Ch. 920, Sec. 2.
5

improved its average wait time to vote, which fell from nearly 14 minutes in 2008 to less than six 

minutes in 2012. The state also added online voter registration before the 2012 election, and by 

the end of that year, more than 900,000 Californians used the system to register or update their 

information.

Decreases in other indicators, however, overwhelmed these improvements. The increase in 

California’s rate of provisional ballots cast was the second-highest in the nation. In 2008, the rate 

was already the country’s fourth-highest at 5.8 percent, and in 2012, when the state issued more 

than 1 million provisional ballots, the rate was 8.1 percent, the second-highest. 

Pew measured California as the 49th worse election performing state of 50 using criteria such as:

1) Low turnout statistics 

2) Mail Ballots unreturned

3) Mail ballots rejected

4) Military and Overseas Ballots rejected

5) Military and Overseas Ballots unreturned

6) Provisional ballots cast

7) Provisional ballots rejected

8) Registration or Absentee Ballot problems

9) Voter Information Lookup Tools Available (49th)

10) Disability or illness-related problems

Pew reports that California issues provisional ballots for many reasons.

 Almost 30 percent of the requested vote-by-mail ballots in California are not cast– the 

highest rate in the nation. Any voter who requests a mail ballot but then shows up at 

the polls on Election Day without it is required to cast a provisional ballot. This 

number contributes to the statistics regarding low turnout.

 When California voters have a registration problem (e.g., if they moved within the 

same county and did not update their address or if their eligibility is called into 

question), they are issued a provisional ballot.

 The state also had the greatest number and percent of rejected provisional ballots

amongst all states. In 2012, more than 175,000 provisional ballots were rejected, 

equivalent to almost 1.4 percent of all ballots cast in the state. 

32

As noted above, the state’s rate of unreturned mail ballots was the highest among all states in 

2012, when it jumped to 29.4 percent from 16.2 percent in 2008, the fourth-largest increase in 

the country. California has permanent mail voting: Any registered voter can choose to 

automatically receive mail ballots for all future elections.33

 

31 Pew Charitable Trusts, California Elections Performance Index, April 2014, at 

http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/Assets/2014/04/07/2012_Election_Performance_Index_California.pdf?la=en (last 

accessed Nov. 22, 2014).

32 Pew Charitable Trusts, California Elections Performance Index, April 2014, available at

http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/Assets/2014/04/07/2012_Election_Performance_Index_California.pdf?la=en (last 

accessed April 18, 2016).

33 Ibid.
6

Another statistic in the Pew report concerned the voter with disabilities. In 2012, California 

showed 13.6 percent of those responding to a census survey did not cast ballots due to an “illness 

or disability (own or family’s).”34 The national average is 15.8 percent. The PEW Report found 

the following regarding the 2010 Census: 

Disabled and permanently ill voters face unique challenges, such as inaccessible polling 

places and voting technology that is difficult to use. Federal law mandates that all polling 

places must generally be accessible to physically disabled voters. The Help America Vote 

Act of 2002 requires that at least one voting machine in each precinct be equipped for 

physically disabled individuals.35

2. Election Integrity Project Report

The Election Integrity Project (EIP) identified over 60,000 irregularities in California’s 2013 

voter roll data provided by the counties. Statistics for the deceased are based on 50 years of 

records. In addition to the Pew report on elections in California, the EIP emphasized the wellknown fact that California is the only state without a federally-required single, uniform, official, 

centralized, interactive, computerized statewide voter registration list. The state entered into a 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Department of Justice in 2005, which required it to 

expedite the development of a fully compliant database.36

The Election Integrity Project operates in three major capacities: As a citizen training 

organization in election integrity, an election integrity research organization, and a non-partisan 

election oversight company.

Meanwhile, according to the EIP report, in a high tech state with 55 electoral college votes and 

53 U.S. House seats, California’s official state list was an agglomeration of 58 county lists and 

used 1993 technology. List maintenance deficiencies are illustrated in a chart which showed over 

81,000 list irregularities (duplicate registrations, deceased, double voting) in just nine counties 

reported by EIP to election officials in 2013. 

 

34 Ibid.

35 Ibid.

36 U.S. Department of Justice Memorandum of Understanding with the State of California (Nov. 2, 2005), available 

at https://www.justice.gov/crt/text-proposed-regulations.
7

Table 2: Rate of Irregularities by County

Source: Election Integrity Project Report, 2014

Based in Los Angeles County, which is the nation’s largest county, Election Integrity Project 

(EIP) reported a disturbingly high percent of irregularities – more than twice the rate of other 

large counties. EIP also submitted over 3,200 suspected unlawful voters (suspected double 

voters, deceased voters) to election officials.37 In a state with no voter ID, inaccurate voter lists

can result in voting fraud since duplicated and deceased persons are easy to impersonate.38

In California, however, obstacles to the most up-to-date, modern and secure election and voting 

systems exist in the very codes created to protect the voter. The best updated and upgraded 

election systems can only occur with an updating and upgrading of the election laws and codes 

concerning them. 

D. Public Hearing on Election Administration in California

A public hearing was held on August 28, 2015, at the Central Library of the City of Los Angeles. 

The scope of the hearing was the general compliance by the state with HAVA. Invited presenters 

included, among others, the California Secretary of State, the California State Auditor, election 

officials in Los Angeles and San Diego Counties, representatives from the Pew Charitable Trust, 

Everyone Counts, and the Election Integrity Project, and the public.39

 

37 Testimony of Linda Paine and Ruth Weiss, HAVA Transcript, pp. 158-191.

38 Ibid.

39 A listing of all presenters at the August 28, 2015, public hearing is in Appendix 1, and the complete transcript of 

the proceedings is posted on the Commission’s website at www.usccr.gov.
8

II. Background

Federal Commission on Election Reform Report

The issues of concern before the California Advisory Committee with respect to the conduct of 

elections are also nationwide concerns. Ten years ago, the Commission on Federal Election 

Reform (CFER) was constituted to recommend ways to raise confidence in the electoral system.

The prefatory comments by the Co-Chairs in the Commission’s report on election integrity and 

growing lack of public confidence in the fairness of elections was sobering for the future of 

democracy in the nation.40

Elections are the heart of democracy. They are the instrument for the people to 

choose leaders and hold them accountable. At the same time, elections are a core 

principal function upon which all other government responsibilities depend. If 

elections are defective, the entire democratic process is at risk. 

Americans are losing confidence in the fairness of elections. And while we do not 

face a crisis today, we need to address the problems of our electoral system. 

First, there appears to be a growing lack of confidence in the integrity and fairness 

of the election system. Second, certain identifiable segments of the population may 

face barriers in their right to vote.41

Of particular concern to the California Advisory Committee in its project on voting integrity in 

California, the CFER examined and commented on: (1) ballot integrity and voter registration, (2) 

election administration, and (3) expanding access to elections. 

1. Ballot Integrity and Voter Registration

Undermining the integrity of the ballot, fraud can occur in several ways. Ineligible persons can 

vote. Eligible voters can vote multiple times and/or in multiple locations. Persons can cast votes 

on behalf of others or persons who are dead. But among the possible election frauds, “absentee 

ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud.”42

Regarding voter registration, the CFER noted that “election systems cannot inspire public 

confidence if safeguards do not exist to deter or detect fraud or to confirm the identity of 

voters.”43 While there is no evidence of extensive fraud in U.S. elections or of multiple voting, as 

the Commission on Federal Election Reform reported, one potential source of fraud arises from 

inactive or ineligible voters left on voter registration lists.

A good registration list (accurate and up-to-date) ensures that citizens are only registered in one 

place– and is maintained in a manner that persons who move or die or who are inactive are 

 

40 Commission on Federal Election Reform, Federal Election Commission report, Letter from the Co-Chairs.

41 Ibid.

42 Ibid., p. 46.

43 Ibid., pp. 4 and 18.
9

systematically removed from the voter registration list. A good registration list also identifies the 

same person being registered in two different locations. However, election officials still need to 

make sure that the person voting—whether in person or by mail ballot— is the same one as that 

voting. 

2. Election Administration

The Commission on Federal Election Reform stated that a major source of public mistrust in the 

election process is the perception of partisanship in actions taken by election officials.44 In 

California, similar to a majority of states, election administration comes under the authority of 

the Secretary of State. In recent years, both Republican and Democratic Secretaries of State have 

been accused of bias because of their discretionary actions. 

For example, in Kansas legal action has been taken against the Secretary of State, Kris Kobach

(R), for alleged voter suppression. The lawsuit challenged the state’s dual voter registration 

system crafted by the Secretary of State that requires voters to provide proof-of-citizenship 

documents when they register to vote for the first time or after moving to Kansas.45 In Oregon,

citizen groups such as True the Vote have challenged the actions of Secretary of State Jeanne 

Atkins (D) regarding the accurate maintenance of voter registration lists.46

Poll workers are essential to effective election administration. Effective administration of 

elections requires that poll workers have the capability and training to carry out complex voting 

systems correctly, which often change with each election. As CFER reported, poll workers must 

administer an array of voting procedures in compliance with HAVA and other election laws, to 

include provisional ballots, checking voter identification, correctly counting votes, setting up 

voting machines, instructing voters on the use of voting equipment, and providing helpful and 

accurate service to a diversity of voters including persons with disabilities and non-English 

speakers.47 

3. Expanding Access to Elections 

This nation has a long and unfortunate history of denying the right to vote to certain groups of 

citizens. Despite ratification of the 15th Amendment to enfranchise former slaves, in the century 

following the Civil War Americans in many parts of the country were systematically denied the 

right to vote. State and local registration boards used poll taxes, literacy tests, felon 

disenfranchisement laws, and other impediments to deny minorities their legal right to vote. In

the Voting Rights Act48 was enacted after Congress determined that the existing federal antidiscrimination laws were not sufficient to overcome the resistance by state officials to 

enforcement of the 15th Amendment.

 

44 Ibid., p. 49.

45 Kira Lerner, Judge shuts down Kris Kobach’s attempt to disenfranchise voters in Kansas elections, accessible at 

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/08/27/3695987/kris-kobach-ruling-kansas.

46 Shelby Sebens, Too Nice for Fraud: Some Say OR Election System Vulnerable Despite Few Cases, Wachdog.org,

May 16, 2013, available at http://watchdog.org/85032/too-nice-for-voter-fraud-some-say-or-election-systemvulnerable-despite-few-cases/.

47 Ibid., p. 52.

48 Pub. L. 89-110, codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973 to 1973aa-6.
10

Concerns about ballot integrity, voter registration, and the administration of election systems 

must not be co-opted into denying the right to vote to eligible citizens. CFER noted this 

challenge in building confidence in elections. While many states allow the representatives of 

candidates or political parties to challenge a person’s right to register or vote or to challenge an 

inaccurate name on a voter roll. This practice of challenges may contribute to voter integrity, but 

it can have the effect of intimidating eligible voters, prevent them from casting their ballots, or 

otherwise disrupting the voting process.49 

B. State Differences in Accessibility to the Right to Vote 

It is more and more a reality that there exists a great deal of diversity across the country with 

respect to voter registration and accessibility to the voting process. Where one lives affects the 

ease or difficulty in voting. And the Nation’s federal structure encourages this as states are 

afforded latitude within the confines of adherence to the Constitution to institute voter policies in 

their states to include voter registration, voter identification and mail ballots, as well as ex-felon 

voting.

1. State Variance in Voter Identification Laws 

In the 2000s, voter ID as an issue began to take center stage. The Commission on Federal 

Election Reform (aka the Carter-Baker Commission), in 2005 made a bipartisan recommendation 

for voter identification at the polls.

50

In recent years, 34 states have introduced laws requiring voters to show photo identification at 

the polls.51 And photo identification bills have been enacted in eight states—Alabama, Kansas, 

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin—and passed by 

referendum in Mississippi.52

Independent studies reviewed by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) showed mixed 

effects of various forms of state voter ID requirements on turnout. All 10 studies examined 

general elections before 2008, and 1 of the 10 studies also included the 2004 through 2012 

general elections. Five of these 10 studies found that ID requirements had no statistically 

significant effect on turnout; in contrast 4 studies found decreases in turnout and 1 found an 

increase in turnout that were statistically significant.

 

49 Commission on Federal Election Reform, Federal Election Commission report, p. 47.

50 Center for Democracy and Election Management, Building Confidence in U.S. Elections: Report on the 

Commission on Federal Election Reform, September 2005, p. 21, available at

http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/AssetManager/Exhibit%20M.PDF.

51 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Issues Related to State-Issued Voter Identification Laws, GAO-14-634: 

Published: Sep 19, 2014. Publicly Released: Oct 8, 2014 and re-issued February 27, 2015. The 34 states with 

introduced and/or enacted voter identification laws are: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, 

Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota,

Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, 

Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. 

52 Ibid.
11

2. Ex-Felon Voting Rights

In 41 of the 50 states ex-felons may vote, but there is wide variance among the states on this 

allowance. In two states, Maine and Vermont, even incarcerated felons may vote. In thirteen 

other states, former felons are allowed to vote soon as they are released from prison. The most 

common restriction on ex-felon voting rights withholds the right to vote until parole and/or all 

other terms of the sentence have been completed. Thirty-one (31) states have such provisions. 

In 13 states, ex-felons may vote may vote upon release as long as they are not on parole. In 18 

states there is a similar restriction, and the restriction extends until all terms of the sentence 

including parole have been completed, e.g., restitution, community service. In three states, the 

right to vote for an ex-felon is withheld until a specified amount of time has elapsed. In Nebraska 

that period of time is 2 years; in Delaware and Wyoming the time period is 5 years. 

Nine states have lifetime bans on ex-felons voting. In all nine of these states, however, it is 

possible for a person to obtain a form of clemency and have their voting rights restored. The 

process of clemency varies among the states. For example, in Mississippi, ex-felons are banned 

for life from voting, but under the state’s Constitution may have their voting rights restored by a 

vote of two-thirds of both legislative houses. In seven other states with lifetime bans on ex-felon 

voting rights the clemency process is an executive decision. In four of these states, the Governor 

possesses the sole power to grant clemency. In Alabama, Arizona, and Nevada, executive 

clemency is under the authority of the state’s correctional system. Florida is unique among the 

nine states with lifetime bans for ex-felons in that its clemency procedure resides with the state’s 

cabinet.53

In California, citizens convicted of a felony are ineligible to vote while incarcerated and on 

parole. Voting rights are automatically restored upon completion of parole, and citizens on 

probation can vote. Ex-offenders should re-register to vote.

3. Mail Ballots and Provisional Voting

Different states have established alternatives for voters to cast a ballot other than at the polls on 

Election Day. Most states—35 and the District of Columbia—currently provide an opportunity 

for voters to cast a ballot prior to the election without an excuse, either by no-excuse absentee 

voting by mail or in-person early voting, or both. States vary in terms of the number of days and 

locations provided for early voting. In addition, states, as well as whether voting is available on a 

weekend, and whether the state allows voters who cast an absentee ballot without an excuse to be 

on a list to permanently receive a ballot by mail without an excuse.54

Under federal law, if a person comes to the polls and declares that he/she is a registered voter in 

the jurisdiction in which the individual desires to vote and that the individual is eligible to vote in 

an election for Federal office, but the name of the individual does not appear on the official list 

 

53 Tennessee Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, The Right to Vote and Ex-Felon 

Disenfranchisement in Tennessee, December 2013, pp. 14-5.

54 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Elections: State Laws Addressing Voter Registration and Voting on or 

before Election Day, GAO-13-90R: Oct 4, 2012.
12

of eligible voters for the polling place or an election official asserts that the individual is not 

eligible to vote, such individual shall be permitted to cast a provisional ballot.

(1) An election official at the polling place shall notify the individual that the 

individual may cast a provisional ballot in that election. 

(2) The individual shall be permitted to cast a provisional ballot at that polling 

place upon the execution of a written affirmation by the individual before an 

election official at the polling place.

55

III. State Compliance with HAVA

A. 2005 Memorandum of Agreement with Department of Justice 

Following the enactment of HAVA, in 2005 California's initial statewide voter registration 

database was upgraded to the CalVoter system. CalVoter was implemented to comply with 

HAVA’s requirement for a statewide voter registration system.

After CalVoter was online, the Secretary of State contacted the U.S. Department of Justice

(Justice), which is the entity responsible for overseeing and enforcing HAVA, to determine the 

state’s compliance under HAVA regarding a statewide voter registration database. Justice was 

notified that the state had in place a single list of all registered voters.

Justice, however, countered that the installed statewide system was not compliant with HAVA. 

Under HAVA, the statewide database of all registered voters must be accessible and connected 

to the state’s 58 county election officials. The database also needed to be interconnected with 

other sources of voter information, such as state entities responsible for death notices and state 

correctional offices.56 As a result, Justice determined that the state was in non-compliance with 

HAVA’s voter database requirement.57

The Secretary of State then entered into discussions with Justice to learn what was necessary by 

the state for compliance. The result of those discussions was a Memorandum of Agreement 

(MOA) between Justice and the State of California.58 Under the MOA, Justice agreed to not 

initiate legal action to comply and the State agreed to install “bridges” between the statewide 

database and required reporting entities. The State also agreed to report to Justice on a monthly 

basis with updates regarding the status of the project.59

 

55 52 U.S. Code § - Provisional voting and voting information requirements.

56 Testimony of Susan Lapsley, Deputy Secretary of State, Office of the California Secretary of State, Testimony 

before the California Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Transcript, Hearing on Help 

America Vote Act, Los Angeles, CA, Aug. 28, 2015, pp. 36-38 (hereafter referred to as Transcript on Help America 

Vote Act), available at https://www.justice.gov/crt/text-proposed-regulations.

57 Ibid., p.37.

 An “interim solution” to meet the requirements of Section 303 of HAVA for a statewide voter registration system 

was implemented pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) executed with the U.S. Department of Justice 

(US DOJ) – the enforcement authority for HAVA – on November 2, 2005.

59 Ibid.
13

In 2013, the State Auditor completed its examination of the Secretary of State’s compliance with 

HAVA. One recommendation from the examination was that the Secretary of State re-negotiate 

the MOA. The reasoning for the recommendation was that the MOA had been in effect for over 

six years, and the state was now close to implementing a compliant statewide voter database 

system.60 

According to Agency officials, the Secretary of State did act on the recommendation and reach 

out to Justice and held conversations with the department about re-negotiating the MOA. 

Justice, however, declined to re-negotiate the MOA. The position of Justice was that the agency 

had deferred any sort of enforcement action against the state, so the state needed to comply and 

implement a statewide voter database compliant with HAVA.61

Subsequent to the discussions with Justice, the Secretary of State initiated procurement for a new 

statewide voter database called Vote-Cal. In July 2015, the new system did test pilot programs 

with two counties and followed with three additional test pilot programs in October 2015.62 In 

2016, the state gradually deployed to all 58 counties in a series of six “waves.” 63

B. State Auditor Report on State Compliance with HAVA

The Bureau of State Audits investigates the financial management and effectiveness of state 

government agencies. This investigation includes audits that examine whether state agencies and 

programs are accomplishing what they were created to do; whether they are obeying the law; and 

whether state resources are being used properly. The California State Auditor's staff conducts

their reviews in a nonpartisan manner, free from outside influence, including that of the 

Legislature, Governor, and the subjects of their audits and investigations.64

In 2013, the State Auditor released a report on the state’s compliance with HAVA.65 As reported by 

the Auditor, HAVA provided more than $380 million in federal funding to California to help

improve the state’s administration of elections by complying with requirements that are set out in 

three different sections of the Act. These three sections provide funding for activities such as 

educating voters, training election officials and poll workers, replacing punch card voting 

systems, and complying with HAVA Title III (Title III) requirements to include the development 

and deployment of a statewide computerized voter registration list.

66

A significant problem noted in the audit was that the state had not effectively spent HAVA funds 

for new voting systems. Specifically, over $22 million in HAVA funds have been spent on 

 

60 California Auditor’s Report 2011-2012, Aug. 2013, p.36, available at http://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2012-

112.pdf.

61 Testimony of Susan Lapsley, Transcript on Help America Vote Act, pp. 37-38.

62 California Secretary of State, Elections Division, at http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voter-registration/votecaldeployment-status.

63 Ibid.

64AllGov California http://www.allgov.com/usa/ca/departments/independentagencies/bureau_of_state_audits?agencyid=212

65 California State Auditor, Secretary of State: It Must Do More to Ensure Funds Provided Under the Federal Help 

America Vote Act Are Spent Effectively, Report 2012-112, August 2013 (hereafter Auditor HAVA report).

66 Ibid., Executive Summary.
14

replacing voting systems with new systems that counties and voters cannot fully use.67 Speaking 

to this concern, Elaine Howle, California State Auditor, said:

As of June 30 of 2012, the State of California still had $130 million in HAVA 

money available, but it was tied up because ... the State had not deemed itself 

compliant with Title III. Again, that is money the Legislature could have engaged 

in the process and provided some of those funds at the local level for training, for 

improving (voting) systems, those sorts of things. So we really felt that that was 

something the Secretary of State's Office needed to be pro-active about and reach 

out of to the Department of Justice and try to work with them to modify the 

agreement that they had entered into a few years before. The status of that, the 

Secretary of State's Office listened to us.68

The audit also noted that there appeared to be a lack of clarity by the state regarding buying 

voting systems and the manufacture of them, and what standards are applied by the Secretary of 

State for voting system approval. State law has required the Office to develop regulations that 

define this process since 1994. A survey of all 58 California counties found that a number of 

counties needed additional funding to replace their voting systems, and some county officials 

expressed concern about the process for voting system approval, highlighting both the 

conflicting guidance regarding which systems can be used and the lack of vendors developing 

new voting systems.69 Addressing this issue, Howle said:

One of the things we asked the Secretary of State's Office and...the County 

Registrar's was: "Is it clear what the expectations are?" What we found was the 

answer to that was "No," even though there was a statutory requirement in 

California State Law that there be specific voting standards and standards for the 

elections process and voting equipment and systems.... There needs to be very 

specific expectations laid out in regulation, and do that through a public process so 

the County Registrar's, the public can be engaged in that process. So once those 

regulations are established, everyone across the state -- vendors, citizens, county 

registrars -- understand what is expected as far as what a voting system should look 

like, what kind of capacity, functionality that system should have.... 

What the Secretary of State's Office was required to do (dates) back to when this 

statute was enacted in 1994. So it had been a long time to establish (such) 

regulations. And the Secretary of State's Office took this recommendation very 

seriously and ...started the rule-making process not long after our audit report went 

public in August of 2013. I am happy to announce, and I have to give the Secretary 

of State's Office credit, they completed the regulatory process, went through the 

appropriate state agency in Sacramento, and those recommendations became 

effective this year, April 1st of 2015.70

 

67 Ibid.

68 Testimony of Elaine Howle, Transcript on Help America Vote Act, p. 13. 

69 Auditor HAVA report, Executive Summary. 

70 Testimony of Elaine Howle, Transcript on Help America Vote Act, p. 7.
15

A third issue raised by the Auditor concerned the state’s implementation of the National Voter 

Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA).

71 A key component of this law—sometimes referred to as the 

“Motor Voter” law—is the requirement that an application submitted for a driver’s license 

simultaneously serve as an application to register to vote for an eligible citizen. However, visits 

by the Auditor to some California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) offices found that the 

driver’s license application did not act as a simultaneous application for voter registration as 

required by law.

72 Howle noted for the Committee that the State of California must address this 

issue. 

The Secretary of State's Office needs to engage with the Department of Motor 

Vehicles and...figure out what we need to do to be able to accomplish this and 

allow it to be simultaneous. Because the intent of NVRA is to allow people (some 

ease) to register to vote. If you're going to register your car, you're going in to get 

a driver’s license or ID card, you should be able register to vote very easily. And 

actually, it should be something that you do not even realize. It is a simultaneous 

process. So the recommendation that we made in the audit report to the Secretary 

of State's Office was to work with the Department of Motor Vehicles and develop 

a new process that would allow Californians to go into their local DMV, conduct 

business, and then, if they so choose, register to vote simultaneously with whatever 

transaction they were engaging in. In the response to our initial report and as they 

have provided status updates, the Secretary of State's Office, has reiterated that they 

really do not have a lot of control over the DMV.73

On October 10, 2015, the Governor signed into law a measure that will register citizen voters

through the DMV. Under the program, after the Secretary of State certifies that certain

enumerated conditions are satisfied, the DMV is required to electronically provide to the

Secretary of State the records of each person issued an original or renewal of a driver’s license or

state identification card or who provides the department with a change of address, as specified.

The person’s motor vehicle records would then constitute a completed affidavit of registration

and the person would be registered to vote, unless the person affirmatively declined to be

registered to vote during a transaction with the Department or the Secretary of State determines

that the person is ineligible to vote.74

California joins Oregon as the second state in the nation opting to register voters through its 

Department of Motor Vehicles. The California New Motor Voter Act, AB 1461, was sponsored 

by Secretary of State Alex Padilla and jointly authored by Assembly members Lorena Gonzalez 

(D-San Diego), Luis Alejo (D-Salinas), and Kevin McCarty (D-Sacramento).

Howle concluded by telling the Committee that many of the Audit’s recommendations have been 

fully implemented by the Secretary of State. And with respect to voter registration, she said the 

audit found that although the state may have met the minimum requirements for designating 

voter registration agencies under the NVRA, it should designate more agencies:

 

71 52 U.S.C. § 20501 - 52 U.S.C. § 20511) (formerly 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973gg–1973gg-10).

72 Auditor HAVA report, Executive Summary.

73 Testimony of Elaine Howle, Transcript on Help America Vote Act, p. 15.

74 Assembly Bill No. 1461 at https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160.
16

The last issue in the audit report that we talk about is designating additional 

agencies (in addition to the DMV) that can assist people who may want to register 

to vote. Back in 1994, Governor Wilson issued an Executive Order, identifying 

specific state agencies....One we identified specifically was unemployment offices. 

We felt that would be a location where there would be a lot of interaction with the 

public. The only agency that I know that, subsequent to our audit, has been 

identified as an agency to assist is Covered California. There are millions of people 

who have gone to the website who have enrolled in (health) insurance coverage 

through the exchange. So that was a good decision, by the Secretary of State's 

Office and has been a positive result for the state.75

C. California Secretary of State Comment on Election Administration

The Elections Division of the Secretary of State oversees all federal and state elections within 

California. In every statewide election, California prepares voter information pamphlets in 10 

languages for nearly 18 million registered voters. As the Chief Elections Officer for the largest 

state in the nation, the California Secretary of State tests and approves all voting equipment for 

security, accuracy, reliability and accessibility in order to ensure that every vote is counted as it 

was cast. 76

The Secretary also ensures election laws and campaign disclosure requirements are enforced, 

certifies the official lists of candidates for elections, tracks and certifies ballot initiatives, 

compiles election returns and certifies election results, educates California citizens about their 

voting rights, and promotes voter registration and participation. HAVA was signed into law by 

President Bush to address irregularities in voting systems that came to light in 2000, and under 

HAVA, as previously noted, the office is pursuing the development of a statewide database of all 

registered voters that is connected and accessible to local election officials and the voter.

77

1. Statewide Voter Registration Improvement Efforts: Database

The Secretary of State is pursuing the new VoteCal system to replace the older CalVoter 

system. When finalized in 2016, VoteCal will replace the current California voter registration 

database and provide a single, uniform, centralized voter registration database connecting the 

Secretary of State and all 58 county elections offices together. The new system intends to 

improve the voter registration process, provide a publicly available website which will allow 

voters to register online, and provide a single, official statewide database of voter registration 

information.

78 Susan Lapsley representing the California Secretary of State, told the Committee:

HAVA requires in Section C, that the state set up and maintained a computerized 

statewide voter registration list, including the name and registration information of 

every legally registered voter in the state. The statewide list must be the official list 

of all registered voters for said elections, and must be connected with other state 

 

75 Testimony of Elaine Howle, Transcript on Help America Vote Act, p. 18.

76 Secretary of State, Elections Division, at http://www.sos.ca.gov/administration/about-agency.

77 Ibid.

78 Ibid.
17

agency databases to assist state and local officials in keeping them accurate and up 

to date. The state system must also provide a functional interface for counties 

because counties in California are the ones who administer elections.79

While the Secretary of State is responsible for the oversight of elections, it is really 

the 58 counties that administer elections. So in order to have a functional statewide 

system, we need to connect in with each of the 58 counties. So California has 

actually had a statewide system since 1995. Secretary Bill Jones established a 

statewide system at the time to look for duplicates and act as a tool for counties to 

be able to look at a comprehensive list. It was very rudimentary. Secretary Jones 

got no money to do it hardly. So it was kind of done in-house, and it was not a very

robust system. Since 1995, that system was upgraded at times. However, it was 

done in 1995, so at this point, that was old technology. So Cal-Voter is currently 

the statewide system of record. We're moving towards Vote-Cal, and we anticipate 

having that in place and becoming the system of record by June of 2016.80

We are very close as of this speaking. There are currently seven counties that are 

live on Vote-Cal and five more, hopefully going live (shortly). The Vote-Cal 

project itself has seven phases. There's a planning, design, development, testing, 

pilot, and then deployment and maintenance operation. We have completed 3 of the 

phases. We're also done with the fourth phase, which is the testing phase. We just 

have one piece. I anticipate with that phase 4, we will be done with it, hopefully, in 

the next two weeks.81

We are also in the pilot phase. Counties I talk to that are live on this system are part 

of this pilot phase. We actually have started the deployment. Deploying these 

counties takes a lot of training, changes to their databases, changes to ours, 

productivity. So it's taken --like L.A. County, they're scheduled to go live in March 

of 2016. We've already started the process of bringing them aboard two weeks ago. 

So it's underway. And then the last phase is maintenance and operation of the 

system. So that's just the ongoing maintenance and continuing operation of the 

system. So that's where we're at with the statewide voter registration system.82

California is taking steps to advance such policy positions with same day registration which take 

effect once the statewide VoteCal database is fully implemented and certified as the official 

record of voters in the state. Provisional Ballot elements reflect a policy decision in California to 

allow for convenience voting and options that support voter participation that are 

administratively burdensome, but that compensate for the technical and regulatory inadequacies 

that are being addressed with the statewide database. 

2. Improvements to Voter Registration

 

79 Testimony of Susan Lapsley, Transcript on Help America Vote Act, pp. 36-37.

80 Ibid.

81 Ibid.

82 Ibid.
18

The California Advisory Committee also heard about the commitment of the Secretary of State 

to increasing opportunities for California to participate in our democratic process. In recent 

years, there has been low voter turnout. The Secretary of State is seeking to identify remedies to 

that issue insofar as California has the opportunity to think differently about the election process. 

Steve Reyes, General Counsel, Secretary of State, discussed some of the initiatives by the 

Secretary of State to improve citizen access to voting.

In 2012, we went online with the California Online Voter Registration Website. For 

those who are not familiar with it, it's a new powerful tool to allow people, from 

their homes to their phone. To date, 1.8 million people have availed themselves of 

that choice. You can register for the first time. You can change background. You 

can change voter preferences, language preferences, political party preferences. 

Anything that is on that registration form can be changed.. In one month, I add that 

800,000 people registered to vote for the first time, and a third of them were under 

25. So that's providing an ongoing tool that exists.

83

With respect to voter registration, the Secretary has sponsored legislation that is 

designed to modernize our registration system when Californians interact in person 

or online or by mail with our Department of Motor Vehicles. That was the 

legislation that the state auditor was referencing, AB1461, which she described, and 

is true, has been moving very smoothly and quickly through the legislative 

process.84

In addition to voter registration reforms, Reyes discussed other voting administration 

improvements that were under consideration by the Secretary of State. These improvements

included the establishment of voting centers and upgrading old and obsolete voting machines. 

Secretary of State Padilla has announced that he and his staff are working with the 

governor and our legislative leaders to help identify additional funding for new, 

modernized voting systems. As you may have heard, there have been a number of 

systems that are now reaching their end-of-life term. So they are at the final stages 

of usefulness. We want to make sure that we can provide a means for counties and 

folks to pay for and implement new voting systems in the State of California. Of 

course, that depends on funding to allow us to work with our counties to make sure 

they can identify systems that are appropriate and work for their particular needs. 

So Californians, we're heading toward a big election year.85

Secretary Padilla has also been working closely with our county election officials 

and partners to introduce legislation on vote centers, which is a concept that would 

help modernize and think differently a little about the way we cast ballots. The idea 

behind vote centers is that you would have these community vote centers in various 

parts of a jurisdiction to allow folks, perhaps two weeks before an election, to cast 

ballots anywhere within the county. So no longer are you going to be tied 

 

83 Testimony of Steve Reyes, General Counsel, California Secretary of State, Transcript on Help America Vote Act, 

pp. 29-30.

84 Ibid., p. 30.

85 Ibid., p. 73.
19

necessarily to that polling place in your neighborhood. But you can go somewhere 

that is convenient to your work, where you drop your kids to school, and where you 

run your errands. These type of systems will allow folks to cast ballots there, vote 

by mail, drop off their ballots, drive up and drop off their ballots in vote drop-off 

locations as well.86

IV. Election Administration in Los Angeles County California

A. Voter Responsibility of Los Angeles County Clerk and Registrar

The Los Angeles County Registrar's Office is responsible for the registration of voters, 

maintenance of voter files, conduct of federal, state, local and special elections and the 

verification of initiative, referendum and recall petitions. In January 1968, the Departments of 

Registrar of Voters and County Recorder were merged by the Board of Supervisors and further 

merged with the County Clerk in January 1991.87

Los Angeles County is the largest electoral jurisdiction in the country, with a population of

nearly 10 million residents. The county spans 4,083 square miles, and includes 88 cities, as well 

as hundreds of municipal school and special districts. Each year, the office participates in 

approximately 200 elections for schools, cities and special districts. There are approximately 4.8 

million registered voters, as well as 5,000 voting precincts established for countywide elections.

To place the immensity of the county in context, Dean Logan, Registrar-Recorder County Clerk 

for Los Angeles County, told the Committee that the county’s electorate is larger than that of 42 

of the 50 states in the country and reflects a greater cultural, economic, and demographic 

diversity than in any other electoral jurisdiction in the country. Additionally, the community 

served by the Los Angeles County registrar is highly mobile and current registration processes 

necessitate an individual having to complete a new registration form each time they have a 

change in residency.88

The Census reports that in 2014, the population of persons 18 and over—that is the number of 

persons of voting age—was 7,810,096. Of those, 4,544,455 million (58.2 percent) are registered 

voters. The actual voter participation rate in the county has not been high in recent years. In the 

2014 mid-term elections, 1,518,835 persons voted. This is a participation rate of 33.4 percent.89

The 2014 mid-term election also prompted a media report of persons voting multiple times. In 

response to the report, an audit of voter registration records in Los Angeles County following the 

2014 election found a few dozen voters with duplicate registration records, but did not find any 

cases where people had actually voted twice in the same election. County supervisors had asked 

for a review of voter records after KNBC News reported in November that at least 442 people—

 

86 Ibid.

87 Los Angeles County Recorder-Registrar/County Clerk, at http://www.lavote.net/about-us/background.

88 Testimony of Dean Logan, Transcript on Help America Vote Act, p. 51.

89 Table 2.
20

and possibly as many as 52,000—were registered to vote more than once in the county registrar’s 

system.90

The Los Angeles County Auditor-Controller office reviewed a sampling of 100 voters with 

possible duplicate registrations. Many of the duplicate registrations were found to have been in 

the system for three or four years. Records from the registrar initially showed that three people 

had voted twice in a recent election, but a further review showed that there was not duplicate 

voting but rather registrar staff mistakes in entering voter information.91

Table 3: Los Angeles County, California—Adult Population, Registered Voters, Number 

of Voters in 2014 Elections, 2014 Voter Participation 

Number/percent

Adult population--persons 18+ years of age 7,810,096

Number of 18+ population registered to vote 4,544,455

Number of voters in 2014 mid-term election 1,518,835

Voter participation in 2014 mid-term elections 33.4

Source: California Advisory Committee from Census data and Los Angeles County Recorder-Registrar data.

B. Comment on Election Administration by Los Angeles County 

Registrar

Dean Logan told the Committee that he came prepared to discuss with the Committee issues 

regarding: (1) the establishment of a voter registration database, (2) duplicate voter registration 

and voting, (3) provisional voting, and (4) election official training.92 With respect to the 

establishment of a voter registration database, a system should be in place for testing by the end 

of 2015. As to voter rolls, identifying duplicate records in a database of 4.8 million records is one 

of the more challenging processes for the county registrar office. Regarding provisional voting, it 

is to allow an unverified registered to vote. And the County’s election training section works to 

deliver effective election training to election day workers.

1. Establishment of a Statewide Voter Registration Database

A requirement of HAVA is that each state must establish a statewide voter registration database

to include the name and registration information for every registered voter within each states, 

and to assign a “unique identifier” to each voter.93 The list is to be coordinated with other agency 

databases within each state, and accessible electronically to local election officials. Logan told 

the Committee:

 

90 Abby Sewell, Los Angeles Times, County audit finds duplicate voter records but no one who voted twice, Feb. 9, 

2015 at http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-In-voting-record-audit-20150209-story.html. 

91 Ibid.

92 Ibid.

93 HAVA, § 303(a).
21

Los Angeles County, through its legislative advocacy, and my department, through 

its participation in national and statewide associations, is actively involved 

promoting the completion and implementation of (a) functional and robust 

statewide database.... Los Angeles County is slated for testing and implementation 

of the new system following the November 2015 local election. We already have a 

cross functional team from my office and the Secretary of State's Office, working 

on data readiness and preparing for that transition.94

In addition to working in partnership with the Secretary and other counties in 

California, L.A. County continues to advocate California's participation in 

interstate data exchanges to both improve voter list maintenance and to better 

identify eligible unregistered citizens for outreach and education. In anticipation of 

the completion of the new statewide database and further enhancement to update 

and modernize the voter registration process, L.A. County is continuing our efforts 

to enhance, improve and expand voter filing and maintenance and promote access 

to voter registration services through community outreach and education 

programs.95

2. Duplicate Voter Registration in Los Angeles County

The custody and maintenance of the county's 4.8 million voter records is the core function of the 

Registrar-Recorder County Clerk, and involves myriad processes and activities associated with 

ensuring that eligible citizens who have registered to vote are properly assigned to the 

appropriate jurisdiction and are provided information essential to their ability to exercise the 

voting franchise. Logan first told the Committee:

Our voter compilation is of numerous records from households that including 

members who have the same name as well as records with common names and birth 

dates, but different addresses and state identification numbers. It can be quite 

difficult to determine with certainty whether two records are associated with the 

same person. Additionally, the community we serve is highly mobile and current 

registration processes necessitate an individual having to complete a new 

registration form each time they have a change in residency. And that gets further 

complicated with the frequency of elections, and we have a proliferation of 

elections in Los Angeles County.96

He later noted: 

To address these challenges, the county conducts routine list maintenance activities 

that identify and update invalid or inactive records while also assuring a high degree 

of confidence in avoiding false/positive matches that could impinge on voter's 

rights. That said, the county has made significant strides in enhancing and 

 

94 Testimony of Dean Logan, Transcript on Help America Vote Act, pp. 51-52.

95 Ibid., p. 52-53.

96 Ibid., pp. 53-54.
22

improving our voter file maintenance. This includes the development of a number 

of customized data-matching algorithms to identify potential duplicate records.97

Logan described the importance of the official voter file as well:

The official voter file, however, is not merely a mailing list or marketing file. There 

is nothing more threatening to the integrity of our democratic process than 

administrator disenfranchisement. And we've seen examples of incomplete data 

matching and purges in other states that have demonstrated that such attempts 

negatively impact the sense of fairness and equality that is so critical to elections.98

He also stated that the Department took additional steps to ensure voter data integrity:

Demonstrating our commitment to these efforts, the Department established a fulltime unit within our Voter Records Research and Integrity Section to review the 

reports from the queries, and to perform regular and consistent voter file activities. 

As a result of these enhanced and customized quarries, over 82,000 records were 

identified for review, resulting in the cancellation of more than 37,000 records as a 

result of those records.99

Finally, Logan detailed the process for identifying and handling potentially duplicative 

records:

In all of these queries and list maintenance activities, records were identified in 

every category that looked very much to be a match. But after further research, 

turned out not to be duplicate records. It is a very tedious process, but we have to 

be careful that we are not removing records of people who are active and have the 

legal ability to cast a vote. The same thing is true with duplicate records. As one 

example, (the query showed) two voters at the same address with the same exact 

date of birth. Same first name; different last name. This certainly would be a record 

that you would flag that looks like a duplicate. However, when we looked further,

these voters had different social security numbers and different DMV records. So 

they are not, in fact, the same.100

3. Provisional Voting in Los Angeles County

In general, provisional ballots serve two broad purposes in California. The first– consistent with 

HAVA– is that it serves as a failsafe mechanism to ensure that an individual whose status as a 

registered voter cannot be verified is still able to cast a ballot, that is then held pending 

verification. The second is the use of provisional ballots to allow voters to vote at sites other than 

their assigned polling place. Logan told the Committee:

Provisional ballots ensure that an individual who appears to vote and their status as 

a registered voter cannot be verified on the spot is still able to cast a ballot that is 

 

97 Ibid., p. 54.

98 Ibid., pp. 58-59.

99 Ibid., p. 56.

100 Ibid., p. 57.
23

then held for processing, pending verification of their eligibility and confirmation 

of their registration status as part of a post- election canvas. The second, which is 

more unique to California or the western part of the United States, is using 

provisional ballots in a manner that's characterized as ‘convenience voting’, where 

registered voters appear to vote at a location other than their assigned polling place 

or where they've been issued a vote-by-mail ballot. They choose to go to the polling 

place, but then they do not have their vote-by-mail ballot. In those cases, the voters

were issued provisional ballots. The latter category has resulted in a trend of 

increased numbers of provisional ballots in recent elections, in some cases trending 

at or around 10 percent of the ballots cast in the election.101

Logan also addressed the positive impact that changes to conditional election-day voter 

registration could bring for voters:

California is positioned to see improvement in this area through the authorization 

and implementation of conditional election day voter registration. Those services 

will be available to voters in the first election cycle following the implementation 

of the statewide database. Once that is in place, voter will have the ability to update 

their registration records or complete the registration process at the time of voting, 

thus decreasing the likelihood of casting personal ballots.102

4. Election Official Training in Los Angeles County

Training is conducted for election day workers to prepare them for the critical functions they 

conduct on election day. Such training must meet the needs of voters with respect to information 

about ballots and voting equipment, Federal and state law with respect to ensuring eligibility to 

vote, and equal access to voting for persons with disabilities and limited English speaking ability. 

Logan told the Committee:

Los Angeles County is committed to delivering effective election training to 

election day workers for federal, state, local and special elections. The County’s 

training section conducts more than 500 classes at various facilities and locations 

throughout the county leading up to each election. Training is conducted for over 

23,000 election day workers to prepare to perform the critical functions that we rely 

upon them for on election day.103

He also provided additional information about the types of training that are available:

There are several different types of training that are offered. These trainings consist 

of hands-on training, by presentations, scenario-based videos, written training, 

manuals, handouts, and job cards. And this training begins one month prior to and 

continues through the weekend prior to the election.104

 

101 Ibid., pp. 58-59.

102 Ibid., pp. 60-61.

103 Ibid., p. 62.

104 Ibid.
24

Figure 1: Map of Los Angeles County California

Source: Google maps

(With respect to limited English voters), according to the 2010 U.S. Census Data, 

57 percent of Los Angeles County residents speak a primary language other than 

English, and 26.4 percent assess their own speaking ability in English at less than 

very well. Under provisions of the Federal Voting Rights Act, Minority Language 

requirement, the county must provide written election material in 10 languages, 

including English and provide bilingual poller systems in at least four additional 

dialects.105

Logan also discussed the growing demographics of persons with disabilities in L.A. 

County:

Additionally, based on the 2007 Los Angeles Health Surveys, 19.6 percent or 14.6 

million voting-aged adults in the county reported having a disability. And residents 

over the age of 65 are among the fastest growing demographics in the country. 

Given these demographics in our jurisdiction, L.A. County in 2013 produced 

comprehensive reports describing the numerous services provided to voters with 

primary language other than English and for voters with disabilities and specific 

needs.106

 

105 Ibid., p. 64.

106 Ibid.
25

In addition, Los Angeles County hired IDEO to create a voting system that offers contemporary 

experiences and equal access for all. The County hopes to switch to the new machines in time for 

the 2020 presidential election. After the 2008 election drew record numbers to the polls, county 

election officials decided it was time to replace the county’s obsolete machines. IDEO has 

developed a touch screen system that incorporates features familiar to voters used to scrolling 

and tapping.107

V. Election Administration in San Diego County California

A. Voter Responsibility of San Diego County Clerk and Registrar

The San Diego County Registrar of Voters (ROV) is entrusted with providing the means for all 

eligible citizens of San Diego County to exercise their right to actively participate in the 

democratic process. The Department works to ensure widespread, ongoing opportunities to 

register and vote in fair and accurate elections for all federal, state and local offices and 

measures. The ROV is also responsible for providing access to the information needed for 

citizens to engage in the initiative, referendum and recall petition processes and is the main 

repository for all County, school district, and special district campaign finance disclosure 

statements.108

The Census reports that in 2014, the population of persons 18 and over in the County—that is the 

number of persons of voting age—was 2,535,686. Of those, 1,546,924 million (61 percent) are 

registered voters. The actual voter participation rate in the county has been high in recent years. 

In the 2014 mid-term elections, 692,434 persons voted for a participation rate of 44.9 percent.109

This was a noticeably higher rate than observed in the three nearby counties of Los Angeles 

(33.4 percent), Orange (Riverside (40.1 percent), and San Bernardino (34.4 percent).110

The County Registrar-Recorder is responsible for the conduct of federal, state, and local 

elections, as well as for the verification of initiative, referendum and recall petitions and the 

receipt of county, school and special district campaign financial disclosure statement. To 

illustrate the challenges facing the County Registrar-Recorder, in the 2014 mid-term election, the 

office was responsible for 1,432 voting precincts on election day and processed 91 voter 

petitions (2 statewide petitions, 2 local petitions, and 87 candidate petitions) and 24 ballot 

propositions (6 state and 18 local).

111

Although generally holding problem-free elections, similar to many other jurisdictions, San 

Diego County has reported voting machine problems. In many parts of the country, voting 

machines in use today were purchased with HAVA funds. Inspectors and regulators have

subsequently discovered dozens of security flaws in different types of machines. For example, in 

2008, a Princeton University group found that it only took about seven minutes to hack into an 

 

107 Bloomberg Businessweek, L.A. tackles a national disaster: voting machines, July 13-July 19, 2015, pp. 22-3.

108 San Diego County Registrar of Voters, http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/info/bythenumbers/rov.html.

109 See Table 2.

110 Ibid. Orange County, directly north of San Diego County had a similar participation rate of 44.9 percent.

111 San Diego County Registrar of Voters, http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/info/bythenumbers/rov.html.
26

AVC Advantage voting machine—currently used in over 90 counties, and plant malware to steal 

votes from one party and give them to another.112

In 2007, a comprehensive California review uncovered serious weaknesses in the software 

architecture of a number of voting machines. One machine was the Diebold AccuVote TSX, 

which is currently in use in over 400 counties nationwide. San Diego County was one 

jurisdiction that felt the effects of that decision. Roughly 10,000 AccuVote TSX touchscreen 

machines were purchased by San Diego County for $25 million dollars. They are now sitting 

shrink-wrapped in a warehouse, and the County has since switched to optical scan ballots and 

has had to make the system work with a limited supply of such ballots.113

Table 4: San Diego County, California—Adult Population, Registered Voters, Percent 

Registered Voters, Voters in 2014 Elections, 2014 Voter Participation 

Number/percent

Adult population--persons 18+ years of age 2,535,686

Number of 18+ population registered to vote 1,546,924

Number of voters in 2014 mid-term election 692,434

Voter participation in 2014 mid-term elections 44.9%

Source: California Advisory Committee from Census data and San Diego County Recorder-Registrar data

B. Comment on Election Administration by San Diego County Registrar

Michael Vu, Registrar-Recorder for San Diego County, told the Committee that his office, like 

other counties, is working with the Secretary of State to develop a reliable and efficient statewide 

voter database. In the meantime, the public expects the county’s voter database to be accurate and 

up-to-date. With respect to provisional voting, state law initiated the voting provision to allow a 

person registered within the County the right to cast a provisional ballot anywhere within the 

County, which is not the case in all states. San Diego County recruits up to 7,000 volunteers to 

serve as poll workers for statewide elections, and the County engages in a train-the-trainer” model

to provide expert and consistent training across the County.

1. Establishment of a Statewide Voter Registration Database

When completed in 2016, VoteCal will replace the current Cal-Vote California voter registration 

database and provide a single, uniform, centralized voter registration database that meets HAVA 

requirements. It is anticipated that the new system will connect the Secretary of State’s office 

and all 58 county election offices together providing a single, official statewide database of voter 

registration information.114

 

112 Michael Keller, Aljazeera America, Voting’s Impending Crisis—with US voting machines aging, states have few 

funds to replace them, at http://america.aljazeera.com/multimedia/2014/9/voting-s-impendingcrisis.html.

113 Ibid.

114 California Secretary of State Alex Padilla, VoteCal Project, at http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voterregistration/votecal-project.
27

VoteCal was to begin implementation in 2015 with five pilot counties (El Dorado, Mendocino, 

Orange, Sacramento, and Solano). The remaining counties are grouped into a series of “waves”, 

and monthly wave deployments will occur from October 2015 to March 2016. After VoteCal is 

deployed to all counties and VoteCal is working correctly, VoteCal will be declared the official 

system of record for voter registration in the State, which is expected to occur in June 2016. 

Regarding VoteCal, Michael Vu told the Committee: 

The Secretary of State’s team and our local election management are working in 

concert with San Diego County to provide the necessary support to migrate into our 

new Vote-Cal system. This includes ensuring the necessary hardware and software 

are in place and that it is well-tested to actively interact and reflect the status of 

every registered voter in the state. For those who are currently in the middle of their 

deployment, inasmuch as it is important to comply with this section of HAVA, it is 

equally as important that its implementation is right. So there should be caution in 

exercising it. The Secretary of State Padilla and his team have demonstrated that 

they are moving with character to achieve both goals.115

2. Duplicate Voter Registrants in San Diego County

The San Diego County Registrar-Recorder is responsible for maintaining a database of 1.4 

million voter records. The number of persons in the County’s database is larger than the total

population of 11 states. Most of the legal obligation for list maintenance activity is covered by 

NVRA, not HAVA. Michael Vu told the Committee:

The San Diego County database of 1.4 million registered voters is... highly 

regulated by Federal and State laws. In fact, the majority of the list maintenance 

activity is covered by the National Voter Registration Act, not HAVA. And (in 

accordance with that act election officials are) to err on the side of keeping voters 

on the list of registered voters. So we are extra careful not to inadvertently 

disenfranchise the voter because of being overly aggressive and removing voters 

without going through channels spelled out in NVRA.116

On the other hand, the public and ourselves expect that our database is as up to date 

as possible. And so, again, we have an extensive program in place to ensure proper 

maintenance list efforts. These include the Secretary of State's Office sending us 

monthly duplicate records and deceased records for us to verify. To give you an 

idea of the number of records we are processing in San Diego, we analyzed a nine 

month window of maintenance and registration activity and over 515,000 records 

were received from government entities and voters during this time frame.

117

Our local County Health Department sends monthly and electronic lists of those 

that have passed away in the county for us to view and take action as appropriate. 

We run duplicate checks on the registration file on a quarterly basis. On a daily 

basis we receive information of county voters who have registered in another 

 

115 Testimony of Michael Vu, Transcript on Help America Vote Act, pp. 73-74.

116 Ibid., p. 80.

117 Ibid., pp. 82-83.
28

jurisdiction. We receive information from family members notifying us that a 

person is no longer a registered voter within the county.118

We run national change-of-address comparisons before each election in order to 

have the most updated information. And pursuant to NVRA, any mailed ballot or 

sample ballot or voter information pamphlet triggers affordable confirmation card 

process to be sent to the voter. And the voter is then placed on inactive status. 

Should the voter have no activity for two general elections, we are able to cancel 

them from the voter rolls. Finally, we receive daily Department of Motor Vehicle 

registration updates, and these are supplied on a weekly basis.119

As I have mentioned before, when a person registration to vote, there is a feedback 

to safeguard their right to be registered to vote and our ability to maintain the files.

And this happens in every single county, across all 58 counties, when a person reregisters to vote that triggers a process of that record. We automatically provide

feedback known as that voter notification card. We send it to the registered voter at 

their address. If that card comes back undeliverable, then we have the ability to act 

on it and put them on inactive status. If we do not receive that card back, they will

remain on the active status.120

3. Provisional Voting in San Diego County

California was the first state in the nation to introduce the safeguard whereby a person registered 

within the county has the ability to cast a provisional ballot anywhere within the county and have 

his/her vote on count. Michael Vu told the Committee:

To give you some idea as to the numbers in San Diego County in the 2012 

presidential general election, 103,004 individuals voted a provisional ballot and 87 

percent or 89,686 of the ballots were partially or fully counted. In last November's 

2014 gubernatorial general election 35,651 provisional ballots were cast and 93 

percent or 32,967 were partially or fully counted. In both elections, the main reason 

for not counting the ballot was the result of individuals not being registered to vote 

within the county.121

Although provisional balloting is a safety net instituted across the country, it should 

be seen and used as a measure of last resort, an exception rather than the rule for a 

number of reasons. We highly encourage vote within their assigned precincts so 

they are assured they will be able to vote on all contents in which they are eligible. 

As Mr. Logan had mentioned, we share the same things. We want all voters to be 

able to cast all the content that they are eligible to. As an example, due to the 

number of contested political jurisdictions that overlap San Diego County, there are 

569 different versions of the official ballot during the November 2014 electoral 

general election. The Voter who visits an unassigned voting place will most likely 

 

118 Ibid., p. 81.

119 Ibid., p. 82.

120 Ibid.

121 Ibid., p. 70.
29

vote on a difference set of content that had she or he gone to their assigned polling 

place.122

We encourage voters to vote in their voting precincts so that they will have a good 

voting experience. When a voter is not voting at their assigned voting precinct, it 

takes more time for them to issue the ballots, and more time get their ballots

counted. Additional time by coworkers to serve a voter may, in turn, contribute to 

longer lines at a polling place, particularly during IT voting. Finally, voters are 

encouraged to vote at their assigned voting place. This reduces the amount of time 

and cost associated with verifying and validating provisional ballot.123

4. Election Official Training in San Diego County

San Diego County recruits up to 7,000 volunteers to serve as poll workers for statewide 

elections. Poll workers are schooled by vetted trainers, who themselves must have successfully 

completed a three-week intensive course to learn all aspects of election day procedures and 

management practices at the polls. Michael Vu told the Committee:

In order to ensure the proper administration at the polls and to ensure that every 

voter has the opportunity to cast, at minimum, a provisional ballot to ensure voters 

have a robust coworker training program. As part of their course work, coworkers 

are required to take a two-hour, online training course with another two-hour onsite 

course with our trainers. As it gets closer to election day, we open up workshops to 

any coworker to hone in their skills and ask questions. In addition, each coworker 

receives a detailed, easy to read, and reference coworker manual so they are able to 

study and refer to and are able to purchase should they have any questions.124

 

122 Ibid., pp. 70-71.

123 Ibid., p. 71.

124 Ibid., p. 79.
30

Figure 2: Map of San Diego County California

Source: Google maps

Continuing about election worker training, Michael Vu told the Committee about the County’s 

“train-the-trainer” model approach, which provides both expert and consistent training across the 

County.

Our office conducts a train-the-trainer model, where our trainers go through a threeweek intensive course to learn all aspects of election day procedures and 

management practices at the polls. These individuals are highly skilled, many 

having training background themselves. The three-week train-the-trainer course

includes coverage of all election day practices and scenarios and covers the use of 

the poll place supplies. In this manner, we are able to create consistent training 

across all the training teams. At the end of the training course, it is capped with a 

dress rehearsal. Should a team not perform to the standards expected, they may not 

train coworkers. It should be noted that, since these trainers know the procedures 

and all the poll place election materials by then, these trainers become our coworker 

hotline staff on election day, making it efficient to quickly answer election day 

procedures by poll workers.125

 

125 Ibid., pp. 79-80.
31

VI. Organization and Public Comment on Election Administration

Three organizations with dedicated interest in voting systems and voting integrity were invited 

by the California Advisory Committee to speak at the public hearing. They were the Pew 

Charitable Trusts, the Election Integrity Project, and Everyone Counts. The Pew Charitable 

Trusts publishes an Elections Performance Index, which analyzes 17 key indicators of election 

administration. The Election Integrity Project is a non-partisan election oversight organization 

based in California whose members observe and research election practices and report on alleged 

voting irregularities. Everyone Counts is an election and voting system technology company 

based in San Diego, California, that provides electronic election administration technology to 

governments and private entities.

A. Comment on Election Administration from the Pew Charitable Trusts, 

Election Integrity Project, Everyone Counts, Communities Actively 

Living Independent and Free, and Mark Sonnenklar

1. The Pew Charitable Trusts

David Becker, Director of the Election Project for Pew Charitable Trusts, was interviewed by the 

Committee subsequent to the public hearing. He discussed the Trusts Elections Performance 

Index (EPI), and the integrity of election systems generally.

The EPI is used by Pew to evaluate key indicators of election administration, and 

Pew scores each state’s performance by indicator and overall score. The Index itself 

is not an absolute score, but rather a relative measure of how states perform against 

each other. Pew has been issuing EPIs since 2008, and an EPI for 2014 is due to 

come out in the Spring of 2015. Pew releases Indices in each federal election year, 

so to date there have been releases for 2008, 2010, and 2012. Regarding 

California’s low relative EIP standing in election processes in comparison to other 

states, the biggest thing going against the state was the lack of a look-up tool of 

voter rolls at the precinct level. As of 2012, precinct workers in the state did not 

have a look-up capability. But by 2014 that had corrected, and going forward 

precinct workers can look-up a voter information.126

It is not possible to compare 2010 Indices with either 2008 or 2012 as 2010 

measured a different election cycle, but it is appropriate to measure Indices between 

2008 and 2012 to gauge changes in state performance. From that comparison, Pew 

concludes that California improved its election processes during that 4-year period, 

but still fell performance-wise compared to other states. In 2008, California ranked 

47th among all states in election administration, and although in 2012 the state’s 

EPI score increased to 54, the state’s ranking fell to 49th as other states showed 

improvement. To that low ranking, I think California has some areas that should be 

further examined for inefficiencies in the administration of election processes. The 

classic area for attention is provisional ballots. Roughly one-half of all provisional 

 

126 David Becker, telephone interview, California Advisory Committee to U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Sept. 

17, 2015 (Record of interview on file with Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights files). 
32

ballots nationwide are cast in California. Some of that is the result of state policy, 

as California state law for example allows a provisional ballot to be cast if a voter 

comes to the wrong precinct.127

California also struggles with a fairly high percentage of provisional ballots that are 

rejected. One likely reason for that is the high number of “mail ballot” voters in the 

state. 

For more than a decade, the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey has asked 

nonvoters why they did not submit a ballot. This indicator captures the number of people who 

responded that they did not cast a ballot due to an “illness or disability (own or family’s).”

Voters with disabilities and permanently ill voters face unique challenges, such as inaccessible 

polling places and voting technology that is difficult to use. Federal law mandates that all polling 

places must generally be accessible to physically disabled voters. The Help America Vote Act of 

2002 requires that at least one voting machine in each precinct be equipped for those voters.

 

127 Ibid.
33

Figure 3: California EPI Index Graph

Source: CALIFORNIA EPI INDEX GRAPH FROM PEW CHARITABLE TRUST, 2014

If a person is identified as a “mail ballot” voter, on election day that person can 

only vote in person by delivering his or her “mail ballot” in person to the precinct. 

If the voter attempts to vote in person and the election officials see that the voter is 

a “mail ballot” voter, then his or her vote will be considered a provisional ballot. 

The provisional ballot will only count after the state ensures that the voter did not 

also cast a “mail ballot.” So mail ballots drive a lot of the provisional voting 

observed in the state.128

Pew is also supportive of online voter registration processes. Online voter 

registration saves taxpayer dollars, increases the accuracy of voter rolls, and 

 

128 Ibid.
34

provides a convenient option for Americans who wish to register or update their 

information. Pew has analyzed online voter registration and has found zero fraud 

as a result of this election process. Moreover, the accuracy of voter rolls is vastly 

improved as data entry errors are significantly reduced. That is because the voter 

directly inputs the information, instead of a data entry clerk.129

Low voter turnout continues to be a concern, not just in California but nationwide. 

Preliminary data from the Election Project indicates that national turnout for the 

2014 mid-term elections was below 37 percent. There is no one simple answer for 

low voter turnout. It is complex situation of factors that play out differently in 

different years and areas. But it is nevertheless thought-provoking that in 2014, half 

of all California voters received a “mail ballot” yet only about one-third of those 

persons voted. The publicizing of the Index seems to have generated conversation 

about addressing voter turn-out and voter integrity. Pew would like to see that 

conversation continue.130

And even though California has historically performed poorly in terms of voter 

turn-out and election process, the state is situated to make great strides. Across the 

state, there is a remarkably high quality of county recorder/registrars. The new 

Secretary of State has demonstrated a commitment to improving the election 

process in the state. And given the considerable wealth in the state, there are 

sizeable financial resources to allow the state to make great and quick strides to 

improve voting integrity.131

Moreover, the issues raised in HAVA reflect that the 21st century is experiencing a new era in 

voting. It is becoming more common for electronic voting systems to be scrutinized for integrity 

and reliability. Expensive, antiquated purpose-built hardware-based systems and manual and 

paper processes are being transformed with systems designed to result in increased accessibility 

and improved accuracy for all elections, as well as enhanced security, increased auditability, and 

significant cost savings. 

 

129 Ibid. In January 2014, Pew released its assessment of online voter registration in a briefing paper, Understanding 

Online Voter Registration and followed with a second brief in May 2015, Online Voter Registration—Trends in 

development and implementation. 

130 Ibid.

131 Ibid.
35

2. The Election Integrity Project

The Election Integrity Project (EIP) is a nonpartisan, citizen organization that seeks to empower 

“citizen volunteers, through education and training to participate actively in protecting our 

freedoms and way of life.”132 According to their website, EIP performs the following functions:

 Research County & State Voter Rolls.

 Educate volunteer poll workers, poll observers, and ballot processing observers in the 

state election codes for their election process.

 Train volunteer observers to interact lawfully with elections officials to rectify 

perceived inconsistencies.

 Send Position Papers to the Legislative Committees on proposed bills that impact the 

integrity of the election process.

 Inform citizens about impending legislation, encouraging them to communicate with 

their own representatives and direct their voting patterns.133

Linda Paine, founder and president of EIP, spoke before the Committee regarding their work to 

ensure the integrity of California elections. In particular, they attested to their efforts to conduct 

county by county research to enhance the integrity of the state voter database, and “train citizens 

across the state to observe polls and document whether the laws are being followed.”134 EIP 

established a centralized database and server, and has volunteer analysts to analyze the data 

collected to create a findings report that they provide to registrars.135 In addition, EIP meets with 

registrars to discuss their findings.

As a result of EIP’s work, Paine stated that the organization has “found hundreds of thousands of 

duplicates across the state. The implementation of the online voter registration noted in our 

research found that there were thousands of voters who registered in other counties.”136 Paine 

asserts that the causes of the duplicative voter registrations are faulty county operating 

procedures and technology. According to Linda Paine:

Why does this happen? Because with the memorandum of agreement, the 

statewide voter database that California uses is a model that makes it impossible 

for the counties to do cross country research and for the state database to know 

immediately if I have registered in multiple counties. Just for clarity, we have a 

compliant topdown centralized database. It functions this way: If I register in L.A. 

County, it immediately shows up in Sacramento. And so if I have already 

registered in another county, it’s flagged. If I’m duplicating or voting for a 

deceased person, it’s flagged. We don’t have that.137

 

132 Election Integrity Project, 2016. “Who We are: Our Mission,” available at

https://www.electionintegrityproject.com/. 

133 Ibid.

134 Testimony of Linda Paine, Transcript on Help America Vote Act, p. 165

135 Ibid., p. 167

136 Ibid., p.168.

137 Ibid.
36

Paine provided evidence of EIP’s efforts in the form of testimony emailed by several citizens, 

declarations from the citizens of Nevada County where there is a civil grand jury decision 

regarding voter irregularities, a 2014 observation report from Trinity County and L.A. County, as 

well as a letter to the Secretary of State, a report from the EIP Chief Analyst, a memorandum of 

investigation into a city county raise in San Diego Valley in L.A. County, and 12 packets of their 

training materials.138

She also spoke regarding her hope that the new Vote-Cal system would make a positive 

difference in the state, but cautioned that a similar system in the past did not provide the needed 

integrity and security in the elections.139 Paine suggested that citizen oversight of the Vote-Cal 

system and standardized pricing for purchasing voter rolls would be helpful to ensure both the 

continuation of EIP’s work and the integrity of the voter system in California.140

Ruth Weiss, the San Diego Coordinator for EIP, spoke to the Committee regarding the issue of 

provisional ballots. First, she stated that California has a large number of provisional ballots 

compared to other states, and that “with all the difficulties with validating those and making sure 

that they’re processed appropriately and that there isn’t some sort of fraud involved in it, it’s a 

big job and we’re concerned about that.”141 She also cited a 2012 statistic that found that the 

number of provisional ballots cast in California alone was 40 percent of all the national 

provisional ballots cast.142

Weiss discussed the balance between providing provisional ballots as a protection for “voters 

who are the legitimate victims of error or someone who may not be able to make it back to his 

polling place in time to vote,”143 but that there are also risks inherent in providing provisional 

ballots. As a result of these ballots, she stated that “almost every provisional voter is going to 

vote out of precinct,”144 and that poll workers are providing incorrect information to potential 

voters regarding when the votes will be counted. However, she found that the large number of 

provisional ballots was leading to large delays in publicizing the results of the elections, which in 

turn eroded public confidence in the election process.145

3. Everyone Counts

The Committee also heard from Lori Steele, Founder and CEO of Everyone Counts, universal 

voting, and the way in which voting systems are mission critical in ensuring the integrity of the 

voting process. For Steele, it was important to have the requisite experts on voting processes and 

practices to design meaningful integrity and security measures for the voting system. According 

to Steele:

 

138 See Ibid, p. 166.

139 See Ibid, 169.

140 Ibid.

141 Testimony of Ruth Weiss, Transcript on Help America Vote Act, pp. 170-171.

142 Ibid., p.171.

143 Ibid.

144 Ibid., p.172.

145 Ibid., p. 175
37

[W]e need to bring together experts in administrative process of elections, 

experts in security and technology and experts in accessibility. And we need to 

put all those things together into a platform that can give voters what they need 

and can give election administrators what they need. And Everyone Counts has 

been doing this for well over a decade.146

Steele also emphasized the links among up-to-date technology, wise spending, and integrity in 

the voting process:

The Help America Vote Act resulted in $3.9 billion being spent in the United States. 3.9 

billion being authorized and 3 billion being spent. There's about 800 million left 

somewhere in the states. Those dollars, those billions of dollars were used to buy 30- and 

50-year-old technology. Those technology you read about in the newspaper that isn't that 

accessible and that slips votes because the screen calculated – the screen calibration is so 

old. And California is thinking of buying new voting systems.147

Steele stated that California prohibited the type of greater security that her system provides, and 

was even considering using mail in ballots. For Steele, use of the mail ballots may represent a 

lost opportunity for California’s voters:

But what if they could have better benefits? What if they could have fully accessible 

absentee? What if they could have fully auditable absentee? What if they could have 

military grade encryption of every single ballot?148

However, Steele posits that California law prohibits the introduction of such technology into the 

voting process:

In California, you cannot. There are three lines in the code that prevent that. One 

says you can't use the Internet ever. One says you can't use wireless technology 

ever. The other one is also about wireless technology.149

In conclusion, she suggested that if California seeks to introduce new voting technology to the 

state, then the laws should be adjusted to accommodate these new measures:

So if California is going to think about ensuring every person in California who 

has the right to vote has the ability to do so privately, independently and with 

greater security than offered in any other voting system, then California needs to 

think about adjusting their laws, so that federally certified voting systems can be –

that provide the remote opportunities to vote and in-person opportunities to vote 

 

146 Testimony of Lori Steele, Transcript on Help America Vote Act, p. 175.

147 Ibid., p. 134-135

148 Ibid., p.135.

149 Ibid.
38

in a state of the art way that will never reach end of life, then California need to 

think differently about voting systems.

4. Communities Actively Living Independent and Free

Lillibeth Navarro, Disability Rights Advocate and Executive Director of Communities Actively 

Living Independent and Free, spoke before the Committee. Her organization is a downtown Los 

Angeles-based social services advocacy organization for civil rights for the disabled in the 

context of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). It offers the disability community with 

an “entire gamut of social services through Civil Rights Advocacy, from housing to benefits 

advocacy, peer counseling, information and referral, personal assistance services, physically 

change advocacy, assistive technology transition, and transportation, in the context of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act.”150

She provided personal testimony regarding her work as a poll worker and witnessing the lack of 

persons with disabilities at the polls, and the physical and electronic inaccessibility of many 

polling locations in California.151 She noted at least twelve studies related to improving voter 

access for persons with disabilities, but that this information did not always manifest itself as 

tangible resources and funding for disability advocacy groups to work with the government to 

develop and implement educational programs for the community.152 

Ms. Navarro challenged the current state of voting accessibility for the voter with disabilities in 

Los Angeles, starting with wheelchair access. Though few severely disabled voters vote in 

person, most choosing to vote by mail (VBM), the need to have adequate handicap access for all 

polls remains for those who do vote in person.

Parking and pathway situations frequently deter the voter with disabilities from access, i.e., long 

walks after parking, obstructions, and inadequate lighting. California Advisory Committee 

member Javier Gonzalez noted that all facilities selected by the Los Angeles County Registrar of 

Voters as polling places are required to be chosen with and tested for ADA compliance. 

Additionally, Ms. Navarro asked for easier access for the voter with disabilities to election 

education programs and computer usage (such as for the blind,) and to online information. 

Current electronic devices often impose discouraging obstacles to gaining voting information. 

With respect to the voters with intellectual disabilities, social service workers often find that 

important issues, when simply explained, can be comprehended. Ms. Navarro asks for more 

empathy and sensitivity to and for voters with disabilities and their needs by those in industry 

who create modern solutions. One idea she submitted is for counties to create a form of media 

“get-out-the-vote” Amber Alert sound or flashing light, to alert those voters that the time to vote, 

to have a say in government, is here.

 

150 Testimony of Lillibeth Navarro Transcript on Help America Vote Act, p. 137.

151 Ibid., p. 138.

152 Ibid., pp. 138-139.
39

5. Mark Sonnenklar

Mark Sonnenklar, a Los Angeles Resident and Business Attorney, gave testimony concerning a 

civil rights breach (HAVA) – the fair and equal administration of justice.153 His testimony 

described what ultimately was a story of a civil rights breach (HAVA) – the fair and equal 

administration of justice. The four-month episode described centered on the Los Angeles 

County Registrar’s refusal to provide public data to a citizen’s request, Mark Sonnenklar’s, as 

legally allowed.154 The particular public documents requested had previously been provided 

another organization (Election Integrity Project), upon which data EIP published a report 

concerning thousands of irregularities involving the L. A. County Registrar.155 Mark Sonnenklar 

wished to obtain the same data provided EIP to determine if a separate analysis of the data 

corresponded to theirs. After a series of delays, it seemed clear the Registrar’s office hoped the 

request would die out. Sonnenklar persisted, and, as of August 28, the date of the hearing, four 

months after his original request, finally received the data, with a cover letter signed in person by 

Mr. Dean Logan, the Registrar of Voters, a person who normally would not have been involved 

with one single citizen’s request.156

Sonnenklar also testified that the prices quoted for providing the data were entirely arbitrary, and 

changed several times: Once the ROV agreed to provide the data, a $600 fee was set. This was 

arbitrarily lowered by the registrar’s representative to $450.157 When that amount was 

challenged as excessive by Sonnenklar, the fee was lowered to $146.158 When Mr. Sonnenklar 

then asked for the statutory justification for the calculation of the fee, he was quoted L.A. County 

Code Section 2.32.24, which states the fee is $54 for one CD. That was the amount eventually 

set, which Sonnenklar paid.159 He also said the Registrar of Voters told him to delete the 

individual voters’ identifications.

Several members of the California Advisory Committee commented on several aspects of this 

revelation:

 Committee member Ms. Montoya raised the concern that providing the data to anyone 

who asks might be a breach of individual privacy. 

 Committee member Ms. Jester recounted that the type of data requested is regularly 

provided to political consultants, as she was for many years, and there was no reason for 

such a delay by public officials.

Sonnenklar further expressed this opinion:

 

153 Testimony of Mark Sonnenklar, Transcript on Help America Vote Act, p. 105-129.

154 Ibid., pp. 109-117.

155 Ibid., pp. 122-123.

156 Ibid., p. 117.

157 Ibid., p. 115.

158 Ibid., p. 115-116.

159 Ibid., p. 115. Linda Paine of EIP states in later testimony that she paid $500 for the supposedly same data. 
40

“(I)think someone in a position of authority needs to, you know, have -- have a word with 

Dean Logan and make sure that his staff is responding to these requests in a timely basis. 

I think that's the immediate thing that needs to happen. 

Committee member Betty Wilson asked Sonnenklar if he had made this request to the registrar, 

Mr. Logan. He stated:

You know, I don't have a personal relationship with Mr. Logan. And -- so, no.

And, finally, from Sonnenklar:

There is no coincidence in politics. And I don't think it's a surprise that I received the data 

finally this morning in the mail, the day that I was supposed to come and testify. So there 

are a lot of things about this story that I don't quite understand, you know, about the 

Registrar Recorder's behavior during this four-month ordeal, but one thing I can say for 

sure is, they didn't want to provide me with those records. They violated the law by 

taking as long as they did to actually finally provide them and I think they expected me to 

get tired and go away. And that's why they dragged this on for as long as they did.

So Section 6252(e) of the act defines a public record as, quote, "Any writing containing 

information relating to the conduct of the public's business that is prepared, owned, used 

or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics.160

 

160 Ibid., p. 116.
41

Committee Findings and Conclusions

Conclusions

1. Insufficient training in election laws for poll workers and on-site election officials 

pursuant to witnesses Linda Paine and Ruth Weiss of the Election Integrity Project161; 

Training materials162 fail to provide for the implementation of California Election Code 

§14216, voter self-identification, which states:

“Any person desiring to vote shall announce his or her name and address in an 

audible tone of voice, and when one of the precinct officers finds the name in the 

index, the officer shall in a like manner repeat the name and address. The voter 

shall then write his or her name and residence address . . . “.

2. Disabled voters face unnecessary obstacles, according to testimony by Lillibeth Navarro, 

representative of Communities Actively Living Independent and Free;

3. VoteCal, the mandated statewide voter database, is not ready (SOS testimony);

4. Explanations about the decision-making process of the Secretary of State for potential 

voting system developers are required after doubts raised from materials provided by 

State Auditor Elaine Howle, which state:

“The Office paid $4.6 million to develop a replacement database – Vote Cal - but 

terminated a critical contract because the vendor failed to provide key deliverables. 

In its second attempt to hire a new vendor to complete the VoteCal project, the Office 

appears to have limited the bidder competition to only one bidder, raising concerns 

for future success.”163

5. The methodology used to report HAVA expenditures in California’s spending plan has 

not been explained, according to the testimony of State Auditor Elaine Howle;

6. Deceased, inactive and ineligible voters remain on voter lists;

7. The delayed and multi-stage human handling of vote-by-mail ballots creates openings for 

tampering or mishandling, according to Ruth Weiss’s testimony and EIP’s written 

testimony;

 

161 Linda Paine and Ruth Weiss, Election Integrity Project, Testimony before the California Advisory Committee to 

the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Transcript, Hearing on Help America Vote Act, Los Angeles, CA, Aug. 28, 

2015, pp. 158-191 (hereafter referred to as Help America Vote Act (HAVA) Transcript), available at

https://www.justice.gov/crt/text-proposed-regulations.

162 Ibid., p. 177. 

163 Ibid., p. 46
42

8. In 2012, California cast forty percent of the provisional ballots in the nation.164 Though 

the official intent is to allow for convenient voting and options that support participation, 

inadequate poll worker training in following the law likely contributes to the 

indiscriminate use of provisional ballots;

9. Prohibitive costs to citizens to purchase voter roll data;

10. Indiscriminate use of Permanent Absentee Voting;

11. Statewide voting and election irregularities in many counties, both large and small, 

require further investigation;165

12. Antiquated election laws prohibit the introduction of modern voting technology, 

according to testimonies of SOS and Everyone Counts; 

13. Inadequate utilization of online voting with military-grade encryption for military and 

overseas voters, according to Pew testimony; 

14. Citizens have concerns about the new “Motor Voter Law “AB 1461, its implementation 

and confidentiality. A good third of the eighty-plus Post-Hearing written testimonies were 

about this bill. 

Recommendations:

1. Training for Election Officials and Poll Workers

a. Include awareness and knowledge of applicable election laws (HAVA, 

NVRA, California Election codes, and the U.S. Constitution) and of the poll 

workers’ authorities; 

b. Increase length of training time of election workers;

c. Verify that an election official or poll worker completed recommended online 

training instruction;

d. Establish citizen oversight ensure training materials correspond to the law; 

e. Train poll workers to follow California Election Code §14215, asking voters 

to state their names and addresses - in their own words -to avoid voter 

impersonation.

2. Citizen Oversight 

 

164 See supra note 5 p. 171.

165 Testimony of Mark Sonnenklar, Business Attorney, HAVA Transcript, p. 109.
43

a. Provide expert citizen election integrity oversight for the pending VoteCal 

statewide voter registration database; 

b. To ensure instructions to poll workers and election officials correspond to election 

laws, provide expert citizen oversight of training procedures and materials, and 

voting and election materials. 

3. The Disabled Voter

a. Legislation required to assure that current and future digital or computerized 

voting systems are accessible and will accommodate voters with disabilities;

b. Poll workers shall be provided training, communication, and accommodations for 

voters with disabilities; 

c. All polling sites shall be accessible to voters with disabilities.

4. Office of the Secretary of State

a. Appoint a non-partisan citizen election integrity and oversight organization with 

authority to assess VoteCal, its methods, and test results; 

b. Clarify the state’s current standards for voting, election processes, voting 

equipment and systems and assure procedures and equipment are in compliance 

with state and federal disability laws;

c. Clarify the process by which the Secretary of State verifies that the person 

applying to vote, whether through online registration, DMV registration, or inperson registration, is eligible to vote;

d. Inform public agencies that only those agencies mandated to examine and verify 

proof of citizenship shall process voter registration applications; 

e. Create and advertise the complaint procedure by which citizen complaints about 

the administration of elections are addressed and rectified;

f. Recommend to the California legislature an upgrade of all coded obstacles to the 

modernization of California’s election process and voting systems (Election Code 

Article 4, Sections §19217, §9217, §19250 (a),§14223 (b));

g. Recommend each California county standardize its forms and costs for citizen 

organizational purchases of voter data; 

h. Verify that every poll location is accessible to voters with disabilities;

i. Clearly state the methodology used to report prior HAVA expenditures in the 

HAVA spending plan.

5. County Registrars of Voters 

a. To prevent inaccurate voter turnout statistics and possible election results, follow 

HAVA and California Election Code procedures for the distribution of 

provisional ballots; 

b. To ensure voters’ privacy and ballot integrity during handling, redesign absentee 

ballot forms and improve current processing procedures for security;
44

c. To prevent impersonation and fraud, timely remove deceased, inactive and 

ineligible voters from voter lists according to HAVA’s suggestions; 

d. Establish standard fee schedules for citizen groups requesting public documents 

and lists;

e. Verify that every poll location is accessible for voters with disabilities;

f. In accord with election laws, train election officials and poll workers in the 

handling of provisional, absentee, and in-person ballots;

g. Clarify the procedures by which registrars of voters process and rectify election 

complaints;

h. Provide citizen oversight of training manuals and materials, poll worker training, 

and at election polls and voting centers; 

i. Train poll workers and election officials in the proper use of California Election 

Code §14216, which, without a voter ID requirement, provides for selfidentification.

6. Upgrade Outdated Election Laws (Legislation Required)

7. Modernization requirements -

a. Upgrade outdated California Election Codes (Article 4, Sections §19217, §9217, 

§19250 (a),and §14223 (b)):

i. Permit digital and telephone access for voter systems;

ii. Allow connectivity to the internet;

iii. Allow electronic transmission of election data through exterior 

communication networks;

iv. Allow wireless communications or wireless data transfers;

v. Allow a remote server to store any voter’s identifiable selections and 

tabulate votes using military grade encryption; 

b. Reconsider the requirements of federal qualification and accessible voter verified 

paper audit trails for voting systems; 

8. Upgrade and revise the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act of 2009 

(MOVE) to incorporate military grade encryption for secure online voting; 

9. Allow poll workers to redact voters’ street addresses when posting precinct voter lists 

near poll entrances to prevent harvesting of data used for voter impersonation.

10. California’s “Motor Voter” Law – AB1461

a. Pass AB 2067 amending AB 1461 to –

b. Create a clear, mandated procedure by which the citizenship status of all potential 

registrants will be verified prior to uploading information to the Secretary of 

State;

c. Establish oversight provisions; 

d. Authorize ongoing education and/ training for Department of Motor Vehicles 

(DMV) personnel
45

Appendix I. Presenters at the Public Hearing on August 28, 2015, and 

Public Commenters

A. Invited Presenters (in order of presentation)

Elaine Howle, California State Auditor

Steve Reyes, General Counsel for Secretary Alex Padilla, Secretary of State Alex Padilla

Susan Lapsley, Secretary of State Deputy Secretary of State and HAVA Director 

Dean Logan, Registrar-Recorder County Clerk for Los Angeles County

Michael Vu, Registrar-Recorder for the city County of San Diego

Mark Sonnenklar, Business Lawyer and Los Angeles Resident

Lori Steele, Founder and CEO of Everyone Counts

Lillibeth Navarro, Disability Rights Advocate and Executive Director of Communities Actively 

Living Independent and Free

Linda Paine, Co-Founder and President, Election Integrity Project, Inc.

Ruth Weiss, Director, Election Integrity Project; San Diego County Liaison, 

B. Citizens Making Public Comments (in order of presentation)

Ana Cubas, Hermandad Mexicana Nacional

Robert Gray, Resident of the City of Compton

Lynn Boone, Resident of the City of Compton

Nancy Kremer, Resident of City of Los Angeles

Shoshana Egan, Resident of City of San Diego

David Gooding, Retired Public Employee and Resident of Hayfork Trinity County, California.

Drue Lawlor, Resident of Los Angeles County
46

Mary Dee Romney, Resident of the City of Pasadena, Los Angeles County

Yesenia Martinez, California Project Coordinator for the National Association of Latino Elected 

and Appointed Officials

Kim Castro, Resident of Fresno County

Margarita Canaba, Resident of Fresno County

Lance V. Woods, Resident of L.A. County

Nicolas Ochoa, Vietnam Veteran and Retired Law Enforcement Officer, Ventura County

Harry Gradi, Retired L.A. City Fireman, Ventura County

Ron Gerber, Resident of Oxnard, Ventura County

C. Summary of Post-Hearing Public Comments
47

Appendix II. DISSENT FROM CALIFORNIA ADVISORY COMMITTEE 

MEMBER

Statement of Rachel Sigman*

Member, California Advisory Committee to the United States Commission on Civil Rights

May 8, 2017

*The contents of this memo express my personal views and do not represent the views of any institution or organization with 

which I am affiliated.

In June 2016, the California Advisory Committee to the United States Civil Rights Commission produced 

a report entitled “Voting Integrity in California: Issues and Concerns in the 21st Century.” The report calls 

attention to a number of important issues, including the obstacles faced by voters with disabilities in 

exercising their voting rights, challenges of maintaining accurate voter lists and the high percentage of 

provisional ballots cast in California. I support the Committee’s efforts to shed light on these issues, and 

agree wholeheartedly with the specific contents of the report that advance the mission of the U.S. 

Commission on Civil Rights in seeking to protect voting rights for all eligible California voters. 

I have asked to abstain from the vote on this report because the facts and evidence available do not 

support some of the report’s conclusions and recommendations. Of specific concern are the report’s 

conclusions related to threats to voter integrity and California compliance with the Help America Vote 

Act (HAVA). I am not able to fully address these issues in a single page, but I wish to raise several points 

that I strongly believe to undermine the credibility of the report’s conclusions and recommendations.

The report’s conclusion that “statewide voting and election irregularities...require further investigation” 

– and associated conclusions and recommendations – is simply unfounded. The California Secretary of 

State’s office already investigates many election-related complaints. A Public Records Act request by 

non-profit non-partisan group CALmatters showed that current cases being investigated amount to 

0.001% of the more than 23 million votes cast in California’s 2016 primary and general elections. 

Additionally, a database that tracks instances of voter fraud maintained by researchers at Arizona State 

University found only 56 instances in California between 2000 and 2012.166 Such statistics are consistent 

with a large number of academic studies that find extremely few instances of voting irregularities across 

the country.167 Moreover, there is no evidence in this academic that duplicate registrations, poll worker 

training or specific vote-by mail procedures lead to voting irregularities, as is suggested in the report’s 

conclusions and recommendations. Instead, these issues tend to limit citizens’ ability to vote and should 

therefore be addressed in ways that seek to better protect voting rights equally across the eligible voting 

population. 

It is not clear, moreover, that the report’s conclusions regarding California’s HAVA compliance reflect 

any serious threats to voting integrity. The only reference to non-compliance comes on p.2 from an 

uncited study by an unnamed independent non-profit organization. The ratings cited from the Pew 

Charitable Trusts Election Performance Index are not related to|the application of election laws| (p.4) and 

the information regarding HAVA drawn from the Election Integrity Project, an organization with 

unknown sources of support, is based largely on anecdotal information that can not be verified. Likewise, 

the report’s conclusion that “VoteCal, the mandated statewide voter database is not ready” is no longer 

true. According to the Secretary of State’s website, VoteCal has been deployed in all 58 California 

 

166 News21 “Who Can Vote: Election Fraud in America.” Available at http://votingrights.news21.com/interactive/election-frauddatabase/index.html, accessed May 1, 2017.

167 For an overview and links to these studies, see the Brennan Center’s webpage at 

http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/debunking-voter-fraud-myth. 
48

counties as of February 2016.168

I thank my fellow committee members, the Committee staff and all those who shared their views and 

expertise with the Committee. There are many important insights contained in the report as to how we can 

work together as Californians to protect voting rights more effectively across the state. 

 

168 http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voter-registration/votecal-project/votecal-deployment-status/, accessed May 3, 2017.
49

California Advisory Committee to the

United States Commission on Civil Rights

U.S. Commission Contact

__________________________________________________________________

USCCR Contact Ana Victoria Fortes

Western Regional Office

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

300 N. Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010

Los Angeles, CA 90012

__________________________________________________________________

This report can or obtained in print form or on disk in Word format from the Western Regional Office, U.S. 

Commission on Civil Rights, by contacting the above named Commission contact person. It is also posted on the 

web-site of the Commission at www.usccr.gov.