Nevada County Elections Office

R1

The Nevada County-Clerk/Registrar ofVoters should direct the Elections Office to develop and implement policies and procedures to ensure consistent application of existing policy and procedures, specifically: • To ensure all poll workers repeat the name and address ofeach voter as they check in to vote, • To ensure that poll workers advise voters that a provisional ballot, if chosen, could be different than the ballot from the voter's assigned polling place, • To ensure poll workers suggest to voters they go to their assigned polling place, • To place the blue VBM ballot boxes so poll workers may verbally ensure that the VBM envelope is signed by the registered voter. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. Elections staffhave been working to ensure that poll workers are repeating back the voters' name and address, as discussed in Finding 1, and we will continue to emphasize this point in the future. As explained in Finding 2, we do not instruct poll workers to inform voters that a provisional ballot might not be their assigned ballot because this is not required by California Elections Code, and because there is no way for a poll worker to determine this information. Poll workers are instructed and encouraged to redirect voters to their correct 4of6 polling location when possible. The implementation ofe-poll books will provide the correct polling location of individual voters, allowing poll workers to redirect the voter to the assigned polling location, consequently, reducing the number of provisionals. Finally, signing ofthe Vote-by-Mail envelope is the responsibility ofthe voter and is clearly instructed on the envelope. It is not the responsibiUty of the poll workers to check that a Vote-by-Mail ballot being dropped offhas been signed. Checking for a signature would require the poll worker to remove the protective privacy strip on the outside ofthe envelope, a task which is typically done in the security ofthe Elections Office.

R2

The Nevada County Clerk-Recorder/Registrar of Voters and the Nevada County Superior Cuurt should develop and adopt a formal agreement which: • establishes an effective communication process between the Nevada County Elections Office anclthe Nevada County Superior Court with respect to ongoing compliance with Elections Code §§ 2211 and 22 J 2, • defines the respective roles and responsibilities of the Nevada County Elections Office and the Nevada County Superior Court with respect to compl iance with Elections Code §§ 221 J and 2212, • ensures the information received by the Elections Office is in a useable format, • provides retroactive reporting for the period 01'2009 through 2014 with respect to compliance with Elections Code §§ 2211 and 2212. The rccommendation will not be implemented at the present time. The Nevada County Clerk-Recorder/Registrar of Voters and the Superior Court of Nevada County arc not required by California Law or Rules of Court to adopt a formal agreement in order to comply with Elections Code §§ 22 J 1 and 2212. Nevcl1heless, we have established effective communications, we eaeh understand our respective roles and responsibilities and the Court docs provide the report required by Elections Code §§ 221 1 and 2212 in the format specilied in the law. The Court does not 11<l\e any economically feasible way to provide retroactive reporting for the period of 2009 through March 2013 to the Elections Office. Moreover, that information would be ll( little \ alue to the Elections Office in the performance of its duties as the information would not be currently applicable to the tasks required by the Elections Code. The required reporting for the period beginning April 2013 to present has been accomplished. Respectfu Ily subm in ed. aj~S7t~ /}f i(ijJ(~~ Candacc S Hel·(lell G. Sean Metroka I) . ... Jerger ITSldlllg Judge Court Executive Ollicer :2

R3

There is no consistent verification by poll workers that VBM (Vote-by-Mail) envelopes bear the signature of the registered voter. Agree

R4

The number of voters using provisional ballots has increased approximately 96% between 2004 and 2012. Agree S. The increase in voter use of provisional ballots has increased the overall costs to Nevada County to conduct elections. Agree

R6

The increased expense of processing provisional ballots may be reduced if poll workers encourage voters to go to their correct polling location. Agree 2 of6

R7

The rules regarding observers allowed before, during, and after elections have been followed by the Elections Office. Agree

R8

The Elections Office and Court have no formal agreement regarding their roles and responsibilities to comply with Election Code §2211 and §2212. Agree

R9

There is a lack of effective communication between the Elections Office and the Court regarding compliance with Elections Code §2211 and §2212. Disagree: The Elections Office and the Superior Court of Nevada County through G. Sean Metroka, the Court Executive Officer, have engaged in effective communication regarding compliance with California Elections Code §2211 and §2212. Correspondence, beginning September 2009 through 2010, documents the latest email thread between then Assistant Clerk-Recorder, Gail Smith, and G. Sean Metroka, engaging in dialogue regarding Elections Codes §2211 and §2212.

R10

Since 2009, the lack of communication between the Elections Office and the Court has led to a failure to comply with the requirements of Elections Code §2211 and §2212, which affects the integrity of the voter rolls. Disagree: The report required by EC §2212 compels the Clerk of the Superior Court, based upon the records ofthe court, to produce and furnish the Registrar ofVoters with a statement showing the names, addresses, and dates of birth ofall persons who have been convicted ofa felony since the clerk's last report. The court has conSistently complied with this code section. Pursuant to EC §2212, the Registrar ofVoters shall cancel the affidavits of registration of those persons who are currently imprisoned or on parole for the conviction ofa felony. The Elections Office has consistently complied with this code section. As per the dialogue with G. Sean Metroka, the Court Executive Officer, the information necessary for the Elections Office to comply with EC §2212 is not ascertainable on the basis ofthe courts records. Moreover, further clarification of Elections Code §2212 comes in the form of 2002 Law Revision Commission Comments regarding the county clerk's alleviation ofthose powers, duties, and responsibilities: 30f 6 Law Revision Commission Comments 2002 Amendment "Section 2212 is amended to reflect elimination ofthe county clerk's role as ex officio clerk of the superior court. See former Gov't Code § 26800 (county clerk acting as clerk ofsuperior court). The powers, duties, and responsibilitiesformerly exercised by the county clerk as ex officio clerk ofthe court are delegated to the court administrative or executive officer, and the county clerk is relieved ofthose powers, duties, and responsibilities. See Gov't Code §§ 69840 (powers, duties, and responsibilities ofclerk ofthe court and deputy clerk ofthe court), 71620 (trial court personnel). The section is also amended to eliminate certification ofwhich felons remain imprisonedj that determination may not be ascertainable on the basis ofcourt records. [32 Cal.L.Rev.Comm. Reports148 (2002))." The report furnished to the Elections Official, pursuant to EC §2212, will not have sufficient information for the Elections Official to cancel affidavits of registration of those persons who are currently imprisoned or on parole for the conviction ofa felony. RECOMMENDATIONS: