Lupe Sanchez, our filing officer, is the go-to person for all things filing related.
Persons interested in running as candidates for open seats, jurisdictions interested in holding elections, and officials and committees continuing in active status would contact Lupe to submit required paperwork and gather information about pending deadlines.
Lupe can be reached at 650-312-5293 or lsanchez@smcare.org.
Lately, our office has been the recipient of visits from various committees who are all trying to meet the deadline to submit their semi-annual 460s (Campaign Finance Statement Disclosures). Lupe’s been busy ensuring that their paperwork is fully complete, signed by the correct persons, date stamped, and filed by our office.
She’s also been getting calls from various jurisdictions inquiring about possible upcoming election dates and costs. Elections Code 1500 states that the first Tuesday following the first Monday in May of all years is a designated date for all-mail ballot elections. The deadline to submit a resolution to conduct an election in May is Feb. 6 at 5 p.m.
Unless the state calls for a special election for the budget, May 5 is the earliest possible date for an election this year.
Right now, the only confirmed election is scheduled for Nov. 3. For more information about the election in November, read our previous post.
Want more information about the Elections Code, which outlines our procedures listed above? Visit the online Elections Code reference site at http://tinyurl.com/7zf2ka.
Another piece of legislation, SB 37 sponsored by Sen. Carole Midgen (D-San Francisco), is on our radar. Influenced by National Popular Vote, a nonprofit organization based in Silicon Valley, the bill seeks to “ratify a specified interstate compact that requires the chief election official of each signatory state to appoint the slate of presidential electors that was nominated in association with the presidential ticket that received the largest national popular vote total.”
What does that mean?
Well, right now, the President (and Vice President ) is elected to office after receiving the majority electoral vote rather than the majority popular vote. Because of this, the candidate with the most popular votes doesn’t necessarily win the election. Not convinced? Read up on Former Vice President Al Gore and Sen. Hillary Clinton.
This new bill, if approved and signed, would create a detour around the electoral college and instead award the electoral votes entirely to the winner of the majority vote nationwide. So, if Candidate A wins the majority vote in California but Candidate B wins overall nationally, all 55 electoral votes from California would be awarded to Candidate B.
So far, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, and New Jersey have passed this legislation.
For a more detailed look at SB 37, click here.
Update: We felt it would be important to call attention to a very important piece of the bill — this legislation, even if approved and signed, would only go into effect if the total number of states who have passed this legislation control a total of more than half of the total number of electoral votes nationwide. Additionally, it should be noted that the individual Californian votes would go towards the total majority vote for the nation. If we have 12 individual votes, and 6 vote for Candidate A and 6 vote for Candidate B, one candidate doesn’t necessarily win the group. But if the majority of the nation votes for Candidate A, then those electoral vote goes to Candidate A.
Check out this article by the L.A. Times for more info in addition to checking out the link to SB 37 above.
Posted in Ballots, Campaigns/Political parties, Elections Office, Results, Vote counting, Voting, legislation
Tagged assembly, bills, Elections Code, elections legislation, legislation, SB 37, senate
If you’ve checked out Shape the Future recently, you may have noticed that we added a “Legislative Watch” box to the front page. On Aug. 11, the Senate approved SB 967 – a bill introduced by Senator Joe Simitian on Feb. 23, 2007 and approved in Assembly on July 14. SB 967 amends Section 12223 of the Elections Code to allow Elections Officials to redraw precinct lines so that the 1,000 voter per precinct limit would not include the total Vote by Mail voters within the boundaries.
What does this mean for California counties? In order to reduce the lines at the polls, reduce the Election Day pressure on poll workers, and increase the ability of the Elections Office to process more ballots prior to Election Day, election officials throughout California have done everything they could to encourage people to Vote by Mail. We know we’ve bombarded this blog with posts about the benefits of voting by mail. With the current Elections Code, the county elections offices must still print enough ballots and man enough polling places to accommodate the County’s registered voters, even though many voters will send their vote through the post office and never step foot in the polling place. Counties such as Alameda County, Los Angeles County, San Francisco County, and Santa Clara County, who do not have electronic voting systems approved for full use in the precincts have to supply their polling places with enough paper ballots to accommodate at least 75 percent of all registered voters per precinct.
This new piece of legislation can significantly impact budgets by the reduction of polling places, poll workers, and printing and distribution of paper ballots. It has already passed the Assembly Elections & Redistricting Committee, the Assembly, and the Senate, but must still be signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger before it can be enacted as law.
For more information about how a bill is passed through the Assembly and the Senate, click here. For more details about the bill, including its history and status, click here.
After every election, the Elections Office conducts the Official Canvass and Manual Tally. Once the Official Canvass is complete, the results are certified and a Statement of the Vote is published.
But that’s not the end of the road.
Every county must submit their respective Manual Tally findings to the California Secretary of State — currently Debra Bowen. According to the Secretary of State website, “The report must identify any discrepancies (i.e., variances) between the machine tally and the manual tally and must provide a description of how each of these variances was resolved.”
According to David Tom, San Mateo County Elections Manager, “These reports are another way to assure voting systems are functioning properly for each election. But most importantly, they make elections more transparent and help instill voter confidence.”
For those that love reading about codes, you can read more about this particular Elections requirement by reviewing Elections Code 15360(e).
While there is no specific deadline for submitting the Manual Tally report, the Secretary of State has asked that the report be sent with the certification of the election. San Mateo County certified results and published the June Statewide Direct Primary Statement of the Vote on June 26 — well before the 29 day deadline.
If a Manual Tally Report is not submitted in conjunction, it won’t delay the certification of election results. The Secretary of State has created a web page to track and post copies of each county’s report. Because the Official Canvass deadline was fairly recent, the page has not yet been updated to reflect the June Statewide Direct Primary reports. However, those that want to take a look at the county findings from the February Presidential Primary Election can download pdfs of the various reports. Keep http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/manual_count_reports.htm bookmarked so that you can check back for future updates!
And while you’re waiting, click here to take a look at the San Mateo County June Manual Tally report.
Some around here are fond of saying that the code will get you every time, and today we present Exhibit A.
After discovering conflicting provisions in two different sections of California law, San Mateo County Superior Court Judge George Miram today ordered that the filing deadline for candidate statements for partisan State Assembly and Senate candidates who have accepted campaign spending limits be extended until 5 p.m. on Friday so that they can make specific amendments related to endorsements.
Sounds like a lot of fuss over some very fine print for these candidates running in the June 3 Statewide Direct Primary, but it’s worth at least trying to understand.
Candidate statements appearing in your Sample Ballot & Official Voter Information Pamphlet are designed for nonpartisan offices. However, Proposition 34, which went into effect in 2001, allows candidates for State Assembly or Senate the opportunity to purchase space for a campaign statement in the pamphlet if they accept campaign spending limits. A reward, if you will, for accepting them.
Here is the provision from the proposition, which is now part of Government Code § 85601.
A candidate for State Senate or Assembly who accepts the voluntary expenditure limits… may purchase the space to place a statement in the voter information portion of the sample ballot that does not exceed 250 words. The statement may not make any reference to any opponent of the candidate. The statement shall be submitted in accordance with the timeframes and procedures set forth in the Elections Code for the preparation of the voter information portion of the sample ballot.
Following the direction of the last sentence, we turn to Elections Code. Elections Code § 13307, which is the only portion of the code concerning candidate statements, has very specific regulations about statements, the most relevant being this:
The statement may include the name, age and occupation of the candidate and a brief description, of no more than 200 words, of the candidate’s education and qualifications expressed by the candidate himself or herself.
Bottom line, if it’s not in the above sentence, it’s not allowed.
Continue reading →
Posted in Campaigns/Political parties, Courts, Elections Office, Reform
Tagged campaign endorsements, campaign spending limits, Elections Code, Judge George Miram, Proposition 34, Richard Holober, State Assembly, State Senate
