[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
WHY THE WAIT? UNPACKING CALIFORNIA'S
UNTIMELY ELECTION COUNTING PROCESS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
ADMINISTRATION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 29, 2025
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
www.govinfo.gov
www.cha.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
60-223 WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION
BRYAN STEIL, Wisconsin, Chairman
LAUREL LEE, Florida, Vice Chair JOSEPH MORELLE, New York,
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia Ranking Member
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama
GREG MURPHY, North Carolina NORMA TORRES, California
STEPHANIE BICE, Oklahoma JULIE JOHNSON, Texas
MARY MILLER, Illinois
MIKE CAREY, Ohio
Mike Platt, Staff Director
Jamie Fleet, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Opening Statements
Chairman Bryan Steil, Representative from the State of Wisconsin. 1
Prepared statement of Chairman Bryan Steil................... 3
Ranking Member Joseph Morelle, Representative from the State of
New York....................................................... 4
Prepared statement of Ranking Member Joseph Morelle.......... 6
Witnesses
Ashlee Titus, partner, Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk, LLP........... 7
Prepared statement of Ashlee Titus........................... 10
Austin Gilbert, co-owner, Right Choice Strategies, LLC........... 17
Prepared statement of Austin Gilbert......................... 19
Hon. Donald Palmer, chairman, Election Assistance Commission..... 20
Prepared statement of Hon. Donald Palmer..................... 23
Rebecca Nowatchik, Director of External Partnerships, Secure
Families Initiative, Inc....................................... 26
Prepared statement of Rebecca Nowatchik...................... 28
Submissions for the Record
Cole Patterson letter............................................ 34
Remote access letter............................................. 45
Orange County grand jury report.................................. 46
Dean Logan letter................................................ 71
Questions for the Record
Donald Palmer answers to submitted questions..................... 92
Ashlee Titus answers to submitted questions...................... 96
Rebecca Nowatchik answers to submitted questions................. 98
WHY THE WAIT? UNPACKING CALIFORNIA'S
UNTIMELY ELECTION COUNTING PROCESS
----------
April 29, 2025
Committee on House Administration,
House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:32, in room
1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Bryan Steil
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Steil, Bice, Miller, Morelle,
Sewell, and Torres.
Staff present: Mike Platt, Staff Director; Rachel Collins,
General Counsel; Abby Salter, Deputy General Counsel Jordan
Wilson, Director of Member Services; Kristen Monterroso,
Director of Operations; Josh Weber, Counsel; Jamie Fleet,
Minority Staff Director; Khalil Abboud, Minority Deputy Staff
Director; Sean Wright, Minority Chief Counsel; Sarah Nasta,
Minority Senior Advisor; Nikolas Youngsmith, Minority Elections
Counsel; and Owen Reilly, Minority Professional Staff.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRYAN STEIL, CHAIRMAN OF THE
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
WISCONSIN
Chairman Steil. The Committee on House Administration will
come to order.
The title of today's hearing is ``Why the Wait: Unpacking
California's Untimely Election Counting Process.''
I note that a quorum is present. Without objection, the
chair may declare a recess at any time. Also, without
objection, the hearing record will remain open for 5
legislative days so Members may submit any material they wish
to be included therein.
Thank you, Ranking Member Morelle, Members of the
Committee, and our witnesses, for participating in today's
hearing.
Today, the Committee on House Administration will continue
its oversight of Federal election policies. As the Chairman of
the Committee, it is a top priority of mine to improve Federal
election law and increase transparency for American voters.
During the 2024 election cycle, 155 million Americans
across the country cast their ballot in the elections for
President, Senate, House of Representatives, and State and
local elections as well. Over 16 million of those votes were
cast in the State of California.
Most Americans watched election results being announced on
election night. That was not the case in California. According
to the Associated Press, it was not until December 4, nearly a
month later, that all of the California races were ultimately
called. The longer it takes to provide the results of an
election, the more voters can lose trust and become frustrated
with the process.
Today, we will examine the reasons for California's delay
in reporting results. A major cause of the delay in California
election results is the State's universal mail system, which is
prone to delays, tabulation, and ultimately the calling of
races.
The ability to vote by mail in California has been
available in the State since 1982, and State lawmakers have
continuously expanded the bounds of mail-in voting ever since.
In 2022, the California Legislature codified pandemic-era
procedural laws and enacted universal vote-by-mail for every
election administered by the State. In other words, every
registered voter in California gets a mail-in ballot. This not
only opens the door for potential fraud, but it also causes
delays on the counting side.
Another issue we will explore today includes accepting
ballots after Election Day. Currently, California accepts
ballots delivered up to 7 days after election day. We will
discuss with our witnesses if that means it needs to be
postmarked, what happens if it is not postmarked, what happens
if it is dated/not dated by the candidate.
California accepts ballots collected up to 7 days after
Election Day. This matters because on Election Day California
does not know how many ballots will be cast, and so, results
for close elections cannot be announced in a timely manner.
Make no mistake, it is California's own State policies that
are creating these significant delays in election reporting.
While other States are taking steps to implement positive
change, California spent 50 years moving in the other
direction.
For example, in a State like Florida, with a population of
23 million, Florida is able to report election results on
election night. Following the 2000 election, of course, Florida
took a serious look at its own election policies and passed a
law to ensure ballots are actually counted on and by election
night.
California's system also does not really increase voter
participation. Timely election results, I believe, builds voter
confidence and can increase voter turnout. In Florida, voter
turnout was 78.9 percent of registered voters, a record high.
California's participation in the 2024 election was 71.4
percent of registered voters.
Florida requires absentee ballots to be delivered to local
election offices by the close of polls on Election Day. Florida
absentee voters may cure ballot discrepancies within 2 days
after the elections. In California, voters have up to 28 days
to cure absentee ballots. Twenty-eight days, it is a long time,
something we can be discussing with our witnesses as well.
In November, 3 days after the election, I traveled to Los
Angeles County Central Count and got to witness the tabulating
process in Los Angeles County firsthand. When I arrived 3 days
after the election, L.A. Central Count still had 900,000
outstanding ballots that needed to be tabulated.
That is in L.A. County alone. That is not the State of
California; 900,000 total just in L.A. County. It was an
amazing experience to walk through the L.A. Central Count. I
think we have an opportunity to talk with our witnesses about
the reforms that could be made.
This is uniquely important, because the balance in the U.S.
House of Representatives at that time still had not been
determined, in large part, because the races in California were
not called due to the lax election laws that are resulting in
these delays. The rest of the country should not have to wait
on California to know the results of the elections.
We are looking at California particularly today because
they have continued to move the goalpost in their election
policies. California's election administration highlights why
Congress must conduct oversight of States' Federal elections
and determine whether it might be necessary to enforce baseline
standards on election integrity.
I thank our witnesses for being here today. We are going to
have a great conversation about what is going right and what is
going wrong in elections across the country, but in particular,
what is going wrong in the State of California. I thank our
witnesses for being here today and look forward to our
discussion.
I will now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Morelle, for 5
minutes for the purposes of providing his opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Steil follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
ADMINISTRATION BRYAN STEIL
Today, the Committee on House Administration will continue
its oversight of Federal election policy. As the Chairman of
the Committee, it has been a top priority of mine to improve
Federal election law and increase transparency with American
voters. During the 2024 election cycle, over 155 million
Americans across the country cast their ballot in elections for
President, Senate, the House of Representatives, and local and
State positions.
Over 16 million of those votes were cast in California.
Most Americans watched election results being announced on
election night. This was not the case in California. According
to the Associated Press, it was not until December 4--nearly a
month later--that all of California's races were called. The
longer it takes to provide the results of an election, the more
voters lose trust and become frustrated with the process.
Today, we will examine the reasons for California's delay
in reporting results. A major cause for delay in California's
election results is the State's universal vote-by-mail system,
which is prone to delays in voting, tabulation and, ultimately,
calling of races. The ability to vote by mail in California has
been available since 1982, and State lawmakers have continued
to expand the bounds of mail-in voting since.
In 2022, the California legislature codified pandemic-era
procedural laws and enacted universal vote by mail for every
election administered by the State. In other words--every
registered voter in California gets a mail-in ballot. This is
an unsecure way to run an election. Another issue we will
explore today includes accepting ballots after Election Day.
Currently, California accepts ballots delivered up to seven
days after Election Day. We are going to talk to our witnesses
about this. This means that on Election Day, California will
not know how many ballots are cast or be able to report results
for close elections. Make no mistake, it is California's own
State policies that are creating the significant delay in
election reporting.
While other States are taking steps to implement positive
change, California has spent 50 years moving in the wrong
direction. For example, a State like Florida with a population
of over 23 million is able to report election results on
election night. Following the 2000 election, Florida took a
serious look at its own election policies and passed a law to
ensure ballots are counted on election night.
Timely election results builds voter confidence, which
increases voter turn out. In Florida, voter turnout in 2024 was
78.9% of registered voters, a record high. California's
participation in the 2024 election was 71.4% of registered
voters. Florida requires absentee ballots to be delivered to
the local election office by the close of polls on Election
Day. In Florida, absentee voters may cure ballot discrepancies
within two days after the election. In California, voters have
up to 28 days to cure absentee ballots. 28 days?! I think we
can all agree that is well beyond an appropriate timeline.
In November, I traveled to Los Angeles County three days
after the election. At that time, they still had 900,000
outstanding ballots that needed to be tabulated in Los Angeles
County alone. The balance of power in the House of
Representatives still had not been determined because of
California's lax election laws that delay results. The rest of
the country should not have to wait on California to know the
results of an election.
We are looking at California today because they have
continued to move the goal posts in their election policies.
California's election administration highlights why Congress
must conduct oversight of the States' Federal elections and
determine whether it might be necessary to enforce baseline
standards of election integrity.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH MORELLE, RANKING MEMBER OF THE
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
NEW YORK
Mr. Morelle. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Steil, for
calling us together, and certainly, thank you to the witnesses
for being here today.
I appreciate any effort to improve electoral processes in
California, or frankly, anywhere else in America, but I do want
to be clear about one indisputable fact. There is no evidence
that California's recent elections featured any irregularities
or fraud.
California's elections were legal and legitimate. How do we
know? Because in November 2024, Republicans deployed election
observers to more than half a dozen congressional districts
across California. These observers monitored ballot tabulation
and processing operations in California. They reported no
instances of illegality or any serious election-related
irregularities. What they reported was California election
officials following the law. To be crystal clear, Republicans
did not contest the outcome of a single congressional race in
California under the Federal Contested Elections Act.
To anyone watching this, please understand there is a
longstanding mechanism for challenging congressional results
that were improperly decided, and Republicans did not challenge
any congressional results in California.
There is no question, the ballots counted in California in
the period after Election Day were legally cast by eligible
American voters. That is undisputed. This hearing is not about
making American elections more secure. We are holding the
hearing because my colleagues simply dislike the way
Californians voted. It is not the procedure Republicans
actually have a problem with, it is the outcome.
Now, there are always ways in every election in America
that we could make them more efficient, and I am sure there is
probably room in California for improvement in their elections
to speed up the process.
Standardizing notice deadlines and ballot cure review
across California, these policies could probably streamline
elections. We could be working in a bipartisan way to enhance
election efficiency in California and elsewhere.
Instead, we seek to make elections less efficient. My
colleagues push policies that increase burdens on election
administrators, policies that take a sledgehammer to free,
fair, and secure American elections.
The SAVE Act, for example, which was passed over our
objections a couple weeks ago, allows any person to sue any
election official based solely on mere suspicion that a
noncitizen is registered to vote. How quickly will any State
process ballots if election officials are besieged by endless
frivolous lawsuits?
The President's already deemed illegal anti-voting
executive order could lead to the decertification of thousands
of voting machines used across the United States. This deeply
harmful executive order would cost States billions of dollars.
It would fundamentally disrupt American elections.
Both the SAVE Act and the executive order would eradicate
voter registration by mail or online. This would wreak havoc on
election administrations nationwide, and disenfranchise
millions of military and overseas voters who rely on mail and
online voter registration to exercise their sacred inalienable
right to vote.
Some proposed Republican policies would harm American
elections so much, even prior Republican witnesses at this
Committee caution against them. We have heard Republican
witnesses warn of the inefficiency of processing hand-marked,
hand-counted ballots, which have been advocated by Members of
the House Republican Caucus. Forget about weeks to resolve an
election, it would take months or years to have election
results.
Committee Democrats called a witness today to give voice to
the military and overseas voters that would be harmed by
Republican election policies. The record should reflect that
our colleagues blocked Democrats' initial witness choice, a
military spouse stationed overseas named Sarah Straiter, from
appearing today.
Sarah wanted to speak to this Committee about how we can
better serve military and overseas voters. Because she is
nearing the third trimester of her pregnancy, transatlantic
travel presented a significant barrier for her attendance here.
The majority denied our request for her to testify
remotely, something we have the technology to facilitate.
Because Sarah is a pregnant military spouse with travel
limitations, she was not allowed to testify.
It is not lost on us that if the SAVE Act were law, Sarah
would also be unable to register to vote today, because it
requires in-person voter registration. Women stationed overseas
with pregnancy-related travel limitations would be barred from
registering to vote.
Today, the majority will attack completely legitimate
elections in California. That is the idea here. Meanwhile,
President Trump and congressional Republicans advance policies
to create massive barriers to military voting.
We have not held a single hearing on military and overseas
voting. The VOTES Act, championed by Congress Members Frost and
Lee, who is a Member here of this Committee, would increase
military voter access, unlike the SAVE Act. Why are we
discussing this today instead of that?
We would happily waive this Committee's notice requirements
to call the VOTES Act up right now to send it, once again, to
the full House, so to defend rather than undermine legitimate
American elections. Instead of wasting time, can we support
military and overseas voters? I would hope we would.
Thank you. I yield back my time.
[The prepared statement of Ranking Member Morelle follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
ADMINISTRATION JOSEPH MORELLE
California's elections were legal and legitimate. How do we
know? Because in November of 2024, Republicans deployed
election observers to more than half a dozen congressional
districts across California. These observers monitored ballot
tabulation and processing operations in California. They
reported no instances of illegality or any serious election
related irregularities. What they reported was California
election officials following the law. To be crystal clear,
Republicans did not contest the outcome of a single
congressional race in California under the Federal Contested
Elections Act.
To anyone watching this, please understand there is a
longstanding mechanism for challenging congressional results
that were improperly decided, and Republicans did not challenge
any congressional results in California. There is no question,
the ballots counted in California in the period after Election
Day were legally cast by eligible American voters. That is
undisputed. This hearing is not about making American elections
more secure. We are holding the hearing because my colleagues
simply dislike the way Californians voted. It is not the
procedure Republicans actually have a problem with, it is the
outcome.
Now, there are always ways in every election in America
that we could make them more efficient, and I am sure there is
probably room in California for improvement in their elections
to speed up the process. Standardizing notice deadlines and
ballot cure review across California, these policies could
probably streamline elections. We could be working in a
bipartisan way to enhance election efficiency in California and
elsewhere. Instead, we seek to make elections less efficient.
My colleagues push policies that increase burdens on election
administrators, policies that take a sledgehammer to free,
fair, and secure American elections.
The SAVE Act, for example, which was passed over our
objections a couple weeks ago, allows any person to sue any
election official based solely on mere suspicion that a
noncitizen is registered to vote. How quickly will any State
process ballots if election officials are besieged by endless
frivolous lawsuits? The President's already deemed illegal
anti-voting executive order could lead to the decertification
of thousands of voting machines used across the United States.
This deeply harmful executive order would cost States billions
of dollars. It would fundamentally disrupt American elections.
Both the SAVE Act and the executive order would eradicate
voter registration by mail or online. This would wreak havoc on
election administrations nationwide, and disenfranchise
millions of military and overseas voters who rely on mail and
online voter registration to exercise their sacred inalienable
right to vote.
Some proposed Republican policies would harm American
elections so much, even prior Republican witnesses at this
Committee caution against them. We have heard Republican
witnesses warn of the inefficiency of processing hand-marked,
hand-counted ballots, which have been advocated by Members of
the House Republican Caucus. Forget about weeks to resolve an
election, it would take months or years to have election
results.
Committee Democrats called a witness today to give voice to
the military and overseas voters that would be harmed by
Republican election policies. The record should reflect that
our colleagues blocked Democrats' initial witness choice, a
military spouse stationed overseas named Sarah Straiter, from
appearing today. Sarah wanted to speak to this Committee about
how we can better serve military and overseas voters. Because
she is nearing the third trimester of her pregnancy,
transatlantic travel presented a significant barrier for her
attendance here.
The majority denied our request for her to testify
remotely, something we have the technology to facilitate.
Because Sarah is a pregnant military spouse with travel
limitations, she was not allowed to testify. It is not lost on
us that if the SAVE Act were law, Sarah would also be unable to
register to vote today, because it requires in person voter
registration. Women stationed overseas with pregnancy related
travel limitations would be barred from registering to vote.
Today, the majority will attack completely legitimate
elections in California. That is the idea here. Meanwhile,
President Trump and congressional Republicans advance policies
to create massive barriers to military voting. We have not held
a single hearing on military and overseas voting. The VOTES
Act, championed by Congress Members Frost and Lee, who is a
Member here of this Committee, would increase military voter
access, unlike the SAVE Act. Why are we discussing this today
instead of that?
We would happily waive this Committee's notice requirements
to call the VOTES Act up right now to send it, once again, to
the full House, so to defend rather than undermine legitimate
American elections. Instead of wasting time, can we support
military and overseas voters? I would hope we would.
Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
Without objection, all other Members' opening statements
will be made part of the record if they are submitted to the
Committee clerk by 5 p.m. today.
Today, we have one witness panel. First, we have Ms. Ashlee
Titus, who is a partner at Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk. Next, we
have Mr. Austin Gilbert, who is co-owner of Right Choice
Strategies. After that, we have Hon. Donald Palmer, chairman of
the Election Assistance Commission. Finally, we have Rebecca
Nowatchik from the Secure Families Initiative.
We appreciate all of you traveling to be with us here today
and look forward to your testimony. Let me remind the witnesses
we have read your statements and they will appear in full in
the record.
I will now recognize Ms. Titus for 5 minutes.
STATEMENTS OF ASHLEE TITUS, PARTNER, BELL, MCANDREWS &
HILTACHK, LLP; HON. DONALD PALMER, CHAIRMAN, ELECTION
ASSISTANCE COMMISSION; AUSTIN GILBERT, CO-OWNER, RIGHT CHOICE
STRATEGIES, LLC; AND REBECCA NOWATCHIK, DIRECTOR OF EXTERNAL
PARTNERSHIPS, SECURE FAMILIES INITIATIVE, INC.
STATEMENT OF ASHLEE TITUS
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Chairman and Members of the
Committee. I am an attorney in private practice in Sacramento.
My first election as an attorney for a campaign was March 2004,
and it took 2 weeks after that election for the nominee to be
known.
For well over 20 years, California's canvass has been slow.
Now there are more close contests that take 3 to 4 weeks after
the election to determine the winner.
California's election laws impose numerous procedures that
extend ballot processing and counting far beyond election
night. Election administrators must contend with constantly
changing rules and manage a larger volume of complicated mail-
in provisional ballots in a 1-month period following each
election.
The original culprit behind California's lengthy canvass is
no-excuse access to mail ballots. In 1978, California became
the first State to allow voters to apply to vote by mail on an
election-by-election basis without a reason.
Since the 2020 general election, every active voter
receives a ballot in the mail without applying. In the most
recent general election, nearly 81 percent of California's 22
and a half million registered voters cast a mail ballot.
Hand-delivered and drop-box ballots must be received by the
close of polls on Election Day, but mail ballots are valid if
they are received by an election official by the seventh day
after the election.
About half of mail ballots cast are dropped off by voters
on Election Day and are not processed until days or weeks after
election night.
When a mail ballot is received by an election office, the
laborious signature comparison process begins. Some counties in
California use technology to conduct the first signature
comparison, while others solely rely on election workers.
Before a signature on an envelope is deemed not to compare
to the voter's signature on file, three levels of review must
find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the signature on the mail
ballot envelope possesses multiple significant and obvious
differing characteristics when compared to all signatures in
the voter's registration record.
When a signature is challenged, the voter has an
opportunity to provide a substitute signature. If a voter
returns their mail ballot envelope without a signature, that
voter also has an opportunity to provide a signature.
In both cases, this process is known as signature curing.
Depending on the county, a voter may submit a substitute
signature as late as 28 days after Election Day. Many signature
cures are returned as a result of the harvesting efforts of
campaigns in close contests.
Usually, county elections officials are permitted to
certify their election results as soon as they have completed
all of the required tasks, but a law temporarily in effect for
the 2024 general election prohibited counties from certifying
earlier than the 28th day after the election.
The response of many county elections officials was to
suspend canvass activities outside of normal working hours to
avoid paying overtime to their canvass workers, thus further
delaying the reporting results for the November 2024 general
election.
In addition to the nearly 60-day mail voting process that
we have in California, California's same-day voter registration
significantly contributes to the delay in finalizing election
results. This is known as conditional voter registration.
California permits individuals who are not registered to
vote by the 15th day before an election to complete a
registration affidavit and cast a ballot. Conditional
registrations are a type of provisional ballot, which take the
most time and the most labor to process.
It is the cumulative effect of all of these procedures and
deadlines that caused the delay in finalizing California's
election results. Of the weeks it takes to know the outcome of
close contests, California's Secretary of State, Dr. Shirley
Weber, said Californians should be patient.
Not all of California's policymakers agree that we should
just accept this. There are several proposals currently pending
in the California Legislature to address the lengthy canvass.
One bill would require all counties to offer in-person
voting on the Saturday prior to Election Day. Given that 78
percent of voters already have this option, and still over 80
percent of California's voters returned a mail ballot in the
most recent election using an envelope, this is not likely to
ease the post-election crunch.
Several Members of the California Legislature have
introduced bills this session to simply mandate speeding things
up. These proposals would impose an arbitrary deadline by which
certain ballots must be counted, or that the canvass must be
completed without addressing the root causes of the current
lengthy process, and without equipping elections officials with
the means to process ballot envelopes faster.
The solutions must focus on mail ballot and same-day voter
registration procedures and deadlines. Otherwise, California
will continue to be last in the Nation to finalize its election
results.
That concludes my comments.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Titus follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF ASHLEE TITUS
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Steil. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gilbert, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF AUSTIN GILBERT
Mr. Gilbert. Good morning. Thank you, Chair and Committee
Members.
My name is Austin Gilbert. I am a campaign field operative
and consultant, and I have run numerous campaigns over the last
decade in the Central Valley and High Sierras in California.
I have dealt with elections offices and officials during
counting procedures, ballot-curing operations, and recounts
across 13 different counties, and I have been a resident of
Fresno County my entire life.
California elections can be described in one word: slow.
Over the last decade, California has prioritized voter access
over efficiency, effectiveness, and safety, inundating
elections officials with time-consuming verification and
sorting processes, security flaws, and a reliance on mail for
voting.
With the passage of the Voter's Choice Act in 2016,
California changed from traditional in-person voting to the new
method of vote centers, drop boxes, and mail-in voting. This
process was designed to be slow from the beginning. To start,
State law mandates that any election official accept and count
ballots postmarked on or before Election Day and received
within 7 days of the election. This immediately slows results
from being disclosed to the public, as elections offices do not
even receive an accurate count of the total votes cast until
most of the Nation has finished counting.
The centralization of this election process from precincts
to vote centers and the elections office has also complicated
the ballot sorting process. Specifically, within Fresno County,
we typically deal with upwards of 3 to 500 different ballot
types, that being any ballot with different contests included
on it.
While in years past, you would vote at a precinct of your
neighbors and there were very limited numbers of unique ballot
types; now, vote centers are required to provide every single
unique ballot, as any voter can vote at any vote center.
You can imagine, it is a lot easier to sort two to three
different ballot types in one location than between 500 in one
centralized vote center.
California also has an extremely arduous signature
verification process, one that relies heavily on human
interaction and the interpretation of handwriting. While most
States verify identity before voters receive a ballot,
California sends ballots out to every voter and verifies the
signature after the fact.
This process of signature verification usually works in
three steps: Ballots are received in the elections office and
scanned for a signature. The signature is compared to the
voter's signature on file, and the ballot is either accepted
and opened or denied.
At this point of denial, a ballot cure form will then be
sent to the voter so they have a chance to correct their
missing or nonmatching signature. While in theory, this sounds
simple, in practice it becomes the most complicated process in
administering an election.
In the days following an election, you can often see
thousands of ballots in one room at different stages of the
verification process. This includes ballots that have yet to be
verified; ballots that are waiting on cure forms; ballots that
have been accepted and are being separated from the envelope;
provisional ballots awaiting verification; and conditional
voter registration forms, all of this before elections
officials can even flatten, sort, and count to provide results
to the public.
There are also multiple deliveries of ballot types to the
elections office on election night. This comes from ballot
boxes across the county, vote centers, and United States Postal
Service. All of these added steps and processes revolve around
the signature verification process, which is largely done by
temporary workers and election employees inside of a single
county warehouse.
It is important to compare this to the original process,
where voters would sign next to their name in a precinct, it
would be verified and that voter crossed off the list from
their specific precinct and then a ballot would be issued.
Now, rather than just sorting ballots, the elections office
is single-handedly tasked with the entirety of verification,
sorting, and counting.
California also does not maintain clean voter rolls. In
many counties across the State, voters are tasked with updating
their own elections office on changes to their registration,
including if a relative dies or no longer lives in the State.
In many instances, households would receive ballots for
members of their family that were recently deceased or no
longer live there. While that is a massive security concern, it
also adds to the extremely high cost of administering
elections.
In virtually every elections office, you can ask to see
their undeliverable ballots, which usually surpass the
thousands. These ballots are ones that USPS could not verify an
address for, or were returned to the elections office for any
number of reasons. With the price of paper, printing, and
postage, you can imagine this amounts to a massive cost.
Complicated verification processes, ballots still being
received up to a week after election night, the ability of
voters to cure ballots 28 days after an election, and messy
voter rolls have led to one of the slowest and most costly
election processes in the Nation.
Prioritization of voter access has led to a lack of speed,
security, and a diminishing trust in California elections over
the last decade.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilbert follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF AUSTIN GILBERT
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Steil. Thank you very much.
Mr. Donald Palmer, Chairman of the Election Assistance
Commission, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. DONALD PALMER
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Chairman Steil, Ranking Member
Morelle, and Members of the Committee. I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you to address post-election
procedures.
At the EAC, we offer year-round help to election officials
to improve the administration of elections. This ensures that
eligible Americans can participate in a secure electoral
process and have confidence in the final results.
Prior to the 2024 election, I visited four of California's
largest election offices to discuss their challenges, meet
their senior staff, and thank them for their public service.
It should be noted that American elections are highly
decentralized, with different States prioritizing different
policies concerning ballot return, counting, and finalizing
results. Today, I hope to provide insight into why it takes
longer to count ballots in California than in many other
States.
In prior years, the California Legislature has made several
policy choices that have contributed to the extended curing and
ballot-counting timeline. I also note that California
legislators have recently proposed several measures that would
streamline the post-election process.
As an all-ballot-mail State, California gives voters 28
days after Election Day to cure signature discrepancies on mail
ballots. In contrast, for example, Arizona gives voters 5
business days. Colorado voters have 8 days to cure mail-in
ballots.
In addition to the extended cure period, under California
election law, ballots may be received up to 7 days after the
election. In contrast, 33 States require that mail ballots be
received by Election Day.
When provided the opportunity to drop a mail ballot off on
Election Day, voters inevitably do so, thus pushing the
necessary canvassing and verification of mail ballots deeper
into the precertification period.
With the omission or mismatch of signatures of mail-in
ballots, the curing period also extends the time of the final
tabulation results.
Individual State laws play a fundamental role in our
elections. Some of the factors involved in the different pace
in tabulating final certified results include the extent and
timing of absentee or mail ballots and early voting,
preprocessing opportunities; tabulation, reporting
requirements; resources and personnel available to election
officials; deadlines to return absentee or mail-in ballots to
voters; and curing or provisional ballot rules.
Before joining the EAC, I have served as the director of
elections in Florida from 2008 to 2011. In Florida, county
supervisors of election must finalize their results within 13
days following the election. During this time, election
officials offer voters a curing process, which includes
signature resolution and the opportunity to correct incomplete
ballot certificates.
The timeline in Florida offers a streamlined and efficient
vote tabulation process that balances the need for accuracy and
promptness. However, it took the State of Florida several years
in election cycles of trial and error to find the correct
procedures to maintain efficiency, report promptly, and
increase voter confidence.
As charged by the Help America Vote Act of 2002, the EAC
fulfills its role as a national clearinghouse for information
on election administration in many days. The EAC regularly
provides detailed best practices, templates and webinars
related to mail ballots, the canvassing process, post-election
activities, and ballot curing.
The EAC has highlighted jurisdictions using new technology
to allow voters to promptly cure ballots. These resources
promote consistency and legal compliance, ensuring that every
lawful vote is counted, and the electoral process is secure,
reliable, and timely.
In addition, the 2024 Election Administration Voting
Survey, or EAVS, will be delivered to Congress by June 30th. It
contains questions on State-ballot curing. This enhanced data
collection will better enable the EAC to show ballot-curing
trends across the United States and provide baselines to inform
future State laws and administrative improvements.
I would also like to touch on the role of the United States
Postal Service and ballot delivery and its failure to deliver
timely ballots. The EAC will continue to work with the USPS and
the States to build that relationship and to improve mail
balloting across the country.
Through adequate funding of the EAC, the Commission will
continue to provide crucial support and policy recommendations
to States and localities across the country.
Thank you for your continued investment in the EAC and your
unwavering commitment to election administrators, poll workers,
and our Nation's public servants. We look forward to
collaborating closely with you on these and other essential
matters.
I would be pleased to address any questions you may have.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Palmer follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DONALD PALMER
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Steil. Thank you very much, Chairman Palmer.
Ms. Nowatchik, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF REBECCA NOWATCHIK
Ms. Nowatchik. Good morning. Thank you for the invitation
to speak today, specifically on this topic of election
administration in California.
My name is Rebecca Nowatchik. I am the Director of External
Partnerships at Secure Families Initiative. We are a
nonpartisan organization that strengthens the voices of diverse
military families, as an active and influential constituency,
on issues that impact our lives.
We also lead the Military Vote Coalition, a nonpartisan
coalition of over 20 military family and veteran support
organizations united by our mission to protect the military
community's access to the ballot box.
SFI's military voter education programs have also been
recognized nationally and highlighted as a key information
source for Active-Duty families by the Department of Defense.
I am here today representing my community and SFI, but not
to advocate for any partisan outcome but to ensure that the
community we represent is at the table where our access to the
ballot box is being discussed. Personally, my firsthand
knowledge, both as a military spouse and also as the daughter
of a combat veteran, has led me to this work.
Military families represent America. Military families come
from rural areas, small and large towns and cities. They
include members from every ethnic group, religion, educational
background and sexual orientation. Nearly 50 percent of
servicemembers are Black, indigenous, or a person of color.
Over 50 percent are over--I am sorry. Over 50 percent are under
30 years old, and 92 percent of military spouses are women.
The military community is a network of families stationed
all over the world. Most Active Duty families move every 2 to 3
years. These moves can disrupt support networks, safety,
children's education and social lives, and limit career paths.
These moves also impact our ability to vote.
Routine mail delivery delays is a common challenge entirely
out of our hands when stationed far away from home. For
example, families stationed all the way in Japan have shared
experiences of mail taking 6 to 8 weeks. There are other
challenges that I have highlighted in my written testimony. It
should be no surprise that military voters are 27 percent less
likely to have voted than their civilian counterparts.
When a military voter tries to vote but is unsuccessful,
the most common reason is because their ballot arrives past the
deadline. The second most common reason comes when a military
voter's ballot gets rejected for something like a missing
signature or a date, and the voter is not notified and provided
the opportunity to cure the ballot by the deadline.
That is why we have long advocated for policies that would
tackle these top issues facing our community. Best practices
include, No. 1, enable ballots that are postmarked by Election
Day to arrive at least 7 days after Election Day to still be
counted; and two, ensure timely ballot rejection notification
and robust ballot-curing processes and opportunities for our
voters.
Both these policies are true for California, home to the
largest number of Active-Duty members in the United States and
also one of the largest uniformed and overseas citizen, or
UOCOVA, voting populations.
These policies may lead to longer wait times, true, for
election results; but more importantly, they go a long way to
protect military voters, who should have the same opportunity
as our civilian counterparts to be maximally deliberative about
our choices at the ballot box.
There are two proposed Federal policy changes currently in
motion: One, the SAVE Act, which this Chamber advanced earlier
this month; and the March 25th executive order regarding voter
registration requirements. Both take American elections in the
opposite direction where military voters need them to go.
For instance, one of the barriers the SAVE Act may impose
would require voters to bring passports or birth certificates
in person to their election office when they register. This
means military families would no longer be able to register
from that far-away duty station. If a person has changed their
last name since birth, for example, if you are like me and
changed my last name when I married my husband, using a birth
certificate might not be sufficient documentation on itself.
If implemented, the March 25th executive order would also
undermine the ability for military families to access the
ballot box. The order would mean that the military families
stationed halfway across the world from home who crossed every
T, who dotted every I when casting their ballot, their military
ID would no longer suffice, and mail delays outside of their
control could mean their ballot could no longer count.
In closing, I would like to remind the Committee that
voting carries a profound--profound--gravity for us. The right
to vote is a cornerstone of the democracy that we, as military
families, have committed to protect.
I urge this Committee as well as every other body in
Congress, do not abandon us. Do not abandon military families.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Nowatchik follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF REBECCA NOWATCHIK
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Steil. Thank you very much.
I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes for the purpose
of asking questions.
Out of the gate, without objection, I would like to insert
the written testimony of Cole Patterson, the data director for
the California Republican Party.
Without objection.
[The Cole Patterson letter follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Steil. Ms. Titus, I want to start with you, in
particular, kind of dialoguing the 7 days that ballots can be
received by California after Election Day. You would think they
would have to be postmarked, right? I mean, the idea is that it
is in the USPS system.
What is the check on that in California? Do they review for
postmark? What happens if it is not postmarked? Can you provide
some color to that?
Ms. Titus. They do, in fact, review for postmarks, and they
do reject mail ballots that either do not have a postmark or do
not have a date. California does not require that the voter
date their ballot when they sign it, but there is a space to do
so. If they are dated on or before Election Day but lack a
postmark then those would be counted.
Chairman Steil. Let us just dialog this the whole way
through, because when I was at L.A. Central Count I found this
really interesting, because I watched ballots arrive by mail
into the system 3 days after. As I noted, about 900,000 total
ballots were somewhere in the process of being counted, of
being validated, observed the signature verification. We will
come to that second.
Is your testimony that if USPS does not date the envelope,
and an individual then opens the ballot, the voter is not
required to date the ballot in California, under California
law, but if they do date the ballot, and they date it by
Election Day, it would still count. Is that accurate?
Ms. Titus. Yes.
Chairman Steil. The real check is not that it was in. It is
a trust system that the individual who dated the ballot dated
it on the correct day, right?
Ms. Titus. Correct.
Chairman Steil. If somebody dated it by Election Day, USPS
did not stamp that with a postal date stamp, it would count?
Ms. Titus. Yes.
Chairman Steil. USPS does not date 100 percent of their
mail.
Ms. Titus. Correct.
Chairman Steil. It sounds like a problem. The way to fix
this, of course, would just be to require that it is collected
and in by Election Day. I went to high school. I think a lot of
us did. When a paper was due, when did we write the paper? When
it was due. If you just say it has to be in by Election Day, it
shifts that.
Chairman Palmer, you noted 33 States require that ballots
be in by Election Day. I am assuming that means 17 plus maybe
the District of Columbia allow them to come in after Election
Day. Is that accurate?
Mr. Palmer. Yes, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Steil. Is there a significant correlation with
voter participation if it needs to be in by Election Day or
after Election Day?
Mr. Palmer. I do not think there is a direct correlation.
Chairman Steil. People are going to do it by the deadline,
right? If you say, you got to have it postmarked, you got to
have it in by Election Day, you get a ton of people that drop
in the box by Election Day.
If you say it has got to be received by Election Day, a lot
of people drop it in sufficiently in advance, or drop it in in
person so that at least the physical ballots are all in by a
specific deadline, right?
Mr. Palmer. I agree, sir.
Chairman Steil. I will come back to you, Ms. Titus.
California runs a system also where every registered voter
receives a ballot. Regardless of whether or not they request
it, it is automatically sent. Is that accurate?
Ms. Titus. Yes.
Chairman Steil. When that goes out, obviously, not 100
percent of the people that receive a ballot participate in the
election, but a large percentage, I think it was about 70 or so
percent in the State of California. For the purpose of calling
an election, not only do you need to know the numerator, how
many ballots come in--and they can come in up to 7 days after
the election--but you also need to know the denominator, which
is how many total people are voting when you are--I apologize,
the denominator in the context of what percent you would need
to be able to win an election.
For 7 days, everybody in California is reasonably blind as
to the total number of ballots cast in an election. Is that
accurate?
Ms. Titus. Yes.
Chairman Steil. That makes it really hard to call a race,
to know who won an election, right?
Ms. Titus. Yes.
Chairman Steil. That challenge I think is a real and
substantive challenge.
I want to end with the signature comparison. When I walked
through L.A. Central Count, it was burned into my mind,
watching this woman do the signature verification.
What standard, or what training are the workers given who
are engaged in the signature verification in California?
Ms. Titus. There is no standardized training.
Chairman Steil. There is no training?
Ms. Titus. There is no standardized training.
Chairman Steil. OK.
Ms. Titus. Some counties have more rigorous training. Some
counties have very little.
What I have also seen is the comparison process is often
occurring on a computer screen, and they may be comparing four
different voter ballots at the same time. They will have the
scans of the outside of envelopes of four----
Chairman Steil. The standard with which--so the training
varies.
Ms. Titus. The training varies.
Chairman Steil. The woman that I met said she had almost no
training.
Ms. Titus. There are about 17 criteria that are supposed to
apply when----
Chairman Steil. The standard that they have to meet is
beyond a reasonable doubt?
Ms. Titus. Correct.
Chairman Steil. It is a pretty high standard.
Ms. Titus. Yes.
Chairman Steil. Especially in a situation where these live
ballots are mailed to every registered voter. I think we have
identified some of the challenges we see in California. I
appreciate our witnesses here.
Cognizant of the time, I will now recognize the Ranking
Member for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Morelle. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would just like to ask the witnesses, can you raise your
hand if you have information or knowledge that demonstrates
that California election officials wrongly certified a winner
in this year's California congressional elections?
OK. The record should reflect that none of the witnesses
raised their hand.
I do want to ask Ms. Nowatchik--I am sorry if I am probably
killing your last name. I apologize. If it were easy like
Morelle, I would get it.
Your testimony discusses how vitally important it is to our
democracy, the right to vote, particularly for military and
overseas voters.
To your knowledge, the voter access and election
administration policies in place in States like California and
I will say in my State of New York, which also allows ballots
postmarked to be counted up to a week after Election Day, do
these policies enhance the ability of military and overseas
voters to cast a free, fair, and secure ballot?
Ms. Nowatchik. Yes. Our position is we need to take in
account the experiences that our families are experiencing. For
those stationed overseas, or even in the continental United
States, when trying to access the polls, we will experience
mail delays. Any policy that takes that into account, like the
State of California being able to count ballots 7 days after
the election, makes it easier for our community to participate,
absolutely.
Mr. Morelle. You mentioned in your testimony--and I do not
know this. I do not have this experience. I think you indicated
a number of days typically that mail delays can occur. Let me
just--I thought there was a number in here.
Can you just tell me a little bit? You have had this
experience of the amount of time that it takes just for U.S.
mail to get back and forth from where you happen to be.
Obviously, it depends on where you are. If you are in the
Pacific, can you talk a little bit about those delays which you
experienced?
Ms. Nowatchik. Sure. Priority mail for international for
USPS is about 6 to 10 days. Others average about 7 to 14 days.
From our position, you know, 2 weeks is very friendly to the
military voter, but we recommend 7 days is the gold standard.
Mr. Morelle. The process is, if you are on a base, can you
just talk about that? I actually do not know how--or if--let me
say this: This if you are on an aircraft carrier in the middle
of the Pacific, how do you get--mail gets delivered?
Ms. Nowatchik. Well, I personally have never been on an
aircraft carrier in the middle of the Pacific.
Mr. Morelle. Well, someone in your organization probably
has.
Ms. Nowatchik. Yes, we do have Members with that
experience. I can share when it does not go well. We have a
member who was stationed, because we do have people who are
stationed, families who are stationed on installations that are
not U.S. military installations.
In military installations connected to the United States,
we have access to our mail system. For example, we have one
member who was stationed on a Canadian military installation;
so, therefore, she did not have access to U.S. mail and
actually ended up having to pay a private courier to then
courier her ballot back to make the deadline. Extremely
expensive. We know the majority in our community do not have
those financial resources to do that.
I share the story for two reasons: One, to, you know, hit
home really what the mail delay situation and those barriers
can be for us, but also really to express how many people in
our community desperately want to participate in this process
and are really looking for policymakers to make it as
accessible as possible for us to do so.
Mr. Morelle. Thank you for that answer.
I guess you are right. You are a spouse of, so that makes
sense. It is Tuesday. I apologize. I am not really fully
functioning yet.
The other thing that you mentioned, which I had not really
given thought to, but I guess makes a great deal of sense, that
you may be on a military base but you may be in a host country
and you have to make that connection somehow. I appreciate your
comments about that.
I would say this--and I appreciate all the witnesses and
your perspective. Just, from my perspective, getting this right
is more important than getting it fast. Like I said in my
opening statement, I am certainly willing to look at--and
obviously with the Election Assistance Commission, we could all
look at ways to improve this and make this faster for everyone
to some degree.
We also want to respect the notion that California and
other States want to get it right. They want to afford every
single voter in their State the opportunity to vote. Look, this
should not be a ``gotcha.'' I mean, the right to vote should be
inalienable. It is, you know, according to our Founders,
inalienable rights that we have.
The fact that California takes time to get it right--and I
suspect from the fact that there were no contested elections
that they actually did get it right. I do not want to value
speed over doing this properly and getting it right.
I thank the witnesses for being here.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Chairman Steil. The gentleman yields back.
The Representative from Oklahoma, Mrs. Bice, is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Bice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the
witnesses for being here today.
First, let me say that I represent the great State of
Oklahoma. Prior to being elected to Congress, I was in the
State Senate, where I oversaw the State Election Commission.
Shout-out to Paul Ziriax, Secretary of the Election Board
there.
Oklahoma, I think, is doing elections right. We have voter
ID laws in place, and have had them, based on a State question
that was put forward to the voters a couple of decades ago.
That ensures a couple of things: One, that the election is
verified and there is integrity in that process and also speed.
My colleague, the Ranking Member, just talked about speed.
I have now participated in several elections in the State
legislature and now as a Member of Congress, and I know on
election night whether or not I am going to serve in that
capacity.
I think it is unbelievable to hear that it takes a month
for the State of California to be able to certify these
elections. That, in itself, provides uncertainty in the
process. I think that is what is really problematic here.
I want to mention earlier the comments that the Ranking
Member made in regards to the VOTES Act. No matter a
servicemember's status and no matter if you are in the service
or not, each State has procedures for all eligible overseas
Americans to vote, and those options always require or include
mail.
Let me be clear. If there are examples of overseas voters
being denied by a State, we want to hear about that, because we
certainly want to make sure that we are addressing that issue.
It is important to every Member on this Committee.
Let me start, if I may, Ms. Titus, almost 2 million more
ballots were cast in California's Presidential election in 2020
than in 2024. Do you believe the larger turnout in California
was due to ballot harvesting efforts?
Ms. Titus. I am not sure that the turnout in 2020 being
higher than 2024 was the cause of ballot harvesting. I think
every cycle, the political parties tend to be the drivers of
ballot harvesting. They tend to be the ones that are training
the campaigns how to do it, because the campaigns sort of
change every 2 years.
The parties are kind of the keepers of the procedures for
how to execute ballot harvesting. I tend to think that they get
better at it year after year. I am not sure that turnout going
down over a 4-year period is caused by ballot harvesting.
Mrs. Bice. I think it is worth noting, though, that in 2020
there were 2.39 million more mail-in votes than in 2024. That
is a huge number.
I want to pivot for a second, too, to the curing
conversation. Being from Oklahoma, I did not know what that
was. I had no idea what curing actually meant. Again, I think
that just brings some uncertainty to the process.
I want to pivot slightly. You mentioned the signature
verification process. Raise of hands here, how many of you use
the exact same signature every time or have the exact same
signature today that you did a decade ago? Raise your hand. You
are the only one, my friend.
My point being I do not understand why we are using
signature verification for this process. I think it provides
the ability for inaccuracies across the board. I understand
that you are taking information from all these different public
records to be able to verify those signatures, but I think that
in itself is problematic. I do not understand why we would not
do a voter ID type of process.
The other thing that has been mentioned is that we are
allowing for this lengthy process of being able to deliver
ballots after Election Day. Again, I think that breeds
uncertainty. We want people to have confidence in our
elections. That means timely information. That means a quick
turnaround on counting those ballots.
For me, I also think that California should consider
actually moving some of these dates up. Why are we not allowing
more in-person voting, early in-person voting? It was mentioned
there was 1 day, Saturday, that you can in-person vote. Why not
tell people, your ballot needs to be in by Election Day and, by
the way, we are going to have additional in-person voting days
to be able to allow for that?
Mr. Gilbert, you mentioned California's maintenance or,
rather, mis-maintenance of voting rolls and recommended actions
to improve them. How many signatures do we think that
California has on file for verification, and how old are they?
Mr. Gilbert. Typically, every voter has about four to five
signatures on file. Every time you change something at the DMV
or you submit another voter registration when you move, those
would be updated and added permanently to your voter file.
Mrs. Bice. I think this sort of proves my point, that your
signature may change over time, and certainly, that
verification process I think becomes much more complicated. As
a State that does not do signature verification and believes
that we do elections right, I would like to see that changed.
With that, Mr. Chair, I yield.
Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back.
Representative Sewell is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Sewell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to welcome all of our witnesses and thank you for
your testimony today.
I am a daughter of Selma, Alabama. I grew up there and I
have the honor and privilege of representing them in Congress.
There is nothing more important and sacred than the right to
vote, in my opinion. Protecting that right I think is something
that is clearly within our purview here on this Committee.
I am a little bit puzzled by our hearing today. I mean, the
first premise that is being made is that somehow giving
everyone a ballot who is eligible is somehow flawed. You know,
I think that we, as elected officials, should be in the
business of making it easier for people to vote, not harder for
people to vote.
I represent Alabama, and Alabama has same-day voting only.
We do not have early voting. Our absentee ballot process has
been restricted. You cannot even help your elderly grandmother
without thinking--without--helping her to vote, who has, you
know, an elderly grandmother who has a stroke, a stroke victim.
You cannot help them prepare their ballot because for fear of a
felony being committed. That is the most recent charge that
Alabama has.
You know, California is one of the largest States in the
Union, and they have a lot of folks. They provide eligible
voters their vote by mail.
I do not think that there is something inherently wrong
with sending ballots out to every eligible voter. In fact, I
would venture to guess that California does have a better
return rate and participation rate than States like Alabama
that make it harder for folks to vote.
The second reason why we are here today is because somehow
getting the results that same night is so critically important.
It is more important than making sure that our overseas
military personnel, who are eligible voters, get their ballots
back in a timely fashion.
I am not sure what timely is, but I can tell you same-day
results does not make it any less prone to fraud or any more
prone to fraud. Rather, it allows eligible voters time,
especially those that are overseas, an opportunity to cast
their ballot.
I would venture to guess, Mr. Chairman, that it is more
important that we protect that sacred right to vote than to get
some result in that same night.
For me, I think that I have been encouraging folks in the
State of Alabama to do early voting and to make it easier for
folks to vote, not harder for folks to vote. I am not really
sure why my colleagues do not think that that is right,
especially when the Brennan Center says that there is a .05
percent of fraud that occurs during elections, not a rampant
fraud from everyone.
I would like to ask you, Mr. Palmer, as one of the
directors, one of the commissioners for the Federal Election
Commission, are there best practices that are recommended when
it comes to military personnel voting or absentee balloting? Is
there sort of one way to do that?
I also would like--I guess the first question that I have
for you is, is it a right for American citizens to have the
right to vote when they turn 18, is not that a right that every
American citizen has, and if so, why is it that so many States
like States like Alabama make it harder for folks to vote
rather than easier for folks to vote?
Mr. Palmer. Thank you. The EAC's clearinghouse function
sort of takes best practices from across the country, and we
share them with each other so States can see how things are
working across the country.
Our EAVS survey is something that our election officials
across the country can also view and compare it to other States
and similar counties.
I agree with you that, you know, coming of age at 18 and
being able to register to vote and vote, you know, talking
about the opportunities may include in person, you know, in-
person, absentee. It may include in-person early voting,
overseas voting.
Ms. Sewell. I am running out of time. There is no sort of
standardized practice that is recommended by the Commission?
Mr. Palmer. No. I think we take a best practices look, and
also the use of technology to make our elections more
efficient.
Ms. Sewell. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to just go on
record as saying that the right to vote is a sacred right. It
is not a privilege for the few.
Somehow my colleagues on the other side of the aisle think
that somehow it is a privilege. It is a birthright of every
American citizen to be able to vote, and we should be in the
business of making it easier to vote, not harder to vote.
I would like to put into the record unanimous consent to
enter into the record two items: A letter we sent to you, Mr.
Chairman, requesting that the majority be allowed to have a
testify by remote access; and second, a January 2025 Orange
County grand jury report of the November 2024 election which
made three findings that there was no evidence of fraud in
California.
Chairman Steil. Without objection.
[The letter and grand jury report referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Sewell. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Steil. The Representative yields back.
The Representative from Illinois, Mrs. Miller, is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Chairman.
Chairman Palmer, you previously served as a Florida
director of elections and the Commonwealth of Virginia's chief
election official.
What is the starkest contrast between how those States
collect their ballots and California?
Mr. Palmer. Well, I think the starkest difference or the
contrast is sort of the results of early voting and Election
Day, plus preprocessed absentees are all those are ready to go
on election night.
The mail ballot model and ballot-box issue allows those
ballots to be returned either by the mail on Election Day,
which will then take 7 to 10 days into the certification
period, or a ballot box, which then those ballots still need to
be processed.
You already have the results when you are voting in person
or early voting or preprocess absentee with some deadline.
Those ballots are ready to go and those results will be ready
to go on election night.
If you are waiting to receive mail ballots, you then have
to go through the process of signature comparison, processing
those ballots, a cure period. That is why it takes so long and
the mail ballot model takes longer.
Large populations and large counties, you are going to have
a large number of issues in getting those ballots tabulated and
the results out. It just pushes--it pushes the results later
into the period. I hope that helps.
Mrs. Miller. Yes. What would you say then are procedures or
model legislation California should adopt from States that you
previously served?
Mr. Palmer. I believe the preprocessing of absentee or mail
ballots is important, early voting that allows the tabulation
of the ballot onsite, and then Election Day, helping on
Election Day.
You give options to voters. I also think that there should
be a deadline for absentee or mail ballots prior to Election
Day, and then they should be returned by Election Day. That
allows voters to know that if they do not have the option to
return the ballot by mail or absentee that they can still vote
in person. That allows the system to work.
We are relying too much on the USPS. The USPS is having
major issues. They continue to extend their service dates, and
that has a direct impact on elections and voters. You will find
in a lot of mail ballot States that voters do no longer trust
the United States Postal Service to get their ballots in on
time. They are going to return it in person, or a ballot box.
Again, when you return a ballot by ballot box, it still has
got to go through that entire process of processing as if it
was a mail ballot. I think that those are some of my
recommendations for a State trying to make their process more
efficient on the front end.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you.
Mr. Gilbert, can you please expand on how the Voter's
Choice Act has complicated ballot counting for election workers
by allowing numerous different ballots to be submitted in one
voting location?
Mr. Gilbert. When previously you would just go into your
precinct and vote, now a vote center has to supply any given
ballot to any voter. For instance, if you live in my area, if
you live in Coalinga and you are in Fresno to work and you are
at the Fresno vote center, they have to provide your ballot for
the city of Coalinga, when typically you would have to be
nearer to your home.
Now that vote center is in charge of sorting that ballot,
which is nothing like the Fresno city ballots around it, and
also they have to be able to provide conditional voter
registrations.
If you have not registered to vote and you would like to
vote, you also can register that same day and vote, and those
are extremely time-consuming.
Mrs. Miller. Are there other election processes that have
become more burdensome due to the Voter's Choice Act?
Mr. Gilbert. I would say that the No. 1 thing we have seen
ever since they started mailing ballots to everyone is
California still does mail to P.O. boxes as well, not just
physical addresses.
If you go into any United States Postal Service toward the
P.O. boxes about 30 days before the election, you can find
about a couple hundred ballots in the trash can. I think that
is a security concern and one of the things we have seen since
the change in procedure.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you. I yield back, Chairman.
Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back.
The gentlewoman from California, Representative Torres, is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Torres. Thank you. Let me just start by saying that,
as the only Californian on this Committee, I am outraged. I am
simply outraged at the continued attacks from this Committee
against my home State, Chairman. How dare this Committee attack
the duly elected members of the State legislature who were
elected by Californians to represent them.
The fact is, California is doing just fine without your
input. Let us look at the facts. California is the fourth
largest economy in the world. We sent $692 billion to the
Federal Government, and we get $83 billion less in return.
Meanwhile, Florida gets $41 billion more, Ohio gets $49 billion
more, Texas gets $71 billion more. Do us a favor, and when your
State rises to the level of California, then let us talk about
fixing California.
Let us now talk about elections. Last year, the Chairman
and other Republicans, without giving Democrats on this
Committee a heads-up, went to Los Angeles, wasting taxpayers'
dollars and time to look for problems. Guess what? They found
zero, zero problems.
They visited the largest ballot processing center in the
Nation, responsible for nearly 6 million registered voters.
That is bigger than 28 States in the Nation. Not a single
Committee, not a single Republican or political observer
contested the outcome of any House race, or provided any
evidence that California suffered from fraud or any other
issues. Why is that? Hmm?
Because California, Members, our election infrastructure is
sound. We invest in a secured system, rigorous training and
transparency at every level. California has worked hard to
ensure that every eligible American voter can cast their vote.
As frustrating as it may be to you and to other people,
including myself at times, our fantastic State and local
election workers make sure that our elections happen and that
they are safe.
As a mother of a veteran and a police officer, I know
voters might serve far from their home, or they might be a
first responder that has to work on Election Day. Voters cannot
always take a day off. They might have mobility issues. This is
why California established voting by mail; to make it so that
every eligible Californian can have their voice heard.
California's promise to our voters, whether we like how they
vote or not, your voice as a voter is heard.
Normally, I would welcome a discussion on improving
election operations, but these are not normal times. You see,
President Trump and his cronies, like Elon Musk, do not care
about the rule of law or the Constitution. They are destroying
the economy, attacking, and arresting judges and recently
deported three American citizens' children, including a 2-year-
old toddler and a 4-year-old with stage 4 cancer, a rare
cancer.
If President Trump and his administration do not care about
due process for a child with cancer, how can you honestly sit
here and debate and believe that they believe in the
Constitution or a free and fair election? Hogwash. They ignore
judges when decisions do not go their way. They deny election
results when they do not win.
Let us be honest, Chairman, their actions on elections has
one goal: to sow distrust in our election system, to suppress
the vote, and to make it harder for Americans to participate in
our democracy. Not your democracy, our democracy.
Do you know what makes people question our elections? It is
not California elections. It is President Trump, Elon Musk, and
the Republican Party pushing lies and refusing to follow the
law. Meanwhile, Trump's voting order and the Republican SAVE
Act will create huge burdens of every American.
You have allowed other Members to go beyond their time, but
you do not like what I am saying, so you are trying to shut me
down.
The SAVE Act is nothing but a bill to try to cancel the
vote of people that do not want to vote for you.
I yield back.
Chairman Steil. The gentlewoman yields back.
All Members are reminded to refrain from the use of
personalities directed at Members of Congress, the President,
or the Vice President.
All Members having used their time for questions, I would
like to thank our witnesses for appearing before us today.
Members of the Committee may have some additional questions for
you, and we ask you to please respond to those questions in
writing.
Without objection, each Member will have 5 legislative days
to insert additional material into the record, or to revise and
extend their remarks.
If there is no further business, I want to thank the
Members for their participation.
Without objection, the Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:36 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]