Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Election Certification topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Orange County supervisors receive registrar's certification after hours of public objections over ballot handling
Summary
After an extended public-comment period alleging ballot duplication and voter-roll errors, Orange County's registrar of voters explained signature checks, duplication procedures and audits; the board received the certification for the District 1 contest and carried a motion unanimously to declare the winner.
Orange County supervisors on Dec. 4 received the registrar of voters' certification of the Nov. 5, 2024 general election for the county's District 1 seat after a lengthy public-comment period in which dozens of residents alleged problems with ballot handling and voter rolls.
Registrar of Voters Mr. Page told the board he had certified the election under state law the day before and that the board's role was ministerial: "I certified the election yesterday," he said, and the board was being asked to receive the certification and declare the winner for the supervisorial contest under its jurisdiction.
The public-comment speakers raised multiple allegations, including claims that Garden Grove Unified School District used public funds to influence local races, assertions of large numbers of ineligible or uncertain registrations and reports of duplicated or remade ballots. "Please pull this item because we're supposed to have checks and balances," one commenter said, urging the board to delay certification and refer evidence to the district attorney.
Mr. Page responded to specific concerns about signature verification and duplication. He described the county's process for challenged signatures: three staff members review signatures and, when signatures are judged dissimilar, the county mails a first-class notice giving voters an opportunity to cure an issue; if phone or email information is available, the county also contacts voters directly. On ballots that cannot be scanned or are marked inconsistently, he said county procedures call for a duplication and an independent audit of the recreated ballot: "We remake their ballot and count those votes," Mr. Page said, and a second person audits that remade ballot against the original.
On audit safeguards, Mr. Page said the county conducts the statutorily required hand tally audits (the county typically examines at least 1 percent of precincts and, in practice, examined more in this cycle) and performs a voluntary risk-limiting audit. He said those audits confirmed the voting system results in the contests reviewed.
Board members and county counsel framed the board's legal role. The board's presiding officer asked whether a governing board could refuse a registrar's certification; county counsel replied that the elections code provides a process for contesting election results and that a court order would be required to prevent a board from declaring a result. Counsel described the board's action that day as ministerial and noted that a candidate seeking to challenge results would pursue an election contest through the courts.
After the registrar's explanation and brief discussion, a supervisor moved to receive and file the certification and declare the District 1 winner. The motion was seconded and carried unanimously; no opposition or abstention was announced. The board adjourned and set its next meeting for Dec. 17, 2024.
What happened next: The board accepted the county registrar's certified results for the District 1 supervisorial contest and declared the winner for that jurisdiction; several members of the public said they intended to seek further review from the district attorney or through the courts. The registrar reiterated that many operational changes alleged by speakers (for example, returning to precinct-only voting or eliminating vote-by-mail) would require state-law changes by the Legislature.
