Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections Local Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Kern County supervisors to seek more local control of elections and cite voter‑roll concerns
Summary
Multiple public speakers asked the Board of Supervisors to pursue local control of elections, raised concerns about voter rolls and mail ballots, and requested tours of the county elections office. Board staff said tours are being scheduled; no formal board action was recorded.
Several residents used the March 25 public‑comment period to urge Kern County supervisors to pursue greater local control of elections, press for voter ID and to request transparency through tours of the county elections division. No formal board action was taken; staff said scheduling for office tours is underway.
Charles Shinn, introduced himself as a retired Marine and concerned citizen and addressed proposed state legislation (SB 858) that would expand authorization for facsimile and electronic signatures. Shinn read from the bill text and said the measure “would authorize the board in addition to authorizing a facsimile signature to authorize the use of an electronic signature of the chairperson.” He cautioned about delegating signature authority.
Other public speakers raised claims and concerns about voter rolls and mail ballots. Glenn Clayton described voting practices in France as an example and urged Kern County to retain local responsibility for election administration. Jess Sanders said “we've 64,328… removed from our rolls,” attributing a large inactive‑voter purge and urged local control of voter lists currently maintained at the state level. Dennis McLean and others said publicly available voter registration records they examined were incomplete and urged the board to seek local control of elections and best practices for voter‑roll maintenance.
Ron Barger asked whether the board had sent a letter in support of San Joaquin County’s request to the governor for voter ID requirements and elimination of same‑day registration; he said concerned citizens would return if no action had been taken.
Pamela Reese asked the board to schedule a tour of the county elections division while no major election is pending; county staff present said the office and county teams are coordinating and that dates are being scheduled.
The nut graf: speakers urged a mix of statutory and administrative changes — from resisting broader electronic signature authority to seeking local control of voter rolls, voter ID and office transparency — and asked supervisors for follow-up; the board did not take formal action during the meeting but staff indicated tours are being arranged.
No votes were recorded on the requests. The meeting record shows county staff and the clerk acknowledged the requests and said arrangements for facility tours are in progress.
