Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Orange County board approves ROV contract items after hours of public pleas to delay voting-machine purchases
Summary
After extensive public comment urging a delay and a return to hand counting, the Orange County Board of Supervisors approved items 62—67, covering Registrar of Voters contracts and related services, in a single unanimous vote; county staff said in-person signatures are captured but not verified and that some uses of the storage contract are short-term transport, while residents raised security and budget concerns.
The Orange County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to approve items 62 through 67, a package of Registrar of Voters (ROV) purchases and contracts, after more than an hour of public comment pressing the board to delay or reject the measures.
Hundreds of speakers were not present but 14 people signed up to speak on item 62; most asked the board to halt the county's planned contracts with Hart/Encore and other vendors and to return to precinct-based, paper-only, one-day voting. "Please vote no on item 62 and the rest of the ROV items," Carolyn of Santa Ana told supervisors. Multiple commenters alleged machines are "hackable," raised concerns about wireless modems and unsupported software, and questioned whether promised savings had materialized.
ROV staff responding to supervisors' questions said in-person voters are asked for name and address and sign the poll roster, but that signature verification is required only for mail ballots. "Signature verification is not required at this time," ROV staff told the board when asked whether the in-person signature is compared to a signature file; the staff member added that the county's verification process for vote centers relies on roster lookups and attendant checks. Staff also said the storage contract before the board is for containerized, short-term transport of equipment from the county warehouse to vote centers rather than long-term storage, and that they are not aware of any state reimbursement that would cover those transport services.
Several members of the public raised budget questions. One speaker said county election costs had risen from around $15 million in earlier years to about $30 million recently and asked where promised savings were realized. Others requested evening meetings and a citizen oversight committee so residents and outside experts could review machine security, auditing and procurement details before the county committed more funds.
Chair Wagner acknowledged those concerns and told the public that the county's authority is limited by state law. "State law trumps," the chair said during discussion, noting that some statutory requirements limit local options on election systems while staff described a narrow "loophole" on state mandates for multi-language materials.
After the public comment period and staff responses, a supervisor moved to approve items 62—67 together; with no requests to pull items for separate votes, the board took one roll-call and the motion carried unanimously. The ROV items therefore will proceed as approved, subject to any further required approvals or contract finalizations noted in staff reports.
Next steps: staff will finalize contract documents and make copies of any finalized settlement or contract agreements available to offices and members of the public who request them, as discussed during the meeting. Members of the public who pressed for a separate forum on election security said they will continue to request evening meetings and citizen oversight.
