Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Riverside County supervisors on election integrity and ballot reconciliation
Summary
Multiple public speakers urged the Board of Supervisors to investigate alleged problems with voter rolls, machine security and certification practices, calling for audits and a special public session. Board members and staff disputed some claims and urged fact-based review.
Several Riverside County residents urged the Board of Supervisors on March 19 to take concrete steps to address perceived problems with the county’s election system, including calls for an audit of the 2022 election and a public session with the full board to explain certification practices.
Shelby Bunch, Riverside County chair for New California State, told the board the tallying process has taken weeks and said, “When this board certified elections without first reconciling the amount of votes to voters, you were committing a felony.” She cited federal standards and asked the board to hold a special public session so all members could address the concerns publicly.
Jim Niederecker, who described technical concerns with voting systems, urged the board to treat elections infrastructure as critical infrastructure and said the county’s devices “may contain modems and microelectronics” whose components are of uncertain origin. He recommended steps to confirm equipment configuration and supply‑chain safeguards.
Board Chair Jeff Van Wagenen and Supervisor Jeffreys pushed back on some statements from the public while acknowledging room for continued fact‑finding. Jeffreys said Riverside County has never recorded more ballots cast than registered voters and noted the county’s recent improvements in returning election results. He also noted that the state controls certain voter‑registration processes and that California does not allow counties to impose voter‑ID requirements.
The board did not take formal action on election procedures at the March 19 meeting. Supervisors repeatedly urged critics and staff to focus on verifiable technical and process questions, and several suggested follow‑up briefings with Register of Voters staff to explain reconciliation, chain‑of‑custody practices and machine security measures.
Next steps: Speakers asked for a special public session and for audits; the board directed staff to continue engagement and to provide information, but no county‑level audit or special session was scheduled during the meeting.
