Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors press county counsel and ROV for clearer guidance on election reconciliation and voter‑roll maintenance
Summary
Board members and residents pressed county counsel and election officials for a legal brief and clearer standards after public concerns about reconciliation error rates, voter‑roll maintenance, and whether a 2% post‑election standard exists for local canvass reconciliation.
Multiple public speakers and supervisors used the board meeting to press for clearer legal guidance and operational fixes in the county’s elections administration, focusing on error‑rate thresholds, voter‑roll maintenance and reconciliation processes.
Jim Niederecker said he requested documentation from the Secretary of State and received a response stating, in his words, "there is no established or recognized 2% industry standard applicable to post election reconciliation under California law," and asked county counsel to prepare a legal brief clarifying standards the county should apply. He also urged the county to review its approach to reconciliation and error thresholds.
County Counsel (Mister Tran) and other staff reiterated that there is no single universal error‑rate mandate from federal or state law; instead, certification guidance for voting machines references machine accuracy (a 0.08% figure in machine certification guidance) but that figure is not a statutory threshold for local reconciliation. Tran said Riverside County’s election results have historically shown an overall reported error rate of less than 1% and offered to provide a written explanation and additional briefings for supervisors and the public.
Speakers also urged improved voter‑roll maintenance (using DMV change‑of‑address feeds, postal data and property‑tax records) and asked the Registrar of Voters (ROV) to accelerate clean‑up steps before ballot printing. Several speakers recommended stronger coordination with the sheriff or DA for potential unlawful activity and asked the board to consider staff requests for more explicit oversight mechanisms to ensure lawful election administration and public confidence.
County next steps County counsel offered to prepare a written legal brief clarifying the board’s oversight obligations and the applicable standards; staff also committed to convening ad hoc meetings and to continue dialogue between the registrar, county counsel and board ad hoc members. Supervisors agreed to follow up and asked staff to provide documentary support to the public when available.
