⚠️ 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.
Findings and Recommendations 5 findings
F1
There is an increasingly larger number of Registered Voters choosing to vote by Absentee Ballot.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The Registrar of Voters must be aware of and prepared to explore the consequences of the increasing shift of voters to Absentee Ballots, then institute new procedures to handle their preparation to meet the challenge of this changing trend.
F2
Pre-election, the Registrar of Voters relies heavily on two high-speed mechanized systems to generate and mail Absentee Ballots within statutory deadlines.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
The Registrar of Voters needs a second system or back up equipment should their Absentee Ballot preparation machines fail.
F3
Pre and post-election, the hand preparation of the Absentee Ballots to be tabulated is labor intensive and time consuming. Tallying paper ballot results takes longer and it is no longer possible to get the majority of Absentee Ballots ready for tabulation before Election Day. 13
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The Registrar of Voters should explore alternative Absentee Ballot tally preparation procedures.
F4
Absentee Ballot instructions are complex and confusing to the voter.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
The Registrar of Voters needs to explore the expansion of voter education outreach programs regarding both Absentee Ballot information and to clarify voting instructions. Responses to Recommendations R-1 through R-4 are requested from the Registrar of Voters. A Response to Recommendation R-2 is required from the Board of Supervisors. REQUIRED RESPONSES: The California Penal Code specifies the required permissible responses to the findings and recommendations contained in this report. The specific sections are quoted below: §933.05(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. 14 (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. 15
F5
Absentee Ballots are playing an increasingly important role in election recounts. Responses to Findings F-1 through F-5 are requested from the Registrar of Voters. A Response to Finding F-2 is required from the Board of Supervisors. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, each recommendation will be responded to by the government entity to which it is addressed. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on the findings of this report, the 2006-2007 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations:
No recommendations for this finding
Conclusions 4
-
CL1the ROV has less control over the traditional group dynamic of voting in a public arena as more voters are voting privately, pre-Election Day;
-
CL2the instructions that the AV follows are complicated and there is more room for voter error than at the polls;
-
CL3if a vote is close and the ABs factor into its outcome, the election results will take longer to finalize because all cannot be readied in advance of Election Day and it takes time to prepare paper ballots (both those mailed in before Election Day and those turned in at polling places) for tallying; and
-
CL4although ABs are among the first results reported, because of time constraints and their increasing number, these votes are being tallied and reported last. It is a complex issue of which every citizen needs to be aware; but each should also know that in Orange County every AB is counted.
Commendations 1
-
CM1The Grand Jury thanks the Orange County Registrar of Voters and his excellent staff for their openness in allowing the Grand Jury to see first hand the complexity of the voting process through 17 interview and “all access” observation sessions, including Election Night on November 7, 2006. All statistical and general information requested was quickly and efficiently supplied. The Grand Jury is impressed with the ROV and the professional and hardworking staff, who performed with dedication before, during, and after the intensity of election night pressures.
Agency Responses 1
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.