⚠️ Aviso de traducción: Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 22 findings
F01
Although the election officer training materials provide clear and in- depth documentation of the requirements for establishing polling places and conducting the election processes, violations of procedure and noncompliance to guidelines occurred. (FA-15 through FA-19)
No recommendations for this finding
F02
The training materials provided to election workers are detailed and accurate, but the classes need improvement to emphasize the importance of laws pertaining to elections. (FA-15 through FA-18 and FA-20)
No recommendations for this finding
F03
If VBM voters ensured that their ballots arrived at the ROV prior to Election Day, it would facilitate their ballots being processed earlier and ease the post-election workload. (FA-04 and FA-05)
No recommendations for this finding
F04
The majority of voter signatures are not verified against voter registration rolls. (FA-06 and FA-14)
No recommendations for this finding
F05
A violation of election code occurred at one receiving station when election workers were unaccompanied when dropping off ballots. (FA-15 and FA-18)
No recommendations for this finding
F06
In violation of the Election Code Handbook, some polling places had few directional signs and in one case no signage. Other polling places did not place the voting booths so that voters had privacy. (FA-16, FA-17, and FA-19)
No recommendations for this finding
F07
The benefits of countywide VBM as the sole electoral process are the following: • eliminates the need for precinct polling places • eliminates the need for precinct workers • eliminates the need for trainers and training classes • eliminates the need for Provisional Ballots • allows each signature to be verified • establishes an accurate Master Voters Roster by having VBM ballots returned when the name or address of a voter is wrong • increases the number of voters for all elections • reduces errors by having a single voting method • saves money (FA-01 through FA-04, FA-06, FA-09 through FA-11, FA-14, FA-21, and FA-22) 6 Election Process Recommendations
No recommendations for this finding
F08
The ROV conducts a vote/no vote process to record the voting participation of each registered voter. This process also allows election officials to determine if a voter has attempted to vote more than once per election.
No recommendations for this finding
F09
PBs are given to voters who want to vote at a precinct, but are not on that precinct’s Master Roster. PBs are also given to voters who receive a VBM ballot, but decide to vote in the precinct.
No recommendations for this finding
F10
PBs increased almost two-fold since the 2006 November Gubernatorial Election. There were 5,888 PBs in the 2006 November Election and 10,912 in the 2010 November Election. (Att-01)
No recommendations for this finding
F11
PBs are counted last. Only 7,343 PBs of 10,912 were counted as valid. A significant number of voters who used a PB (1,506) were disqualified because they were not registered voters. (Att-01)
No recommendations for this finding
F12
The County has 549 precincts; 357 are regular precincts and 192 are VBM only precincts.
No recommendations for this finding
F13
There were 155 different ballot types in the County and 332 candidates in the 2010 November Election. Candidates must be registered voters and have other qualifications as required by the offices they seek. The ROV must verify that candidates have those qualifications.
No recommendations for this finding
F14
There is no identification required at the polls to assure that the voter is the person who registered.
No recommendations for this finding
F15
California law states that after the polls are closed, “…sealed packages containing lists, papers and ballots shall be delivered by 4 Election Process two precinct officers without delay, unopened, to the Election Official or to a receiving station designated.” (Italics added) [Ref-01]
No recommendations for this finding
F16
According to the Election Officer Handbook, “Voting booths should be set up with the opening facing a wall, so that voters have privacy while voting.” [Ref-02]
No recommendations for this finding
F17
The Election Officers Handbook gives written guidelines to “Post the Polling Place Signs in visible areas to guide voters to your polling location.” [Ref-02]
No recommendations for this finding
F18
On Election Day, at one receiving station, the Grand Jury observed eight instances of a single precinct officer dropping off ballots and equipment, unaccompanied by the required second precinct officer. [Ref-01]
Related Recommendations (1)
R06
The ROV should enforce the legal requirement that precinct inspectors always assign an election officer to accompany them when delivering voted ballots. (FI-05) Responses Responses Required From: Ventura County Registrar of Voters (R-01 through R-06) Ventura County Board of Supervisors (R-01) References Ref-01. California Election Code, chapter 4: Closing of the Polls, section 14434. Ref-02. County of Ventura, Election Officer Handbook November 2, 2010 Gubernatorial Election, pp. 04, 54. Ref-03. State of Oregon, Five Years Later: A Re-Assessment of Oregon’s Vote By Mail Electoral Process. www.sos.or.us/electionsvbm/pdf_files/southwell.pdf, (accessed March 24, 2011). Ref-04. State of Oregon, Ballot Integrity and Voting By Mail: The Oregon Experience, www.sos.state.or.us/elections/vbm/carterbaker (accessed March 24, 2011). Ref-05. California Election Code section 15360 Election Process 7 Attachments Att-01. Provisional Statistics Att-02. Election Officers Class Schedule Att-03. Turnout Statistics Att-04. Five Years Later: A Re-Assessment of Oregon’s Vote By Mail Electoral Process pp. 1, 2 Bibliography Absentee Ballot and Mail In Voting Processes/ -2007 Orange County Grand Jury www.ocgrandjury.org 8 Election Process Glossary TERM DEFINITION APEX Signature Reader A machine used to scan signatures from Vote by Mail ballots BOS Ventura County Board of Supervisors Grand Jury 2010-2011 Ventura County Grand Jury PB Provisional Ballot ROV Ventura County Registrar of Voters VBM Vote By Mail Election Process 9 This page intentionally blank 10 Election Process Attachment 01 Provisional Statistics Election Process 11 This page intentionally blank 12 Election Process Election Process 13 This page intentionally blank 14 Election Process Attachment 02 Election Officer Class Schedule Election Process 15 This page intentionally blank 16 Election Process Election Process 17 18 Election Process Election Process 19 This page intentionally blank 20 Election Process Attachment 03 Turnout Statistics Election Process 21 This page intentionally blank 22 Election Process Election Process 23 This page intentionally blank 24 Election Process Attachment 04 Five Years Later: A Re-Assessment of Oregon’s Vote By Mail Electoral Process pp. 1, 2 Election Process 25 This page intentionally blank 26 Election Process Election Process 27 28 Election Process
F19
On Election Day, the Grand Jury observed a number of polling place configurations not following the election handbook guidelines. Specific examples are: • some polling places failed to post the Voters Bill of Rights both inside and outside the polls • some polling places failed to post the Voter Register Log outside the polling places • some polling places failed to situate voting booths in positions that would provide privacy • some polling places had few directional signs and, in one case, no signage pointing to the poll location • some polling places had poor or nonexistent lighting to indicate their location after dark
Related Recommendations (1)
R05
The ROV should require that roving inspectors carry extra directional signage and instruct precinct officers on the proper placement of voting booths. (FI-06)
F20
During training classes, the Grand Jury observed some election trainees texting on cell phones or sleeping during the audio-visual portion of the training.
Related Recommendations (1)
R04
The ROV should require that all precinct officers attend training classes. The handbook should be reviewed thoroughly with interactive discussion of major points and election codes, especially during the long audio-visual presentation. (FI-01 and FI-02)
F21
In the November 2010 election, clerical errors were made which confused the types of ballots, resulting in a duplication of count. If there were only one type of ballot these errors would be avoided.
No recommendations for this finding
F22
Oregon implemented statewide VBM as the only electoral process in 1998. In a survey conducted five years later, the voting participation of one-third of the electorate had increased. Other voting patterns remained unchanged. The state of Oregon reports one-third to one- half savings to the election budget were realized by switching to statewide VBM. [Ref-03 and Ref-04] (Att-04) Election Process 5 Findings
Related Recommendations (1)
R01
The ROV and the BOS investigate the feasibility and economics of countywide VBM as the only voting system. (FI-04 through FI-07)
No Responses Found 2
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
County of Ventura
Agency
Ventura County Board of Supervisors
Elected County Office