Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections Observation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Multiple speakers at Kern County meeting raise election-observation and audit concerns
Summary
Several members of the public used the board's public-comment period to allege limited observation access, technical shortcomings in observation setups and a broader loss of confidence in post-election counting; speakers urged hiring a new Registrar of Voters and improved transparency.
Several members of the public raised detailed complaints about election observation and transparency during the Kern County Board of Supervisors' June 9 public-comment period, urging the board to improve access for observers and revisit election-office procedures.
Dennis McLain opened the sequence of election-related comments by reporting preliminary Measure A returns—"the latest results show yes, 63% and no, 36%"—and expressed frustration with the multi-week post-election counting process and with inaccuracies in the county voter roll (he said "24% of Kern County's voter roll information is inaccurate and incomplete").
Don Miller described weeks of in-person observation at the county election office and said observers had restricted access to adjudication, challenge-signature and tabulation areas. He urged the board to "consider hiring the next ROV as soon as possible to work with current leadership and prepare to take over" when the appointment occurs, saying current arrangements do not allow meaningful observation.
Charles Shinn cited his observations of testing for ballot-marking devices and central scanners and referenced the California Administrative Code regarding observer rights and responsibilities (he cited chapter eight, subsection 20871 and related provisions), arguing that observers were placed too far from processes and that ceiling-mounted cameras and distant monitors prevented effective review.
Andy Hansel framed the remarks in broader terms, saying "the confidence in the election system in California has completely collapsed," and referenced ongoing investigations and public skepticism about post-election-day counting.
None of these public presentations produced board action at the meeting. The speakers asked for structural changes and improved access for observers; the board did not take immediate action publicly and moved on to the next agenda items and then to closed session.
The public comments identify several specific technical and procedural concerns the board may choose to review: distance and visibility for observers in the election office, the use of remote camera monitors in lieu of proximate observation, and the possibility of appointing or preparing a new Registrar of Voters to address access and transparency.
