Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Election Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and a candidate urge Alameda County to release usable cast‑vote records in pending suit
Summary
Public commenters at the Nov. 7 special meeting urged the Alameda County Board of Supervisors to enforce its prior directive that Registrar Tim Dupuy produce readable cast‑vote records (CVRs) in the Petchenuk lawsuit; the board authorized outside counsel to represent county defendants in that case in closed session.
Public commenters at the Alameda County Board of Supervisors’ Nov. 7 special meeting pressed the board to ensure the county releases readable cast‑vote records in a pending lawsuit brought by candidate Mindy Petchenuk.
Mindy Petchenuk, who identified herself at the meeting as both a resident and a candidate for Oakland City Council at large, said she filed suit because the Registrar of Voters did not provide 48‑hour notice required for observation of specific election processes and because the CVRs the county released were locked PDFs that are not easily readable. “We should, by law, have 48 hour notice of time, date, and place of specific observational processes,” Petchenuk said. “The PDFs are not readable; you can’t access the underlying data.”
Petchenuk and other speakers asked the board to enforce a prior board order requiring the Registrar to produce usable CVR files. Cindy Rocha told supervisors the released PDF “did not fulfill your board’s mandate” and urged them to “make him stick to that directive.” John Guerrero, a public commenter, said the county should either unlock the PDF or export data directly (for example a JSON export from the Dominion system) so analysts and observers can process it. “Just press a button on the Dominion machine that says JSON and give us that file,” Guerrero said.
Hunter Cobb, who identified himself as from the City of Alameda, said the Registrar has been “very reluctant to be cooperative to observers” and urged the board to take action, including potential removal of the registrar if the problem persists. Several other speakers—Andrea Ingram, Gerald Petchenuk and Deborah Gelber—reiterated concerns about the lack of specific posted times, dates and places for observation of post‑election processes and said vague windows undermine the public’s ability to observe mail processing and tallying.
In closed session, the board authorized county counsel to retain outside counsel to represent the county defendants in the lawsuit captioned Petchenuk v. Registrar of Voters (case no. 24 CV 096386). The clerk reported the retention was authorized on a 4‑0 vote with Supervisor Carson excused.
Why it matters: Cast‑vote records are used by observers and analysts to reconcile and examine voting equipment and counting processes. Commenters said the county’s current delivery format hinders independent review and that clarity about observation times is required by law.
The board adjourned after the closed‑session report out. The clerk’s public statement listed the retention of outside counsel for the Petchenuk matter as part of the closed‑session actions; the clerk did not present additional directions from the board about compelling a different CVR format in public session.
