Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Elections topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Several public commenters urge investigation into recent elections and raise concerns about ROV processes

2151412 · January 14, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Multiple residents used the Jan. 14 public-comment period to raise concerns about local elections, ballot counts, and the county Registrar of Voters. Commenters requested investigations, pointed to ballot-release paperwork and turnout discrepancies, and asked the board to ensure transparent elections.

During the Jan. 14 public-comment period, multiple residents raised questions about the integrity and administration of recent elections and asked the Board of Supervisors to investigate the Registrar of Voters’ procedures and vote-by-mail handling.

Several speakers referenced paperwork and voting statistics they said merit further review. One commenter provided copies of Runbeck ballot-mailing documents and two separate “request for ballot card release” forms submitted to the California Secretary of State; another speaker said the March 2024 mailing list showed more ballots mailed than registered voters and asked the board to request an accounting. Additional speakers cited misfeed and error-rate concerns on ballot-processing equipment and urged the county to ensure compliance with state voting-system error thresholds.

Speakers requested the board reconstitute or continue the county’s election commission, call for a formal review of Registrar of Voters practices, and replace or audit staff they described as responsible for apparent discrepancies. Commenters urged non‑partisan, transparent steps and urged the board to consider suspending or investigating officials if irregularities are confirmed.

Board members did not schedule immediate action during the meeting; a number of speakers asked for an ongoing election-commission role and additional oversight. County counsel has previously advised the board’s legal jurisdiction on election administration is limited and some speakers were reminded by other commenters that election code issues may fall to state agencies rather than the board.

No formal board action or vote on these comments occurred on Jan. 14.