📋

Extracted from Consolidated Report

This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.

Santa Clara County Grand Jury • 2017-2018

(endorsed)*

Published: September 04, 2018 3 pages Consolidated Report

View PDF View Full Original

⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.

⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.

Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F3

Findings 4 findings

There were no tangible benefits from the 2016 recounts because no outcomes were changed. The potential intangible benefits, comfort in not finding evidence of errors, can be far more cost-effectively accomplished by well-known other means.

The June 2016 pilot did not provide an adequate basis for the County to extend the recount pilot to the November 2016 General Election. The recount was conducted after certification when there was adequate staff, time and physical space. By being forced to complete any full manual recounts prior to certification, there was insufficient time, staff and physical space to complete any of the manual recounts.

F4a

The County's use of a 0.5% (one-half of 1 percent) or 25-vote threshold should have been based on empirical evidence or statistical analysis of prior election results.

F4b

The County's use of a 0.25% (one-quarter of 1 percent) threshold should have been based on empirical evidence from the 2016 elections. Registrar of Voters' Response to Findings 1, 2, 4a, and 4b: The Registrar of Voters can neither agree nor disagree with these findings. Automatic recounts are conducted pursuant to a Board of Supervisors' policy. This is a policy decision for the Board of Supervisors. Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, Cindy Chavez, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, S. Joseph Simitian

Recommendations 5

R1a

The County should eliminate its automatic recounts policy and remove Section 3.63 from its policy manual before the November 2018 election.
R1b

If the County rejects Recommendation 1a, then the County should explore whether it can adopt a form of risk-limiting audit for each automatic recount and approve the lease of state certified equipment, physical space, as well as hiring and training of additional staff necessary to complete any recounts prior to certification.
R1c

Pending passage of AB 2125, the County should request authorization from the SOS to adopt a risk-limiting audit in place of the state mandated 1% sample of precincts audit, beginning with the March 3, 2020 statewide primary election.
R1d

Upon implementation of a risk-limiting audit, the automatic recount policy should be ended if it has not been canceled previously.
R4

If the County rejects Recommendation 1a, then the County should, by June 30, 2019, complete an analysis of thresholds, both percentage and vote count, so that the selection of triggers is based on statistically defensible evidence. Registrar of Voters' Response to Recommendations 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, and 4: Automatic recounts are conducted pursuant to a Board of Supervisors' policy. The Registrar of Voters will implement whichever recount policy is enacted by the Board of Supervisors. . . Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, Cindy Chavez, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, S. Joseph Simitian

* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.