Multiple speakers urge Kern County to support election-integrity measures and question voting system reliability

A series of public presenters at the June 3 Kern County Board of Supervisors meeting urged the board to support election-integrity legislation and raised concerns about voting equipment certification and local election costs.

Speakers and their points: Glenn Clayton, representing a group identified as Concerned Citizens, commended the board’s earlier action to support federal legislation referenced in his remarks (he cited identifiers including “HR 22,” “S 128,” and “HR 2499” as reported in his remarks) and said the board’s amended legislative platform now includes language to “support comprehensive election integrity measures that enhance the accuracy, the security, the accessibility of the voter registration and candidate qualification process.”

Charles Shinn called attention to a Daily Caller report about the Department of Homeland Security and USCIS updates to systematic alien verification (SAVE) and said state and local officials will be able to input Social Security numbers for verification; he urged vigilance around verification processes. Ron Barger, speaking as a concerned citizen, warned that recent federal directives and an executive order on election integrity could make many current electronic voting systems noncompliant and said officials should prepare for “paper battle” elections in 2026. Barger asserted barcode-tabulated systems and some existing tabulators “will not be permitted” under new federal standards, and he said vendors had not released systems meeting combined federal criteria.

Local election costs and administration: Dennis McLean provided an election cost-and-turnout chart from the Fresno County elections department and urged more transparency and review of local election spending; he praised the board’s decision to split the Office of Auditor-Registrar of Voters and supported proof-of-citizenship requirements. Jess Sanders thanked the board for voting no on legislation she identified as “SB 1240 or S 40” and urged reconsideration of any new contract with Dominion, which she and other speakers described as a major election cost.

Board response and context: The board did not take further legal or policy action on these comments during the morning session; multiple public speakers noted prior board actions taken at an earlier meeting (May 20) and urged continued attention. No county staff policy proposals, contract awards, or formal ordinances were adopted in response on the record during the session.

Notes on sourcing and claims: The speakers cited federal bills, an executive order, and media reporting; those identifiers were quoted as presented by the speakers. The transcript records the speakers’ statements but does not provide additional documentary evidence in the morning session record; where speakers named bills or federal actions, the article reports the names and claims as attributed to those speakers.