Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves MOU with Oakland and Berkeley to pursue youth voting; technical hurdles remain for November
Summary
The Board approved a memorandum of understanding with Oakland, Berkeley and Berkeley Unified to support implementation of Measure QQ/Y youth voting. Staff said technical requirements currently make November implementation unlikely, but the MOU keeps coordination and funding commitments in place so jurisdictions can continue work.
The Alameda County Board of Supervisors on July 23 approved a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that formalizes cost‑sharing, indemnity and technical cooperation between the county, the cities of Oakland and Berkeley and Berkeley Unified School District to attempt implementation of youth voting in school board elections.
Multiple student speakers and education leaders urged prompt action during public comment. "Please sign the MOU by August 8," said Edimevo Ajayi, a student speaker, reflecting pleas from several youth organizers who have advocated for Measure QQ and Measure Y for years.
Registrar of Voters staff described the MOU as the last signature needed from the county to proceed with implementation work. The agreement requires the requesting cities and school district to pay for software development and the additional costs of running a parallel youth‑voting process. County counsel and elections staff said the MOU contains reciprocal indemnity provisions but noted that indemnity would not cover gross errors by the county.
On feasibility, elections staff were candid: "Today we are not technically feasible to implement youth voting," a registrar staff member said during the presentation, and they warned time was short to meet the Registrar of Voters' August 9 filing deadline for the November ballot. Board members and staff agreed the MOU should stand even if November implementation proves infeasible; it preserves the negotiating positions and funding commitments and allows the jurisdictions to continue working on technical solutions.
Supervisor Carson moved the motion to approve the MOU and Supervisor Tam seconded it. The motion passed with four ayes and one abstention (noted earlier in the meeting). Several supervisors asked staff to continue frequent updates and to advise when technical feasibility changes.
The MOU does not itself implement youth voting; it documents the parties' commitments and creates a framework for the registrar and jurisdictions to pursue implementation if and when the technology and timeline permit.
