Board directs registrar to cross-check voter rolls with animal-license records and notify 2,616 unverified registrants

The Orange County Board of Supervisors voted Sept. 23 to direct the Registrar of Voters to compare voter registration records with animal-license databases, ask noncontract cities to provide data, and send formal letters — including a cancellation form — to about 2,616 registrants who have not provided proof of identity.

The motion, offered by supervisors Wagner and Wynne and amended on the floor, passed on a roll call vote: Wagner Aye, Foley Aye, Wynne Aye, Charmino No, Chair Chaffee Abstain. The board also asked the registrar to refer any cases that appear to be criminal to the district attorney’s office.

Why it matters: Supervisors said the action is intended to shore up public confidence in county elections ahead of a special election. The board framed the item as a response to a high-profile case in which a fictitious registration (widely reported as involving an animal name) led to a criminal referral; supervisors repeatedly said the incident is a symptom of larger roster vulnerabilities and asked the registrar for both immediate checks and longer-term policy options.

What the registrar said: Bob Page, the county Registrar of Voters, told the board his office found roughly 2,616 active registrations that have not provided proof of identity (driver’s license, state ID or last four of Social Security) and that those registrants will receive an additional notice ahead of the next election. “We will send an additional new notification to those 2,600 voters to ask them to provide proof of identity,” Page said, adding the office will offer a signed cancellation form if a registrant wishes to remove themselves.

Page described steps already underway: an initial cross-check of the county’s unincorporated-area animal-license file produced no matches; the office has requested animal-license data from contracted cities and asked county counsel to help obtain records from other jurisdictions. Page also described routine pre-election maintenance the office performs (third‑party address matching through a vendor, death-record checks and referrals to prosecutors) and said double-voting attempts are commonly referred to the DA for investigation.

Board direction and limits: Supervisors asked staff to send letters to the 2,616 registrants, to request animal-license files from noncontract cities as well as the county’s contracted cities, and to amend the staff report to remove the word “suspected” from the line referring to nonhuman registrants. Several supervisors urged the registrar to keep the board informed and to refer any potentially criminal matters to the district attorney; the motion was amended to add that referral direction.

Legal and practical constraints: Page cautioned the board about statutory limits. Under state law, county elections officials must accept a voter’s sworn attestation of eligibility on a registration affidavit; federal law requires proof of identity for federal elections, but California’s state law does not require documentary proof at registration. Page said the 2,616 voters represent about a tenth of 1% of the county’s nearly 2 million registrants and that many election-maintenance tools (national change-of-address feeds, Experian matches, death records) are already used to keep rolls current.

What happens next: The board directed the registrar to carry out the cross-checks, send the formal notices (with cancellation forms) to the 2,616 registrants, request animal-license files from noncontract cities, and continue regular coordination with the district attorney’s office on any criminal referrals. The board adjourned to closed session following the vote.