Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Alameda County delays vote on releasing cast‑vote records after legal and staffing concerns
Summary
After extensive public comment and advocacy from the newly formed Elections Commission, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors continued Item 33 on a policy to release cast‑vote records during the canvass, citing legal clarifications in newly enacted SB 1328 and limited registrar staffing to implement new procedures before the Nov. 5 election.
Advocates for election transparency pressed the Alameda County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday to direct the Registrar of Voters to release cast‑vote record (CVR) reports earlier in the canvass, but the board continued the item to Oct. 8 to allow staff time to resolve legal and operational questions.
Multiple speakers, including Elections Commissioner Judy Belcher and voting‑rights advocates from FairVote and the League of Women Voters, told supervisors that early public access to CVRs would improve transparency and could prevent errors like the 2022 Oakland school board tally that required court involvement. "I urge the Board of Supervisors to approve agenda item number 33, directing the registrar of voters to adopt a policy of releasing the cast vote record reports early in the canvass," said Judy Belcher during public comment.
The board’s discussion turned on two practical concerns: whether provisions in the newly signed Senate Bill 1328 could expose the county to criminal or civil penalties if ballot secrecy is compromised, and whether the Registrar’s office had the staffing and procedures to publish CVRs safely during a high‑workload election. County staff and county counsel explained that SB 1328 clarifies that unauthorized access to certified voting technology and materials can be a public‑secrecy offense, and that the statute now defines cast‑vote records as a product of certified voting technology. County counsel summarized the criminal and civil penalties in the statute, including potential prison time and civil fines for intentional interference with ballot secrecy.
Registrar staff told the board they could produce CVR files under controlled conditions but said the specific request before the board—publishing CVRs after each unofficial tally during the canvass—would require new procedures and assignments at a time when the office is focused on testing equipment, posting unofficial tallies and handling ranked‑choice and youth voting. "We have a small staff and one technical individual who would have to do this amid certification and testing activities," the registrar said in response to supervisors’ questions. The registrar added the office could create CVRs but needed more time to ensure procedures preserved secrecy and data integrity.
Supporters of the policy said San Francisco already publishes CVRs in a manner that preserves privacy and urged Alameda County to follow suit. Opponents and some supervisors urged caution: in precincts with very small vote counts, early CVR publication might, in theory, allow inference about individual votes. County counsel said the law contemplates both criminal penalties for interference with secrecy and civil enforcement tools.
Supervisor Lena Tam (who requested the continuation) said she supported transparency but preferred to "do it right," noting the county must avoid exposing voters’ choices or producing records that could be legally risky. President Miley and other supervisors said they appreciated the urgency but accepted a short delay to allow legal review and operational planning. The item was continued to the Oct. 8 board meeting.
What happens next: the registrar will evaluate procedural options and staffing needs, with county counsel and elections stakeholders advising on redaction and publication protocols. The board set the matter for further consideration on Oct. 8; any policy adopted would aim to preserve ballot secrecy while responding to public demand for greater election transparency.
