Board directs registrar to publish cast vote records after weeks of debate over legality and secrecy

The Alameda County Board of Supervisors on Oct. 8 directed the county Registrar of Voters to adopt a policy that will publish the county’s cast vote record (CVR) file for the Nov. 2024 election, after a full day of legal briefing, technical testimony and public comment. The board voted to require the first CVR release at the conclusion of election‑night counting and subsequent releases timed to the registrar’s usual results‑posting schedule; the registrar was asked to report implementation progress to the Elections Commission on Oct. 17.

Supporters, including the Alameda County Elections Commission, the League of Women Voters and multiple civic groups, said early CVR release increases transparency and helps independent experts detect errors such as those that affected a 2022 ranked‑choice result. "Releasing the cast vote records early in the canvass will restore public confidence," said Judy Belcher of the Elections Commission.

Registrar Tim Dupuy told the board CVR publication presents legal and technical challenges. He said the raw CVR is a detailed per‑voter data file (without names) that includes precinct and ballot IDs; in Alameda County, very small precincts mean posted CVRs could, in some circumstances, make it possible to infer how a small number of named voters cast ballots unless the file is modified to remove or obfuscate certain fields. Dupuy also described limited in‑house technical staffing and the need to work with the vendor (Dominion) to create and validate an extract that protects voter secrecy. "If we rush this ... we are releasing information to the public that could be faulty and would do the opposite of being transparent," he said.

County counsel and the registrar said the recently enacted SB 1328 clarified electronic‑records retention but left ambiguities about CVR release; counsel warned that an improper release could expose an elections official to liability under secrecy provisions of the Elections Code. Other speakers — including the bill’s legislative director and consultants who work with other counties — told the board they do not interpret SB 1328 as prohibiting CVR release and pointed to San Francisco’s longstanding practice of public CVR publication.

Board deliberations balanced those legal and technical cautions against public calls for increased transparency. Supervisor Carson sponsored the motion directing the registrar to adopt the CVR policy; Supervisor Tam sought narrower scope and flexibility in frequency early on, citing the registrar’s staffing constraints and pending legal clarifications. After amendments and negotiation the board voted in favor of the motion; Supervisor Howard was excused for the vote.

The motion sets three implementation steps: release the first CVR at the conclusion of election‑night counting, release subsequent CVR files according to the registrar’s usual results‑posting schedule, and publish a schedule of posting dates; the registrar was asked to report progress to the Elections Commission on Oct. 17 and update the public on feasibility. Registrar Dupuy said he will make every effort to meet the directive but reiterated resource and vendor dependencies.

What happens next: The registrar will work with Dominion and county staff to build, scrub and validate a CVR extract designed to protect voter secrecy. The board’s direction does not change the law; it instructs the elections office to adopt a public‑release policy and report back with status and a schedule.