Elections: statewide recounts.
Summary
(1) Existing law requires the Secretary of State to adopt regulations relating to the use of voting systems in recounting ballots. This bill would also require the Secretary of State to revise and adopt regulations relating to procedures for recounting ballots, including regulations establishing guidelines for the charges a county elections official may impose when conducting a manual recount. (2) Existing law establishes procedures by which a voter may request a recount of the votes cast in an election following completion of the official canvass. Existing law requires a voter to make this request within 5 days beginning on the 29th day after the election. This bill would instead permit a voter to file a request for a recount within 5 days beginning on the 30th day after the election. (3) Any time during the conduct of a recount and for 24 hours thereafter, existing law permits any other voter to request a recount of any precincts in an election for the same office, slate of presidential electors, or measure not recounted as a result of the original request. Existing law also provides that, where applicable, a voter requesting a recount may select whether the recount shall be conducted manually, or by means of the voting system used originally, or both. This bill would instead require a voter to select, for each type of voting system used, whether the recount is to be conducted manually, or by means of the voting system used originally, but not both. This bill would also specify that if more than one voter requests a recount of the same office or measure, and at least one request is for a manual recount, then the county elections official of any county subject to multiple requests is only obligated to conduct one manual recount of the ballots subject to the request, and that those results will control. (4) Under existing law, a voter seeking a recount is required, before the recount is commenced and at the beginning of each subsequent day, to deposit with the elections official the amount of money required by the elections official to cover the cost of the recount for that day. This bill would permit the Governor or Secretary of State, as specified, to order a state-funded manual recount of all votes cast for a statewide office or a state ballot measure if the difference in the number of votes received is less than or equal to the lesser of 1,000 votes or 0.00015 of the number of all votes cast, as specified. This bill would also require a county elections official to review rejected ballots as part of a state-funded recount. (5) Under existing law, upon completion of a recount showing that a different candidate was nominated or elected, that a different presidential slate of electors received a plurality of the votes, or that a measure was defeated instead of approved or approved instead of defeated, the result of the recount in each affected precinct is entered and is thereafter considered the official return of the affected precincts. Existing law provides that if an office, slates of presidential electors, or measure is voted on statewide, the results of any recount are null and void unless each vote cast for the office, slates, or measure in any county specified in the request for recount is recounted. This bill would instead provide that if an office, slates of presidential electors, or measure is voted on statewide, the results of any recount are null and void unless each vote cast statewide for the office, slates, or measure is recounted. (6) Existing law requires the Secretary of State to certify or conditionally approve a voting system prior to any election at which it is to be used, as specified. Existing law prohibits the Secretary of State from certifying or conditionally approving a voting system or part of a voting system that does not have certain technical capabilities. This bill would also prohibit the Secretary of State from certifying or conditionally approving a voting system that cannot facilitate the conduct of a ballot level comparison risk-limiting audit; however, it would expressly permit the Secretary of State to approve a proposed change or modification to a noncompliant voting system even if the voting system would be unable to facilitate the conduct of a ballot level comparison risk-limiting audit after the change or modification. By imposing new duties on local elections officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.
Bill status
signed
all 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Dec 2014
Committee Review
Sep 2015
Assembly Passage
Jun 2015
Senate Passage
Sep 2015
Signed into Law
Oct 2015
Introduced Dec 1, 2014
Signed Oct 10, 2015
Floor votes · Senate Sep 3, 2015 · Assembly Jun 2, 2015
How they voted
29–3
Passed · 1 other
Total votes 33
Sep 3, 2015
D
Democratic23
100% Yea
R
Republican10
60% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
28
Key actions
8
Committee
11
Amendments
5
Oct 10, 2015
Signed into law
Approved by the Governor.
legislature
Sep 9, 2015
Lower · Passed
Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 73. Noes 5. Page 3027.).
lower
Sep 3, 2015
Senate · Passed
Senate Vote: pass (29-3-1)
senate
Sep 3, 2015
Introduced
In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after September 5 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.
lower
Aug 31, 2015
Upper · Passed
Read second time and amended. Ordered to third reading.
upper
Aug 27, 2015
Introduced
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (August 27).
upper
Aug 17, 2015
Committee
In committee: Referred to APPR. suspense file.
upper
Jul 1, 2015
Committee
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 4. Noes 0.) (June 30). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
upper
Jun 24, 2015
Committee
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on E. & C.A.
upper
Jun 11, 2015
Committee
Referred to Com. on E. & C.A.
upper
Jun 2, 2015
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (67-4-1)
assembly
May 28, 2015
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 17. Noes 0.) (May 28).
lower
May 6, 2015
Committee
In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.
lower
Apr 28, 2015
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
Apr 27, 2015
Lower · Passed
Read second time and amended.
lower
Apr 23, 2015
Introduced
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 0.) (April 15).
lower
Apr 9, 2015
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on E. & R.
lower
Jan 22, 2015
Committee
Referred to Com. on E. & R.
lower
Dec 2, 2014
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee January 1.
lower
1 primary · 3 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
Kevin Mullin
DDemocratic
Co
Joel Anderson
RRepublican
Co
Lorena Gonzalez
DDemocratic
Co
Rob Bonta
DDemocratic
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about AB 44
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand AB 44. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline