Score: +10
(12/4/2)
Sacramento County Grand Jury
• 2016-2017
The Election Process: In Good Hands
Published: November 08, 2016
4 pages
⚠️ 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 4 findings
F1
The registrar did a commendable job running the November 2016 general election.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The Sacramento County Board of Supervisors should officially recognize the outstanding job done by the registrar’s office.
F2
The layout of the election office is awkward and inefficient.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
A study on how to improve flow patterns of the election office should be conducted, including site visits to other headquarters locations.
F3
The current manual method for verifying voter signatures is outdated.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The process for voter signature verification should be automated.
F4
The overall election process would be improved if Sacramento County opts into the new election process established by the California Voters Choice Act.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
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.
Agency Responses 4
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.
▶
County of Sacramento
September 13, 2017
•
8 pages
• 8 responses
•
Score: +5
(+6, 1, -1)
View Details ▾
8 responses to findings and recommendations
F1
The registrar did a commendable job running the November 2016 general election.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
Sacramento County CEO agrees with the finding.
Page 3
R1
The Sacramento County Board of Supervisors should officially recognize the outstanding job done by the registrar’s office.
Response: Will Not Implement
Score: -1
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 President...
F2
The layout of the election office is awkward and inefficient.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
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 ha...
R2
A study on how to improve flow patterns of the election office should be conducted, including site visits to other headquarters locations.
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
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 ...
F3
The current manual method for verifying voter signatures is outdated.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
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 fina...
R3
The process for voter signature verification should be automated.
Response: Will Implement
Score: +1
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
The overall election process would be improved if Sacramento County opts into the new election process established by the California Voters Choice Act.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
The Sacramento County Registrar agrees with the finding. Sacramento County CEO Response: The County Executive Office agrees with the Sacramento County Registrar's Response.
R4
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.
Response: Will Implement
Score: +1
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.
Page 6 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 ...
▶
County of Sacramento
September 12, 2017
•
8 pages
• 8 responses
•
Score: +5
(+6, 1, -1)
View Details ▾
8 responses to findings and recommendations
F1
The registrar did a commendable job running the November 2016 general election.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
Sacramento County CEO agrees with the finding.
Page 3
R1
The Sacramento County Board of Supervisors should officially recognize the outstanding job done by the registrar’s office.
Response: Will Not Implement
Score: -1
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 President...
F2
The layout of the election office is awkward and inefficient.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
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 ha...
R2
A study on how to improve flow patterns of the election office should be conducted, including site visits to other headquarters locations.
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
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 ...
F3
The current manual method for verifying voter signatures is outdated.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
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 fina...
R3
The process for voter signature verification should be automated.
Response: Will Implement
Score: +1
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
The overall election process would be improved if Sacramento County opts into the new election process established by the California Voters Choice Act.
Response: Agree
Score: +1
The Sacramento County Registrar agrees with the finding. Sacramento County CEO Response: The County Executive Office agrees with the Sacramento County Registrar's Response.
R4
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.
Response: Will Implement
Score: +1
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.
Page 6 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 ...
▶
Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission
September 18, 2017
•
271 pages
• 1 response
•
Score: 0
(+0, 1, 0)
View Details ▾
1 response to findings and recommendations
R2
A study on how to improve flow patterns of the election office should be conducted, including site visits to other headquarters locations.
Response: Requires Analysis
Scheduled: Fiscal Year 2017
Score: 0
, we will review the questionnaire and OPR Guidelines and make any necessary adjustments by December 2017. R4. MSRs must analyze required information on environmental justice issues. (F4. MSRs do not contain required analysis of environmental justice issues.) This particular finding of the Grand Jury is based upon the fact that the questionnaire asks the required information, but the Grand Jury determined that the MSR analysis was not adequate. (See Sacramento County Grand Jury 2016-2017 Final Report, p. 15) We believe the reason is that environmental justice issues were answered adequately. H...
▶
Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission
September 18, 2017
•
271 pages
• 1 response
•
Score: 0
(+0, 1, 0)
View Details ▾
1 response to findings and recommendations
R2
A study on how to improve flow patterns of the election office should be conducted, including site visits to other headquarters locations.
Response: Requires Analysis
Scheduled: Fiscal Year 2017
Score: 0
, we will review the questionnaire and OPR Guidelines and make any necessary adjustments by December 2017. R4. MSRs must analyze required information on environmental justice issues. (F4. MSRs do not contain required analysis of environmental justice issues.) This particular finding of the Grand Jury is based upon the fact that the questionnaire asks the required information, but the Grand Jury determined that the MSR analysis was not adequate. (See Sacramento County Grand Jury 2016-2017 Final Report, p. 15) We believe the reason is that environmental justice issues were answered adequately. H...
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
County of Sacramento
Agency