Public commenters urge supervisors to reconsider voter registration changes, cite state law and costs

Public speakers at the June 3 Kern County Board of Supervisors meeting urged the board to reconsider measures the board previously advanced that would create an appointed registrar of voters and require proof-of-citizenship checks for registration.

The appeals came during the public comment period. Thomas Johnson, who identified himself as a teacher in the Kern High School District, told the board that “state law preempts local governments from enforcing citizenship verification requirements,” and said “SB 1174 explicitly prohibits local voter ID measures.” He urged the board to refer the measures “to the current legislative program committee” to allow broader stakeholder input.

Other residents raised legal, logistical and equity concerns. Thomas Watenville, who said he lives in District 1, asked the board for “research and some budget numbers” and warned re-registering voters would be “a massive undertaking, both labor wise and financial.” Carter Beardsley, a recent Centennial High School graduate who said he sits in Supervisor Peters’ district, urged the board not to institute steps that would make voting “even harder” for young people and said Kern’s current election system appeared secure based on a recent presentation by the county auditor-controller.

Roseanne Watenville, who also said she lives in District 1, told the board it is illegal in California “to ask for a proof of citizenship,” raised questions about how name changes (for example, a newly married woman taking a spouse’s name) would be handled for ID matching, and asked how the county would pay to re-register “4 to 500,000” voters, a figure she said she had heard but did not document. She also cited a local example in Greenfield where ballots were sent to incorrect districts and said mis-assigned ballots may be a larger concern than proof-of-citizenship requirements.

Janine Adams, a frequent meeting attendee who identified herself by name, criticized the board’s recent actions on the topic and said Chairman Perez was “the only dissenter” when the board advanced related items; she also tied the board’s priorities to other community concerns raised by local advocates. That characterization was presented as a constituent’s view and was attributed to Adams during public comment.

A member of the board (chairing the afternoon session) responded during the meeting, saying he did not expect any immediate change to how local elections are conducted. The speaker said the recent action was to support letters for existing legislation and that implementation of any changes would be contingent on state legislative action; he also said the county’s elections division had not opposed the streamlining ideas discussed. The speaker added, “I do not believe anything is going to happen in Kern County as a result of that (that) is going to harm elections.”

No formal board action to change voter-registration practices or to implement proof-of-citizenship checks occurred during the June 3 afternoon session. The public comments summarized legal limits, potential costs and equity concerns and asked the board either to withdraw its support or to refer the measures for broader review before any implementation steps.

Clarifying details recorded during public comment included a speaker’s report of “3,000 calls” to report illegal fireworks on July 4 (raised in a different public comment), a claim that only “24 citations” resulted from that period, and an estimate offered by a speaker that Kern has “4 to 500,000 voters” (the speaker did not provide documentary backing for that estimate). A speaker also cited “SB 1174” by number when describing state preemption of local voter-ID measures; that citation was made in public comment and reported here as stated.