Comments on the changes are in italics, current text of law which is being retained unchanged is in a normal font, deleted text is struck out, added text is in bold.

The text below is relative to the California Elections Code as of 2005 before any changes were made due to laws passed in 2005.

Send comments to Jerry Berkman, jerry@berkeley.edu, 1-510-547-0985.

Section 18: (new) Require the Secretary of State to maintain a public web site for legal notices and to allow the public to sign up on an email list for notices.

Section 317.5: Add a definition for "Early voting" to the Elections Code.

Section 2203 (a): Keep a record of who cancelled the affidavit of a voter's registration.

Section 2203.5: (new) Require advance notice of mass cancellations, e.g. by Section 2193, so others can check validity of lists, to avoid situations such as in Florida and Ohio.

Section 3017: (new) Specify no out-sourcing of processing of absentee ballots and must take delivery directly of returning absentee ballots.

Section 3019: Specify only permanent staff may reject absentee ballots, staff needs to sign name on rejection and why, log, post on web, mail notice to voter.

Section 11324: Change mailing sample ballots for recalls from 10 days to 21 days in advance.

Section 12220: Post precincts and polling sites on the web.

Section 12281: Post changes in precinct polling places the web.

Section 13101: Specify alternate voting procedures if voters can not use the normal procedures due to machine failure or administrative error (including under-supplying polling station). If there are insufficient paper ballots, use the procedures in section 14299 instead of allowing revotes at a future date. Revotes at a later date may not be legal for Presidential elections (see USC Title 3, Chapter 1, Sections 1 and 2)

Section 13266: This is about absentee ballots on punched cards. It may no longer be relevant, but if it may be, change the reference for duplicating ballots from 15271 to 15210.

Section 14288: Currently, if a voter makes a mistake, the voter can exchange the improperly marked ballot for another ballot, but only twice. By itself, that seems few chances. But what if the voter has marked it correctly but the machine doesn't read the marks correctly? Or on a DRE with a paper trail, what if the paper trail jams or prints illegibly? With many (all?) current systems, there is no way to differentiate between the voter spoiling the ballot and machine errors, possibly due to calibration or a variety of other problems.

This section restricting retries is more likely to do harm than good. The system should be revised to require differentiation between machine problems and voter errors. Actually, the VVPAT systems I have seen allow the voter to change their mind after seeing the VVPAT only twice. That is a mistake because the VVPAT is not a ballot so this section shouldn't apply. Delete or repeal it.

Section 14299: Currently voters are at the mercy of broken down machines, mistaken allocation of machines, administrative mistakes in distributing ballots, etc. Specify alternate voting procedures to be used in those cases. Make it possible for any voter who shows up at the proper polling site to vote despite problems.

If there is a wait for machines, paper ballots may be used. If there are no paper ballots, the precinct board may try to get them, but if that fails, the voter has the option of creating their own ballot. Registrars can avoid this by making sure there are sufficient working machines and paper ballots, and backup supplies. What happened in San Diego in the 2004 primary is not acceptable; there must be backup plans. (See also sections 13101 and 19005)

Section 15003: Add that elections officials must publish canvass procedures on the web.

Section 15004: Currently two specialists are allowed per party; change this to two people at each counting site. Also change it to specify the specialist should be able to observe, not just attend.

Section 15005: (new) This creates a panel of voters who can go anywhere and observe and ask questions.

Section 15101: Why allow only jurisdictions with computers to open absentee ballots in advance? Allow everyone. Don't allow counting until election day, because the prohibition on accessing counts means there can be no audit trail. Allowing reading them, but not tallying them, in advance allows counties to find ballots which need duplication. High speed scanners obviate the need to count votes in advance.

Section 15210: Clarify duplication and corrections procedures and require witnesses and public notice. (See also sections 13266, 14299, 15101, and 15302.)

Section 15251: Add the elections official must post results on web.

Section 15260: Add the elections official must post locations of return centers on web.

Section 15261: Add the elections official must post locations of counting centers on web.

Section 15302: Add the manual tally to the lists of tasks of the official canvass. This is appropriate and needed as Section 10262 says a canvass in a city election follows the steps in 15302 and 15303. Also, add reference to 15210 for duplication of ballots.

Section 15350: Add reference to 14312, so this section will be "liberally construed in favor of the provisional voter"

Section 15360: The current manual tally is inadequate. Section 336.5 says the manual tally "is conducted during the official canvass to verify the accuracy of the automated count." However most counties only tally in-precinct ballots and not absentee or early voting ballots, which are approaching 50% of the vote. Change this to specify the manual tally of a precinct includes all ballots for voters registered in the precinct.

Allow candidates to specify additional precincts to be audited in their race, as long as they or their representatives watch the tally.

Post the results on the web, comparing them to the previous tally.

Let the Election Observation Panel generate the "random" selection of precincts.

Section 15361. (new) A margin of less than 0.5% will trigger a full manual recount.

Section 15362. (new) Require audits of the entire election process, not just the vote counting.

Section 15370: Require jurisdictions to seal ballots immediately after counting; some do not waiting to see if there is a recount.

Section 15371: Require the elections official to post the results on the web in both human and machine readable formats.

Section 15374: Add more details to the statement of results, such as listing results by precinct separately for absentee, in-person electronic, and in-person paper ballots.

Section 15502: The Secretary of State shall make the detailed supplement available in 7 days, not 120 days after the statement of votes, and available on the web.

Section 15610: This section currently requires the elections official to examine the members of the precinct board under oath before ordering a recount of a precinct. There is little point in requiring this. Elections officials do not like recounts; they will not order one without good cause. This adds a hassle with no apparent benefit. Delete that requirement from section 15610.

Section 15620: Recounts of "slates of electors" are included in section 15620 as long as they are not voted on statewide. Aren't they always voted on statewide? Delete "slates of electors" here and add them into section 15621 along with other items voted on statewide.

Section 15621 requires voters to wait for two conditions before requesting a recount for a statewide race:
- the request must be between the 29th and 34th day after the election.
- the request must be after the official canvass.
If the official canvass is late, does this rule out a request for a recount? Why not allow early requests? After all, the voter is paying for the recount. Change this to allow for requests up to five days after the 29th day or five days after the end of the canvass, whichever is later.

Also, don't require a request to be on behalf of any candidate or position. The only reason to do that is to decide whether to refund money if that candidate wins, whereas the voter has performed a public service and deserve a refund if the recount changes the winners, no matter who. Also, in a multi-seat race, they may wish to file on behalf of several candidates, but currently can only file on behalf of one. And neutral parties who want to have the totals checked shouldn't have to declare on behalf of a candidate.

Finally, add in "slate of electors" from 15620.

Section 15624: The cost of a recount charged to voters who request a recount is too variable and too high. The amount charged includes compensation for the counting board, which is limited by Section 15625. It should be fairly similar, but varies widely by county; I have seen $500 per board per day and I've seen $2000 per board per day. Some counties also charge for sorting the county's absentee ballots to find the absentee ballots for the desired precints, and I've heard of a charge of$17,000 for a medium size county just for sorting; not counting. Some counties also charge for "overhead", room charges, electricity, etc. In some counties, elections official are requiring full payment in advance.

Change this section to specify the voter pays for the counting board(s) counting, but not for ballot retrieval, presorting, overhead or anything else. Make it clear that advance payment of one day's counting fees is all the elections officials can require before scheduling and commencing the recount. Refunds of excess deposits should be within 30 days.

Also, the old text wouldn't work if you needed 60% or two thirds to win. And change it so that the requestor gets a refund if there is any change in winners.

Section 15626: Currently the elections official has up to 7 days to start the recount and recounting is five days a week, excluding holidays, 6 hours a day minimum. Change this for recounting a November presidential race to be 3 days to start the recount and the recount should be conducted daily except for Thanksgiving for at least 8 hours each day. This is to minimize the problems in finishing the recount before the electors convene and vote in December.

Section 15627: Add that the recount requestor specifies what categories of ballots to recount

Section 15628: Require elections officials to post notice of a recount on the Internet prior to a recount

Section 15630: Require observers to be able to read ballots in recount

Section 15633: Post results of recount on web.

Section 15635 (new) - If the race is closer than one half percent, there will automatically be a hand recount

Section 15640: The courts can order a recount, but only within 25 days of the election. The results may not be complete within 25 days! Change this to 25 days after certification. Also delete the reference to section 15645, which does not exist. It was apparently repealed by SB 627, chaptered 09/30/98.

Section 19005: Modify procedures in event of electrical or other emergency to use the procedures of Section 14299.

Section 19103 requires source code for ballot tally software as defined by the Secretary of State be put in escrow. This is insufficient. Malicious code and bugs which can change the results may be anywhere in the system, not just in the ballot tally software. Therefore, all software, binaries, build scripts, dynamically linked libraries, executable scripts, exectuable modules, and all else needed to create and run the system must be put in the escrow.

Add that local elections officials may get access to all but the source from the escrow to check software on a voting system is same as that in the escrow.

Section 19202: Anyone may ask the Secretary of State to investigate the accuracy and efficiency of a voting system. Add security, suitability, and auditability to what may be investigated.

Section 19203: The Secretary of State must provide a time for the general public to review voting systems proposed for certification in California.

Section 19204: Publish notice of the public hearing on the Internet, and publish the Secretary's decision on the Internet.

Section 19204.5: (new) The documentation on a system has sometimes been made available fairly close to the public hearing, and has been incomplete and, occassionally, redacted. Require it 30 days in advance of public hearing, and specify more detail about what is required.

Section 19205. The Secretary of State must establish regulations with respect to suitability, secrecy, and safety of the system. Add privacy, accuracy, auditability, and security.

Section 19205.5: (new) New requirements for vendors including doing maintenance and problem diagnostics in California, new requirement for vendor employee who interact with the system after logic and accuracy tests, allowing use of data files without vendor restrictions, and allowing vulnerability testing by elections officials.

Section 19206: Currently the vendors pay the state's consultant and get a refund if too much is deposited. Change this to the vendor paying a flat fee per application to the State, and the state making any necesssary payments to the State's consultant.

Section 19207: This is about two different things, the Secretary's report and photographs and descriptions. Move the photographs and descriptions requirement to 19204.5. Add to 19207 that the report must be published on the Secretary's web site.

Section 19207.5: (new) The vendor will sign a declaration like North Carolina attesting to the fact that source agrees with binary and is what is installed, with criminal penalties for violation of this fact.

Section 19213: Each change to a voting system shall be noted on the web and notice sent to all interested parties as described in Section 18. Add "suitability and security" to what must be tested after a change.

Section 19214.5: Publish notice of hearing on unauthorized changes and decision on seeking injunctive relief on web. Add criminal penalties.

Section 19214.6 (new) - Post list of applications for certification and current status on Secretary's web site.

Section 19214.8 (new) Post test plans, results, etc. on Web before use in an election.

Section 19215: Make sure grounds for injunction are not too limited. (this change may already be implied; make it explicit).

Section 19251 (d): Change "Performance and Text Standards for Punch Card, Mark Sense, and Direct Recording Electronic Voting Systems" to "Voluntary Voting Systems Guidelines"

Section 19320: Allow public to view preparation of machines; publish on the web

Section 19363. This limits time in voting booth when using a machine to five minutes, while Section 14224, which applies to all situations, limits it to ten minutes. The blind and disabled will tend to use a voting machine, and are subject to the shorter limit. Delete section 19363.

Section 19364: Test the machines at the beginning of the day, and after any recalibrarion. (Is this really not specified anywhere?)

Section 19384: Precinct results must be posted in a publicly accessible place. (My precinct's results were around a corner out of sight behind a locked gate). Does this need to be repeated in 19370?.