Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections Doctrine topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board rejects motion to turn unredacted voter records over to DOJ after hours-long debate
Summary
The Orange County Board of Supervisors declined a motion to direct the Registrar of Voters to provide unredacted records for 17 registrants to the U.S. Department of Justice. Supervisors and county counsel sparred over state confidentiality law, federal authority and potential protective orders.
The Orange County Board of Supervisors on Aug. 26 voted down a motion to direct the Registrar of Voters to hand unredacted registration records for 17 individuals to the U.S. Department of Justice, after prolonged public comment and two hours of debate.
The motion, moved by Supervisor Wagner and seconded by Supervisor Wynne, sought to produce the files in full to DOJ as part of ongoing litigation that the Board heard is “at issue.” County Counsel explained the case is narrow — the DOJ has asked for registration records for 17 named individuals — and that the Registrar had already provided redacted files but refused to produce unique identifiers and signatures that state law treats as confidential. Registrar Bob Page told the Board his office had offered to provide the information under a protective order or confidentiality agreement but that DOJ had not accepted those conditions.
Supporters of turning over the files said the federal government’s authority — and the chance to help the county clean voter rolls — outweighed the Registrar’s concerns. Supervisor Wagner said the county should not spend money litigating with DOJ and called for cooperation to “clean the rolls.” He argued that the requested records are a small set of files and that disclosure under protective conditions would allow federal review without public release.
Opponents raised legal and privacy risks. Vice Chair Katrina Foley and Chair Doug Chaffee cited California and federal statutes that designate driver’s license numbers, Social Security numbers and signatures as confidential and said a court order is the proper mechanism for disclosure. County Counsel and the Registrar warned that unprotected release of sensitive identifiers could expose the county to liability if misuse followed, and noted the Registrar lacked unilateral authority to override state confidentiality provisions.
District Attorney Todd Spitzer said his office prosecutes voter-fraud referrals forwarded by the Registrar but emphasized that his office investigates cases it receives; he also explained how local confidentiality agreements with the district attorney’s office enable investigations while protecting privacy. Registrar Page said his office regularly removes ineligible voters, citing about 176,000 inactive voter cancellations after the last general election, and said the 17 individuals at issue already were removed from the rolls.
After roll-call, the vote failed: Wagner — yes; Wynne — yes; Sarmiento — no; Chaffee (chair) — no; Foley — no. The motion did not carry, and the Board did not direct the Registrar to produce unredacted records. No further action was taken on the motion at the meeting.
The Board additionally asked staff to supply a memo describing Registrar procedures for voter-file maintenance and monthly/annual review practices. County counsel indicated the dispute could be resolved if DOJ agreed to a stipulated protective order; otherwise the parties will await the court’s decision on any production order.
