WOO HOO! California's SB 370 Passes!

[Einsteinia]

WOO HOO! Champagne time to celebrate the safe passage of SB 370 that
allows Californian's to read their hard-earned paper ballots, as well
as passage of the voter signature privacy bill.

Thanks to everyone who worked so incredibly hard to see that this day
would come!

(I'm sorry to hear about the other important that would have revealed
who funded measures that appear on the ballot, but . . . . at least
it's not ALL bad news).

Spread the word!

#: ) Einsteinia

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                                
CONTACT:Evan Goldberg
October 7, 2005                                                                   
                    
[phone]/[phone]

 GOVERNOR SIGNS A PAIR OF BOWEN ELECTION

REFORM MEASURES AND VETOES TWO OTHERS

 

BOWEN BILLS TO ENSURE THE ACCURACY OF ELECTION

NIGHT RESULTS AND PROTECT VOTER PRIVACY WILL BECOME LAW,

WHILE EFFORTS TO IMPROVE INITIATIVE DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS

& COUNT BALLOTS FOR WRITE-IN CANDIDATES ARE VETOED BY GOVERNOR

 

SACRAMENTO ? ?People need and deserve to know their votes have been
counted accurately, and the best way to ensure that happens is to use
the paper printout that the voter has already verified as being
accurate and check it against the results tallied by the electronic
machine.?

 

That?s how Senator Debra Bowen (D-Redondo Beach), the chairwoman of
the Senate Elections, Reapportionment & Constitutional Amendments
Committee responded to the Governor?s decision to sign SB 370 into law
tonight. 

 

?This isn?t complicated, either you care about whether the election
results are accurate or you don?t,? said Bowen.  ?I don?t see how the
Secretary of State, who led the opposition to the bill, could say with
straight face that he?s for fair elections, he?s for having a paper
trail on electronic voting machines, yet he?s against using that paper
trail to ensure the accuracy of the vote count.?

 

California law requires all electronic voting machines to be equipped
with an accessible voter-verified paper audit trail (AVVPAT) as of
January 1, 2006.  Under a separate 40-year-old California law,
elections officials are required to conduct a public manual tally of
the ballots cast in at least 1% of the precincts chosen at random to
check the accuracy of votes tabulated by an electronic or mechanical
voting system.  SB 370 requires elections officials to use the AVVPAT
to comply with California?s 1% manual law and to use the AVVPAT it in
the event of a recount.

 

The California Association of Clerks & Elections Officials opposed SB
370 even though it noted that the ?. . . the possibility exists that
the internal audit trail . . . could be programmed to print
different results.? 

 

?That?s precisely why it was critical for the Governor to sign this
bill,? continued Bowen.  ?When the very elections officials who are
buying these machines admit the election results can be manipulated
and oppose a bill designed to audit the machine?s results, you?ve
really got to wonder whose side they?re on.  I?m glad the Governor
realizes the importance of an accurate vote count, I just wish his
Secretary of State shared that conviction and didn?t think tallying
the results quickly was more important.?

 

SB 1016 (Bowen) was also signed Friday evening, which protects the
confidentiality of voter signatures by making signatures confidential
the same way Social Security numbers (SSNs) and driver's license
numbers on voter records are protected.  Under the bill, neither
county registrars nor the Secretary of State's office could ever
provide paper or digitized copies of voter signatures to anyone.  To
ensure the process of counting absentee ballots remains open and
accountable, SB 1016 requires signatures to remain viewable by the
public as they watch the vote count and exercise their right to
challenge signatures on absentee ballot envelopes.  The bill also
helps people registering to vote protect their privacy by requiring
voter registration forms to request only the last four digits of
Social Security numbers, not the entire number, and to inform victims
of domestic violence that they have a right to keep their personal
data confidential.




 

 ?The notion that someone could get an electronic copy of every
registered voter?s signature in this state just by asking for it and
writing a check for $30 is pretty astounding,? continued Bowen. 
?We?ve worked hard to keep people?s Social Security numbers, their
driver?s license numbers and other personal information off limits
from potential identity thieves and signatures should be no > exception.?

 

SB 469 (Bowen) was vetoed by the Governor on Friday.  It sought to
require people circulating initiative petitions to disclose the
measure?s five largest contributors and to update that list of
contributors every seven days.  Furthermore, the bill would have
required initiative petitions to say whether the signature gatherers
are volunteers or are being paid to collect signatures.

 

?People deserve to know where the money?s coming from and who stands
to benefit from an initiative before they sign on the bottom line,?
said Bowen, the chairwoman of the Senate Elections, Reapportionment &
Constitutional Amendments Committee. ?It?s the next best thing to a
?truth in political advertising? law.?

 

In his veto message, the Governor wrote:

 

?This bill attacks the initiative process and makes it more difficult
for the people of California to gather signatures and qualify measures
for the ballot.  While difficulty of the process may be a good thing
for big-money special interests and for political consultants who
stand to gain financially, it is not for everyday Californians with an
idea for reform.?

 

?The Governor?s belief that somehow ?everyday Californians? are better
off when they can?t find out who?s paying for an initiative campaign
when they?re being asked to sign a petition to put something on the
ballot is both wrong and ridiculous,? said Bowen.  ?Now, I?m sure the
Governor-backed Propositions 74, 76, and 77 would have had a much
harder time qualifying for the ballot if voters knew which big money
corporations were spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to qualify
them.  The only people this bill would have hurt are those folks who
are trying to mislead voters into signing an initiative petition. 
Frankly, if voters find out the money behind the ?People For
Motherhood & Apple Pie? initiative committee is really coming from the
oil and pesticide industries and they don?t want to sign an initiative
petition, I don?t think that?s such a bad thing.?

 

The Governor also vetoed SB 1050 (Bowen) tonight, a measure aimed at
preventing a repeat of San Diego?s ?Bubblegate? election from November
2004.

 

SB 1050 simply would have required county registrars of voters to
count write-in ballots for candidates if they can determine who the
voter intended to cast their ballot for.

 

?A law that was designed to let county registrars conveniently run
ballots through a tabulator without having to look at each one to see
if there was a write-in candidate on it was used to toss more than
5,500 votes out the window and change the winner of an election in
California,? said Bowen.  ?That should bother anyone who cares about
the integrity of our electoral system.  A law designed to speed up the
count on election night shouldn?t be used to disenfranchise voters and
make it harder for write-in candidates to get elected.?

 

In the 2004 San Diego mayoral election, 5,551 votes for a write-in
candidate weren?t counted in the official tally, because although the
voters penned in the candidate?s name, they didn?t darken the oval
next to the line where they wrote in the candidate?s name.  As a
result of those votes being excluded, the write-in candidate finished
second instead of first in the race for mayor, falling 2,108 votes
short. 

 

In the Governor?s veto message, he said SB 1050 would lead to a delay
in certifying the election results and require county elections
officials to review every mark on ballots even in situations where it
would be virtually impossible for the candidate challenging the vote
to prevail.

 

?This comes down to a question of whether you believe people have a
right to have their vote counted,? continued Bowen.  ?To say we?re not
going to count votes because it might not fit with some bureaucratic
schedule for certifying the vote is pretty ridiculous.  Furthermore,
the bill only would have only applied in cases where the qualified
write-in candidate had a mathematical chance to win the election, such
as in San Diego where Donna Frye lost by 2,108 votes when the county
registrar refused to award 5,551 unbubbled write-in vote for Fry to
her.?

 




Elections officials can already determine the voters? intent in two
cases where the voter hasn?t properly filled out the ballot.  First,
if the ballot tabulator doesn?t read a ballot, an elections official
can determine the voter intended to vote for the candidate next to a
slightly darkened oval and can fully darken it to allow the machine to
read it.  Second, an elections official can correct misspellings by
looking at the name of a candidate written in by the voter and
?determine? whether it?s a ?reasonable facsimile? of the qualified
write-in candidate?s name. 

 

?What ought to be apparent to everyone is that people who take the
time to actually write in a candidate?s name deserve to have their
votes counted when it?s obvious who they intended to vote for,?
continued Bowen.  ?Isn?t that why we hold elections, to make sure the
person who gets the most votes is actually elected?  We hold elections
for the voters ? not for candidates and not for county registrars, but
for the voters and that?s what this bill was really all about.?

 

###

[Einsteinia]

1. What a fabulous day--

First Rove looks like he'll be indicted

then THIS!

It almost feels like we might be gaining some leverage.

[adolfo]

2. One punch at a time ..

.. till the knockout. That is great news.

Is there anyone working on a Florida version?