Sacramento County Grand Jury
• 2016-2017
• Agency Response
Response to:
The Election Process: In Good Hands
Sacramento County Grand Jury 2016-17 Final Report*
⚠️ 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 4 findings
F1
Page 3
The registrar did a commendable job running the November 2016 election. Sacramento County CEO Response: Sacramento County CEO agrees with the finding. Response To The 2016-17 Grand Jury Final Report
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Page 4
The Sacramento County Board of Supervisors should officially recognize the outstanding job done by the registrar's office. Sacramento County CEO Response: This recommendation will not be implemented. Sacramento County has 30 departments, and each department does an outstanding job providing exceptional public services to the residents of Sacramento County. The CEO and Registrar have acknowledged the election staff for the excellent work they did for the November 2016 Election. On February 22, 2017 a recognition luncheon was held to demonstrate all the staff's valuable contributions to making the election successful. More than 100 people attended the gathering, including temporary workers. The Registrar conducted a complex November 2016 Presidential General Election, preparing and distributing 173 variations of accurate and error-free ballots and information booklets for the County's three quarters of a million registered voters. Over half a million ballots were cast in the election. The Grand Jury reviewed the November 2016 election, and made the following observations: Overall, the election process in Sacramento County was well run with only minor problems. Polling place county machines and computers/machines at election headquarters were not • connected to the internet, thus hacking does not appear to be likely Security is ample. Several measures are in place to minimize chances of voter fraud. Poll watchers are encouraged to monitor the process. Voter rolls are updated to remove those who are deceased, have moved and are 0 ineligible to vote. Voter signatures are verified. o Last-minute registrations are reviewed. Provisional ballots are verified. In addition, the Registrar conducted a voter survey after the November election. Below are the results: Wait Time – 88% waited less than 5 minutes to vote, even with a 3-card ballot that on average took 10 minutes to complete. Polling Place Location – 92% were satisfied or very satisfied with the location of their poll place, up from 89% in June. Overall Voting Experience – 86% were satisfied or very satisfied with their voting experience, up from 83% in June. Response To The 2016-17 Grand Jury Final Report
F2
Page 5
The layout of the election office is awkward and inefficient. Sacramento County Registrar Response: The Sacramento County Registrar agrees with the finding. The Registrar's Office moved into their current location in 2003 and the layout of the office had been designed for an electronic voting system. Secretary of State, Kevin Shelly, decertified all electronic voting system in April of 2004, requiring voting systems to have a VVPAT (Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail). At that time, Sacramento County issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) but had to revoke the RFP due to the VVPAT requirement. The County had to reissue another RFP for a paper based system, knowing that the layout of the office had been designed for an electronic voting system. Since the layout is designed for an electronic voting system and not a paper based system, there are physical limitations that impede efficiency in the Registrar's Office. County staff is required to keep ballot boxes (by precinct) in a secure storage room. As ballots come in, staff places the ballot boxes from a secure room to a counting table for ballot counting. Once the ballots have been counted, the ballot boxes are put back into the secure storage room. However, as more ballots arrive, the boxes are taken out of the secure storage room again and placed on a counting table for additional ballot counting. This process happens on multiple occasions a night, creating awkwardness in the Registrar's Office. Sacramento County CEO Response: The County Executive Office agrees with the Sacramento County Registrar's Response.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Page 5
A study on how to improve flow patterns of the election office should be conducted, including site visits to other headquarter locations. Sacramento County Registrar Response: This recommendation has been implemented. A study was done of the workflow by County's Architect in 2014 to design a better layout for the office. However, while that design was not implemented, the Registrar anticipates significant process changes in the next 12 months. On July 14, 2017, the County issued an RFP to acquire a new voting system. Under the new Voters Choice Act, approved by the Board of Supervisors on June 6, 2017, the Registrar is moving to all mail ballot elections with Vote Centers. All of these changes will affect the workflow. While the new system will still be paper based as required by law, new technology will change the way ballots are processed taking several inefficient steps out of current procedures. As the Registrar reviews the RFP responses beginning August 28, 2017, ballot- processing procedures will be re-evaluated. It is anticipated that the Vote Center model will be implemented for the June 2018 election, at which the Registrar will re-examine the flow patterns of the office. The Registrar visited the Butte and Solano County Election Office this past year, and studied their ballot workflow processes. The Registrar will continue to reach out to other election offices. Response To The 2016-17 Grand Jury Final Report Sacramento County CEO Response: The County Executive Office agrees with the Sacramento County Registrar's Response.
F3
Page 6
The current manual method for verifying voter signatures is outdated. Sacramento County Registrar Response: The Sacramento County Registrar agrees with the finding. The California Election Code requires all counties to verify the signatures manually or using signature verification technology. The current manual method for verifying voter signatures is a manual multi-step review process established by the Sacramento County Registrar. If a ballot signature is not matching the signature in the voter's registration affidavit, the signature is further researched by an experienced supervising manager. If the manager has any doubt about the signature, it is taken directly to the County Registrar for a final decision. Although this manual method is outdated and may be slow, it provides a successful rate of accuracy.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
Page 6
The process for voter signature verification should be automated. Sacramento County Registrar Response: This recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented for the June 2018 election. While the current process for signature verification is done manually, the necessary procedures are in place to ensure accuracy. On July 14, 2017, an RFP was issued for a new voting system to implement the California Voters Choice Act, and an automated signature verification component was included.
F4
Page 6
The overall election process would be improved if Sacramento County opts into the new election process established by the California Voters Choice Act. Sacramento County Registrar Response: The Sacramento County Registrar agrees with the finding. Sacramento County CEO Response: The County Executive Office agrees with the Sacramento County Registrar's Response.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
Page 6
Sacramento County should opt into the new election process. Registrar's staff should visit other states that administer similar programs such as Colorado and Oregon. Sacramento County Registrar Response: This recommendation has not been implemented, but will be implemented by June 2018. On June 6, 2017, the Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution 2017-0409, authorizing Vote Center Model elections in Sacramento County to begin in 2018. The Voter's Choice Act allows counties to conduct elections by vote-by-mail (VBM) ballot while also providing regional Vote Centers to be open 10 days prior to Election Day. Response To The 2016-17 Grand Jury Final Report The timeframe of implementation into the new election process is listed below: <b>EVENT</b> TENTATIVE DATES RFP Vendor Demonstrations August 16 Late August - Early September RFP team makes recommendation September 26 Board agenda item for award of voting system contract. On-going activities: September 2017 - May 2018 Outreach to public; Survey locations for use as Vote Center and Drop Box sites; Create Language and Voter Accessibility Advisory Committees (LAAC and VAAC); Staff training on systems, update procedures; Develop Election Administration Plan (EAP) including outreach plan, provide to SOS for approval Deadline to establish county LAAC and VAAC October 2 Deadline for county proposed EAP Plan to be October 10 published Begin delivery of voting system equipment and Mid October acceptance testing Last day for Registrar of Voters (ROV) to submit December 4 EAP outreach plan to Secretary of State (SOS)for approval Deadline to determine number of Vote Centers and March 9, 2018 Drop Box Sites for June election May 7, 2018 VBM drop-off boxes (54 sites) open 29 days prior to Election Day Vote Centers (16 sites) open beginning 10 days May 26, 2018 prior to Election Day Vote Centers increase (77 sites) beginning 3 days June 2, 2018 prior to Election Day June 5, 2018 Election Day Sacramento County CEO Response: The County Executive Office agrees with the Sacramento County Registrar's Response. <b>FINANCIAL ANALYSIS</b> Staff from the Sacramento County Registrar, and the County Executive Office contributed to this report. Departments contributing to this report absorbed incurred costs within their respective budgets. Response To The 2016-17 Grand Jury Final Report Respectfully submitted, NAVDEEP S. GILL County Executive .
* 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.