Alameda County registrar defends post‑Election Day processes as residents press for audit

Alameda County Registrar of Voters Tim Dupuy said the county followed state election law in handling ballots received after Election Day, while public speakers pressed the Board of Supervisors to order an audit of vote-by-mail processing and observation procedures.

Dupuy gave a broad overview of the office’s work in November — from a 71.1% turnout among 960,000 registered voters to the predominance of vote-by-mail returns and extensive drop‑box and vote‑center use — and described the office’s testing, staffing and observation practices. He said Alameda is a Voter’s Choice Act county that ran 100 vote centers and trained roughly 700 election workers for the major election.

When asked about ballots that arrived without legible postmarks, Dupuy said his office consulted county counsel and is following state code: “the law says that we are to be in favor of the voter, and if the voter has signed properly the vote by mail envelope, that vote is received,” he told the board.

Observers and election‑integrity advocates disagreed. Mark Zulam, who submitted written and oral comments, told supervisors that “ballots without postmarks were accepted after Election Day 8PM” and asked the board to audit the number of such ballots and the ROV’s compliance with AB 37 and Election Code §53020. Mindy Petchenuk, an election‑integrity organizer, urged the board to “hold Mr. Dupuy accountable,” alleging insufficient transparency and limited observation access, particularly in areas she said could not be seen during adjudication and processing.

Several speakers also pressed for clearer chain‑of‑custody documentation and wider public disclosure of procedures. John Guerrero, who identified himself with Adopta, said election workers perform well but faulted management decisions that, in his view, allowed acceptance of ballots without clear postmarks.

Dupuy said Alameda’s public‑facing observation procedures meet legal requirements and that the Secretary of State’s office had reviewed the county’s observation spaces. He also said the office scans ballots and maintains ballot images but noted that the state has directed registrars that distributing those images is not permitted; he described San Francisco’s choice to publish images as contrary to the Secretary of State’s guidance.

On timing, Dupuy explained steps that require legal notice and cure periods for signature issues and said he planned to certify the Oakland special election on Friday, May 2, calling that “the absolute earliest that we would have been able to certify the election” after completing law‑required steps.

The board heard the report, asked follow‑up questions about chain of custody, touch‑screen testing, and youth‑voting costs, and directed questions to the ROV to the Elections Commission where many procedural issues can be taken up publicly. Several callers urged a third‑party audit and clearer public notices about observation opportunities and ballot processing schedules.

The board did not take immediate formal action on the audit requests during the meeting; supervisors encouraged continued dialogue and noted the Elections Commission meets monthly to examine operational concerns.