Demands from Restore the Vote Ventura

Restore the Vote Ventura

Their website is here: RTVV Restore the Vote Ventura and their demands include the following:

• “Reinstate an independent Election Fraud Hotline and Election Inspectors Office.”
  • There’s NEVER been an independent hotline or inspector. People have always been able to call the Elections Division to report issues, who will investigate all reported or suspected voter fraud attempts and refer cases to the DA as appropriate. People can also report complaints to the CA SOS.
• “Appoint a Citizens’ Election Oversight Commission.”
  • There is no clear purpose for this proposal. Citizens who want to be “involved” can join the language/accessibility advisory committees, observe ballot processing in the office, or apply to be an election worker. If the BOS considers a citizens’ oversight commission for elections, they should appoint a similar citizens’ oversight commission over each of their offices!
  • (From the County Counsel letter) “Government Code section 31000.1 states that your Board “may appoint commissions or committees of citizens to study problems of general or special interest to the board and to make reports and recommendations to the board.” Should your Board wish to do so, your Board could appoint a commission. However, such a commission could only be advisory to your Board and could only make recommendations to your Board. Similar to the limitations on your Board above, such a commission could not direct how or when Clerk-Recorder Ascencion performs her statutory duties under state law. Nor could a commission impede the performance of those statutory duties. If the formation of a commission is desired by your Board to serve as advisory to your Board, this would need to be explored further to determine the proper role for such a commission.” 
• “By Ordinance Elections in Ventura County shall be one day, precinct elections.”
  • Clearly, this would make it HARDER for people to vote in person, especially people with demanding work hours and who have to travel to their jobs, people with accessibility needs, many parents, elderly folks, and many others.
• “By Ordinance any use of electronic tabulation machines shall be accompanied by a full 100% citizens assisted hand count audit.”
  • A 100% hand audit is simply not feasible, as logically it is slower and more error-prone than machine tabulation. State Law requires the Election Division to perform full testing of every piece of equipment prior to the election, and after the election they conduct a 1% random batch manual tally as required by state law to further ensure the tabulators are counting accurately.
• “By Ordinance. no scanning, counting or preprocessing of ballots in any form shall take place before Election Day.”
  • State law allows ballot processing to begin as early as when the ballots go out in the mail. Due to the extensive process of preparing Vote By Mail (VBM) ballots for counting (including signature verification, opening envelopes and flattening ballots) the Elections Division utilizes this extra prep time to be able to produce a good batch of results once the polls close on election night. Ballot data from preprocessing remains raw and uncompiled until 8pm on Election Night, so no one knows any vote totals beforehand.

Other repressive requests from local election-deniers to the Board of Supervisors. Responses provide by the County Counsel. (Read complete letter here)

• 1. Request that your Board adopt an ordinance to stop the universal vote by mail ballots. 
  • Elections Code sections 3000.5 and 3010 require the County Clerk-Recorder & Registrar of Voters to mail ballots to every active registered voter for every election. This requirement is present regardless of whether the County is proceeding with the election under the Voter’s Choice Act or as a one day, precinct polling place election. Adoption of an ordinance, as requested, would impermissibly conflict with state law. 
• 2. Request that your Board adopt an ordinance directing that elections shall be one day, precinct elections. 
  • Essentially this is a request to move away from the Voter’s Choice Act (VCA). The VCA was passed in 2016 (Senate Bill No. 450) to allow counties to choose to conduct elections under a new model by mailing every voter a ballot, expanding in-person early voting, allowing voters to cast a ballot at any vote center within the County, and providing secure ballot drop off locations throughout the County. (Elec. Code, § 4005.) Under state law, counties may opt into the VCA. However, in doing so, the law references the “elections official” as the party that takes the actions to opt in to implement the VCA. As stated above, under Elections Code section 320, the “elections official” is the separately elected County Clerk-Recorder & Registrar of Voters. The elected County Clerk-Recorder & Registrar of Voters is vested with the power and authority to determine whether the County will conduct an election as an all-mail ballot election under the provisions of Elections Code section 4005, including the responsibility for conducting the election and preparing the plan for the administration of the election. The VCA requires each participating county to create an Election Administration Plan (EAP) through the process of public input and public hearings. The EAP must then be approved by the Secretary of State. Your Board does not approve the EAP. Former Clerk-Recorder Mark Lunn prepared the first EAP in 2022 and Clerk-Recorder Ascencion prepared an amended EAP, in accordance with her authority and the requirements of Elections Code section 4005, in 2023. The County’s Amended EAP was approved by the Secretary of State on September 29, 2023. 
  • Respectfully, your Board lacks authority under state law to direct the Clerk-Recorder & Registrar of Voters to conduct elections as one day precinct elections versus as conducted under the Voters Choice Act. That decision is statutorily the Clerk-Recorder’s under state law as the elections official. Adoption of an ordinance, as requested, would impermissibly conflict with state law. 
• 3. Request that your Board adopt an ordinance directing that any use of electronic tabulation machines shall be accompanied by a full 100% citizens assisted hand count audit. 
  • Elections Code section 15270.1 prohibits an elections official from conducting a manual vote count in any election held on an established election date and there are more than 1,000 registered voters eligible to participate or the election is held on a date other than an established election date and there are more than 5,000 registered voters eligible to participate. Granted, this request from the public is not a request for a manual vote count on its own but instead a request for a manual 100% hand count audit in conjunction with the electronic tabulation. This request from the public is essentially seeking a recount for every race on the ballot for a given election. 
  • Elections Code section 15360 requires a 1% manual tally process to be undertaken as part of the post-election auditing process to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the results. This 1% manual tally involves the hand count inspection and counting of official ballots from randomly selected tabulated batches of ballots across the County as required by law. The 1% manual tally process is open to the public to view at any time during the process. Additionally, Elections Code section 15000 requires the elections official to conduct a series of tests to ensure that every device used to tabulate ballots accurately records each vote. The test conforms to the voting procedures for specific voting systems, as adopted by the Secretary of State. Test ballots are processed, and the results are tallied to verify voter’s intent and selection. These tests are designed to evaluate the performance of the voting system assuring voters that their choices will be accurately recorded. This process is open to the public to view at any time during the process. 
  • The public commenters are requesting that your Board adopt an ordinance directing the elected Clerk-Recorder & Registrar of Voters to perform a manual audit of every election which may run afoul of Elections Code section 15270.1. As stated above, your Board should not adopt ordinances that conflict with state law. Further, your Board cannot direct how or when Clerk-Recorder Ascencion performs her statutory duty. (People v. Langdon, supra, 54 Cal.App.3d at p. 390.) 
• 4. Request that your Board adopt an ordinance directing that no scanning, counting or preprocessing of ballots in any form shall take place before Election Day. 
  • Elections Code section 15101 expressly allows all jurisdictions, regardless of whether they are conducting the election under the VCA, to begin processing vote by mail ballot return envelopes and ballots 29 days before the election but requires that all jurisdictions begin processing vote by mail ballots no later than 5:00 p.m. on the day before the election. Specifically, section 15101 permits all jurisdictions to begin processing vote by mail ballot return envelopes 29 days before the election and permits any jurisdiction having the necessary computer equipment to begin processing vote by mail ballots 29 days before the election. (Elec. Code, §§ 15100 and 15101.) Under section 15101, “processing vote by mail ballots includes opening vote by mail ballot return envelopes, removing ballots, duplicating any damaged ballots, and preparing the ballots to be machine read, or machine reading them, including processing write-in votes so that they can be tallied by the machine, but under no circumstances may a vote count be accessed or released until 8 p.m. on the day of the election.” 
  • The duty to process ballots, including vote by mail ballots is delegated exclusively to the elections official. As the elections official, Clerk-Recorder Ascencion is expressly allowed under state law to process ballots prior to election day. That decision is statutorily the Clerk-Recorder’s under state law. Respectfully, your Board cannot direct how or when Clerk-Recorder Ascencion performs her statutory duty. (People v. Langdon, supra, 54 Cal.App.3d at p. 390.) Adoption of an ordinance, as requested, would impermissibly conflict with state law. 
• 5. Request that your Board adopt an ordinance requiring voter identification. 
  • Under state law, identifying information, as well as other specified information, is required when registering to vote and must be validated by elections officials. (Elec. Code, §§ 2188, subd. (b), 2196, subd. (a)(7); Cal. Code Regs. tit. 2, §§ 19073, 20107.) An applicant registering to vote must certify to the truth and correctness of the content of the application, under penalty of perjury. (Elec. Code, § 2188, subd. (e).) An individual who registers to vote knowing that they are ineligible to do so is subject to criminal penalties. (Elec. Code, § 18100.) Elections Code section 14216 further provides that, at the time of voting, a registered voter wishing to vote in person needs only provide their name and address; no further identification is required. 
  • The City of Huntington Beach is currently being sued by the California Attorney General over the City’s voter identification law, Measure A, which amended the City’s Charter to allow the City to impose voter identification requirements at the polls for municipal elections in 2026. The Attorney General and Secretary of State allege that the City’s Measure A is preempted and unlawfully conflicts with state law. If your Board were to adopt an ordinance requiring voter identification, it is foreseeable that the County would face a similar lawsuit. 
  • Additionally, Senate Bill No. 1174 (Min, coauthor Newman) is currently pending before the State Legislature. If enacted, this bill would prohibit a local government from enacting or enforcing any charter provision, ordinance, or regulation requiring a person to present identification for the purpose of voting or submitting a ballot at any polling place, vote center, or other location where ballots are cast or submitted. Should your Board wish to do so, your Board could take a formal position on the Senate Bill. 

Resources

• (brennancenter.org) The Election Deniers’ Playbook for 2024
• (CA Sec. of State) California’s Voter’s Choice Act
• (League of Women Voters) Voter’s Choice Act Makes Voting Easier
• (protectdemocracy) A Democracy Crisis in the Making
• (futureofcaelections.org) Resource Summary: Voter’s Choice Act
• (aclu.org) How Donald Trump’s Election Lies and Other Anti-Voter Policies Will Continue to Impact Our Democracy
• (aclu.org) ACLU Releases Roadmap to Combat Voting Rights Threats Posed by a Second Trump Term
• (aclu.org) TRUMP ON VOTING RIGHTS – Threatening Representational Equality, Restricting Voting Access, and Undermining the Integrity of Elections
• (brennancenter.org) Threats and Intimidation Are Distorting U.S. Democracy – A new Brennan Center report documents rising abuse of elected officials
• (brennancenter.org) Debunking the Voter Fraud Myth
• (brennancenter.org) Frivolous Lawsuit Targets Maryland’s Voter Rolls and Voting Systems
• (newrepublic) How to Crack Down on Election Deniers? Make Them Pay. Literally. Not only is election denialism antidemocratic. It’s expensive—it cost at least half a billion dollars after 2020. The solution? Make the denialists pay. Here’s how.
• (ctvnews.ca) Crush of lawsuits over voting in multiple U.S. states creates a shadow war for the 2024 election.
• (Governing) Nearly Every Battleground State Is at Risk of Election Denialism Interfering in 2024
• (electiondeniers.org) The landscape of Election denial in America
• (American Oversight) THE ELECTION DENIAL MOVEMENT’S MISGUIDED PUSH TO HAND-COUNT BALLOTS