HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02011994 - FC.1 TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: Finance Committee, Tom Torlakson C ltra
Gayle Bishop Cwa
DATE'. February 1, 1994 CQ(ar'nj/
SUBJECT:
REPORT ON RECOMMENDATIONS FOR VOTE BY MAIL LEGISLATION
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
I
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Accept the :report from the County Clerk/Registrar of Voters which analyzes the
mail only ballot experiment in Stanislaus County last November.
2. Request the Secretary of State to conduct a critical analysis of the mail only ballot
experiments in the state.
3. Request the Finance Committee consider the mail only ballot issue after an
analysis of the matter is conducted by the Secretary of State.
BACKGROUND:
On January 24, 1994, the Finance Committee took testimony from the County Clerk and
Assistant Registrar regarding the mail only ballot experiment in Stanislaus County. After
discussion, the Committee supported the position of the County Clerk that new
legislation should not be supported until the Secretary of State conducts a critical
analysis of the results of the program in Stanislaus County. Attached is the report
prepared by the County Clerk.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: al�
11 A^ /J
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _. RECOMMENDATION O BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON �y -- APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES. _ AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Cc: County Administrator, C. Van Marter ATTESTED if C
PHIL BATCHELOR, ERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY /� -
M382/7-83 DEPUTY
C.
OFFICE OF THE CLERK-RECORDER
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Courthouse Building, First Floor
Room 103
Martinez, California
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: January 20, 1994
TO: Board of Supervisor's Finance
Committee
FROM: Steve Weir, County Clerk
Bob Delevati, Asst. Registrar
SUBJECT: Vote By Mail Analysis
By Board action dated November 9, 1993, we have been asked to give
the Board of Supervisors a report on the mail only ballot
experiment that took place in Stanislaus County last November.
Despite the self claimed success of this program, we believe that
a critical analysis is warranted in exploring any new or innovative
elections practice. While the Deputy Secretary of State, the
Oakland Tribune Editorial Board, the Contra Costa Times and an
Associated Press article mailed to you this month have reported the
Stanislaus program a success, we believe that critical components
of that election have yet to see the light of public policy
discussion.
Prior to presenting my response to the Stanislaus case, we would
like to provide you with a brief history of the vote by mail. At
one time, vote by mail or absentee voting was strictly limited to
those unable to go to the polls due to a disability or sworn
absence from the county. The law was and is specific as to what
disabilities qualify a voter for the absentee voting rolls. With
the liberalization of election law, the Legislature has permitted
the permanent absentee rolls to exist, anyone wanting to vote by
mail is permitted to do so. One only has to fill out an
application that is readily available in our sample ballots or use
one provided by any given special interest group. Our elections
roll contain some 9, 100 permanent absentee voters. This represents
approximately two percent of our registered voters in Contra Costa.
However, as you know, of those who are voting at any given
election, we are finding that between 20 and 25 percent of those
actually voting are doing so by mail.
Having an election with fully staffed and fully stocked polling
places and having a significant number of people voting by mail is
a duplicative and costly process. Absentee voting is a labor
intensive process costing approximately double the cost of voting
at the polls. In addition, until recently, we were required to
Memo to: Board of Supervisors Finance Committee
From: Steve Weir, County Clerk
Date: January 20, 1994
page two
have a ballot at the polls for every person registered in that
precinct even if we knew that only half of the voters would vote in
that precinct and of those voting, some 20 percent would do so by
mail. In the past few years, the Legislation has reduced the
number of ballots required to be stocked at our polling places.
Past law did allow elections officials to conduct mail only ballots
for precincts that contained 100 or fewer persons registered 54
days prior to an election. AB 1590 (1992) amended that rule so
that elections officials can conduct mail only ballots in precincts
where there are 250 or fewer voters 88 days prior to an election.
The only additional burden on the elections office in mandatory
mail only ballots is that the elections office must pay the return
postage when there is only the mail only option.
The Stanislaus experiment at the November 2 , 1993 Election was
declared by some as a rousing success. We agree with this
generalization. (However, we want to point out that we have grave
concerns for some aspects of the way this election was conducted. )
It was reported that the vote by mail process increased voter turn
out significantly, reduced elections costs by one-third and had
other ancillary benefits. From Steve Weir's discussions with
Stanislaus County Clerk/Recorder, Karen Mathews one week after
their election, we found her program to be well thought out and
well executed. Here is a summary of our discussion points:
* Stanislaus has 175, 000 voters (C.C. has close to 500, 000)
* 77 , 000 voted by mail (C.C. already has a similar mail vote in
major elections)
* Approximately 2 , 000 returned ballots were "bad" ie, not signed
(This is a very low number by our experience)
* There were 59 ballot types, only one ballot card (We usually
have over 100 ballot types and many cards. This impacts
mailing costs and processing costs. )
* System requires signature retrieval (C.C. has this system,
would need additional stations to check signature)
* System requires bar coding envelopes (2) (This is a good idea
for any system using signature retrieval. C.C. does not
have such a system at this time)
* Envelopes being mailed out and return enveloped need to be
directly printed with voter identification information.
(Contra Costa uses a dual label system which is now hand
affixed)
Memo to: Board of Supervisors Finance Committee
From: Steve Weir, County Clerk
Date: January 20, 1994
page three
* All ballots were mailed out third class (This is not done in
C.C. and we would not recommend such a practice)
* All returned ballots (postage paid by elections) were charged
out at twelve cents! (C.C. consistently experiences costs
costs in the range of 35 cents to 40+ cents for returned
envelopes.
* Elections officials had to hand sort ballots by precinct for
statistical purposes to arrive at a precinct by precinct
election result. Stanislaus points out that ballots need to
be coded by precinct if the computer is to be able to do
this task.
* Stanislaus' election was simple; one ballot card and one
insert. The sample ballot was a simple one fold
paper, hand stuffed with a one card ballot! Most
elections are not this simple. Contra Costa ' s sample ballot
mailing is automated. Our absentee voter packets are hand
processed.
* They used zip plus four (C.C. does this as well)
* Stanislaus postal officials treated all election mail as if it
was first class. This issue is critical to the financial
success of this program. Contra Costa has had problems with
sample ballots which are to be treated as first class mail.
In the November, 1993 elections, we had problems with sample
ballots in Antioch and Pinole being stored for one and
almost two weeks prior to mailing.
* The success of this program clearly hinged on voter education
and postal cooperation. The media was very cooperative in
providing free information on the need to sign return
envelopes, not to mail after Friday, sites were ballots
could be dropped off and problems with third party drop
offs.
* Delay in results occurs with high mail ballot programs.
Voter turn out was touted as a bi-product of this program. Press
accounts quote normal "off year elections" as having a 19 percent
turn out whereas this election yielded over 40 percent. What needs
to be considered is that the November, 1993 election was a special
election called by the Governor to place before the voters the
sales tax extension and the voucher initiative. Turn out figures
need to be more closely analyzed. In November, 1993 , Contra Costa
County had a 42 . 6% turn out. In Contra Costa' s mail only ballot
Memo to: Board of Supervisors Finance Committee
From: Steve Weir, County Clerk
Date: January 20, 1994
page four
precincts, which were spread out over the County, our turn out was
48 . 2%. Mail only does appear to increase voter turn out.
Far and away, cost savings -is the most attractive component of this
program. Stanislaus was able to mail ballots out at a cost of
thirteen cents and was able to pay twelve cents for their return.
This twenty-five cent cost would be sixty cents by normal first
class standards. In comparison to Contra Costa, we would like to
make the following analogy to the November Election. Under AB
1590, Contra Costa conducted mail only balloting to 4339 residents.
The cost of mailing the ballot out first class was 75 cents and the
cost of the return envelop was 38 cents. While Stanislaus was
using one card, one insert and mailing third class, Contra Costa
had multiple ballot cards and several inserts. The Stanislaus cost
of 25 cents (or approx. 60 cents if first class) cost $1. 13 in
Contra Costa. While we are willing to explore ways with the Post
Office to save money, mailing actual ballots anyway other than
first class is too risky and out of the question. A point that Bob
Delevati makes and one that we do not have an answer to is the cost
of having the Post Office return ballots that are undeliverable.
Election offices need this type of feed back as a way to begin the
purge process.
We have asked Stanislaus, on two occasions, for their estimates on
the fixed costs requirements for a mail only ballot system. We
have not, as of yet, learned of their estimates. We can share with
you that such a system, which is labor intensive, will require more
space and more temporary staffing. It will also require an as yet
unknown capital investment.
Some lament the cost of staffing our polling places. We pay for
two clerks, a judge and an inspector all of whom work from at least
6:45 on election day to well past 8 : 30 pm with one hour for lunch
and ten minutes for dinner. The cost of a polling place, people,
space and transportation for set up and take down is approximately
$350 per polling place. All told, excluding the costs of absentee
ballots, for a precinct with 600 voters, it costs approximately
$900 per polling place to conduct an election. Based on our costs
associated with our mail only balloting from last year, it would
cost up to $1, 656 to do mail only for that same precinct.
The County Clerk is not empowered to mandate a mail only balloting
election. The member agencies who contract with the Clerk to
conduct the election have the right to ask, or reject, a mail only
ballot. So, while Stanislaus was conducting their election, Placer
County had the same authority and its member agencies did not agree
to such an election. We would also like to point out that mail
only balloting only applies to non statewide primary and general
Memo to: Board of Supervisors Finance Committee
From: Steve Weir, County Clerk
Date: January 20, 1994
page five
elections (June and November of even numbered years) . These are
our expensive elections with little or no reimbursement from
state/federal governments. All other elections are paid for by our
member agencies.
The Legislature has asked for a report by December 15, 1994 on cost
savings and incidents of fraud under this system. We are not in
the position to discuss fraud at this time. However, it is safe to
say that the more ballots that are out of the hands of the Clerk's
control for long periods of time, the more potential for fraud
exists. Family, friends, groups, employers, unions, etc. could
have access to voting someone' s ballot. If not an organized
effort, this would be virtually impossible to track.
In conclusion, we believe that a critical analysis of the
Stanislaus experiment has yet to be performed. Are the Stanislaus
results predictable, repeatable and as fail safe as possible? We
simply do not know the answer to that question. Are the savings
truly hard dollar figures and are they comparable to like
elections? We do not believe that Stanislaus has conducted (or
reported) such a comparison. As election officials, this office is
most distressed to think that ballots would be mailed out and
returned by anything other than first class mail. Others have
experimented with mailing live ballots out other than third class
with poor results. Alameda has had such a bad experience.
It is the recommendation of this office to be cautious when
approaching this mail only ballot issue. We ought to ask the
Legislature and the Secretary of State for a critical analysis of
any such program. At this time, we do not favor changing current
law.
SW\ELECTION\MAILBLLT