Board approves Tulare County response to grand jury 'election integrity' report; staff to publish fact sheet by January 2026

The Tulare County Board of Supervisors voted July 15 to approve the county’s draft response to the 2024–25 Tulare County Civil Grand Jury report titled “election integrity,” directing the response to the presiding judge within the 90-day timeframe.

Israel Sotelo, the board’s chief of staff, read the county’s draft replies into the record. The grand jury report contained four findings and three recommendations. County staff told the board it agreed with findings that the Secretary of State and the Tulare County Registrar of Voters provide substantial oversight and that existing checks and balances minimize the chance of large-scale fraud. Staff also agreed that further public information and volunteer recruitment would be beneficial.

On the grand jury’s fourth finding — that personal-identification requirements (residency addresses, email and phone number requirements) serve as a strong safeguard against fraudulent registrations — county staff said they partially disagreed. Sotelo cited federal and state registration rules noted in the draft: “Title 52 of the United States Code section 21038 and California Elections Code section 2150” (as read into the record) require first-time registrants to provide a valid driver’s license or state identification number, or the last four digits of a Social Security number; if none are available the state assigns a unique identifier. Sotelo’s presentation clarified that email and phone information are optional and that these optional fields add little value to preventing fraudulent registrations.

On recommendations, the county agreed to implement a fact sheet to inform voters and dispel common misconceptions, with a target implementation date of January 2026 ahead of the primary and general elections. The board’s response said the Registrar of Voters had already implemented a volunteer recruitment campaign and regular outreach (job fairs, senior events, flyers in public venues, outreach to employers such as Target and Kohl’s) and therefore marked Recommendation 2 as implemented. The county declined to adopt Recommendation 3 (distributing information via monthly utility bills and regular presentations to churches), citing cost and limited benefit and noting existing outreach practices could accomplish the aims.

Supervisor Eddie Valero moved to approve the draft response; Supervisor Dennis Townsend seconded. The motion passed unanimously, 4-0, with Supervisor Larry McCarrie absent. Sotelo said the formal response will be transmitted to the presiding judge, the Hon. Nathan Eid, within the required period.