Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections Vca Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Orange County Board to reconsider Voter’s Choice Act, study San Bernardino hybrid election model
Summary
More than a dozen residents urged the Board of Supervisors to direct the Registrar of Voters to study alternative election models—pointing to San Bernardino County’s hybrid system—and urged against renewing the Voter’s Choice Act, citing alleged higher costs and reduced neighborhood voting locations.
Dozens of residents used the Orange County Board of Supervisors’ public comment period to urge the Board to reconsider the county’s participation in the Voter’s Choice Act (VCA) and to direct the Registrar of Voters to analyze alternative models, including a hybrid approach used in San Bernardino County.
Multiple speakers argued the VCA has increased local election costs and reduced neighborhood voting locations. Carolyn of Santa Ana called the policy “an abject failure,” saying the program eliminated many neighborhood polling places and alleging problems with drop-box monitoring and chain of custody. "Voter's Choice Act has been an abject failure," she said.
Several speakers urged the Board to request an options analysis from Registrar of Voters Bob Page comparing the VCA to a hybrid model that blends precinct voting with early voting locations on peak days. A recurring suggestion was that San Bernardino County’s model—offering vote-by-mail, monitored drop boxes and strategically placed early voting sites—could be adapted for Orange County to cut costs while maintaining access and complying with state laws such as AB 37 and AB 1249 (as cited verbally by speakers).
Speakers offered specific claims and figures: several said the county’s election costs have risen by about $5 million per election since VCA implementation; others asserted neighborhood voting sites dropped from more than 1,100 to roughly 181 (and in some recent special elections to as few as 62). A retired CFO who observed ROV processes described them as “inefficient, highly labor intensive, and costly,” and urged improved internal controls and a review of processing practices.
Speakers also asked for practical changes such as 24-hour camera monitoring of drop boxes (citing AB 37) and better voter-roll maintenance. Multiple commenters asked the Board to solicit public participation and an independent, transparent study before any decision about renewing the county’s VCA participation in 2025.
Board response and next steps: The Chair thanked speakers, the clerk closed public comment, and the Board adjourned; the transcript records the next meeting scheduled for Oct. 28. The Board did not take a vote or announce a directive on the VCA during this meeting.
What remains unresolved: Speakers presented a mix of empirical claims (cost and site counts) and allegations about process flaws; the Board did not commission or announce a formal analysis during the session.
