Tinoco describes vote counting process and protections

The Riverside County Board of Supervisors received the statement of vote
from the March 5 Presidential Primary Election at its April 9 meeting.
Registrar of Voters Art Tinoco certified the results and described his
office’s procedures and actions to ensure both a fair and open election.

Before and since, his office has been open for the public to view and
follow the steps of conducting the election.

Public tours, a media tour, the public logic and accuracy test and
availability to answer a multitude of questions are offered.

His detailed discussion of the election process began with “uncounted
ballots.” Tinoco explained that state law prevents counting ballots
mailed after Election Day, which was March 5, or those postmarked
correctly but received too late.

In Riverside County, 31 ballots with postmarks of March 5 or earlier
could not be counted in the totals because they were received after
March 12. The law requires ballots to be received within seven days of
the election.

In response to a question from Supervisor Karen Spiegel (2^(nd)
District), Tinoco indicated that he is “currently working with the USPS
to discuss” why these ballots were received too late to count.

Supervisor Kevin Jeffries (1^(st) District) pointed out that prior to
2020, the state only gave three days to receive mailed ballots. For the
2020 election, that was extended to 17 days. Then in 2021, the
Legislature changed the deadline to the current requirement of seven
days following the election.

About 5,000 ballots were received but postmarked after March 5. None of
these can be counted either, Tinoco lamented.

One of the critical steps in the ballot counting process is the
verification of the voter’s signature. If the mailed-in ballot has not
been signed or if the Registrar’s Office cannot verify the signature, it
sends the voter a “cure” letter requesting a signature and confirmation
of mailing a ballot.

Also, conditional voter registration takes time. This occurs when a
person registers on the same day as the election. Addresses and other
information need to be confirmed. These ballots are the last to be
counted so that the registrar can be sure that the voter had not
submitted another ballot that had already been counted.

Ballot adjudication is needed when the actual vote is ambiguous. It
requires time to count a ballot. A ballot needs review when the voter
did not cast a vote for all the offices on the ballot, which is called
undervoting. If the voter checks more candidates than the number to be
elected, this is called overvoting. And sometimes the voter uses a red
ink pen or check marks rather than filling in the oval.

Each of these requires review of the ballot to try to determine the
voter’s intentions.

Tinoco assured the board that the ballot equipment is not connected to
the internet. The laptops with voter information, not ballots, are
connected to the voter registration database through a secured county
network.

The election equipment is certified by both the Federal Election
Commission and the California Secretary of State’s office. Also, he had
the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency assess the county’s
equipment in November.

He reported that the first early voting site at the Registrar’s Office
opened Feb. 5, 29 dates before the election. Another 11 voter centers
opened Feb. 24 and 131 voter centers were opened on March 2. And, 107
locations were offered to drop off ballots.

After the election, his office also conducts the required 1% manual
tally of votes from random precincts. This is a hand-counted test to
confirm the results with the machine results.

“This is one of the best executed elections we’ve had in a very long
time,” Spiegel said, seeming to summarize the board’s view. “You know
I’ve been very critical, but you’ve done a tremendous job despite a lot
of naysayers.”

She also noted the timely results (29 total reports) and mentioned that
she has received compliments from officials in neighboring counties.

However, the 14 public speakers were less enthusiastic about the
election and resolution of their concerns. The first speaker, Shelby
Bunch, alleged that all the 16- and 17-year-old students at a local
school received mail-in-ballots.

Two speakers, one from Los Angeles County, urged the bboard to return to
same-day voting with proof of identification.

However, both Spiegel and Tinoco concurred that these changes require
legislative action. The county could not do this unilaterally.

In response to Spiegel’s question about the actual number of people who
voted at the polls on election day, Tinoco replied that was less than
1%, definitely low.

“So, the majority of voters chose to take advantage of the longevity of
the voting and mailing in the ballots,” she opined.

In concluding the March election discussion, Chair Chuck Washington
(3^(rd) District) said, “This is a very challenging process. You’ve done
your best to conduct an election in a fair and efficient way. “

And the board unanimously accepted the March 5 election resolutions.