In a sense, the entire election controversy unfolding in San
Benito County can be traced back to the Elections Office accepting
and counting absentee ballots it never should have on election
day.
In a sense, the entire election controversy unfolding in San Benito County can be traced back to the Elections Office accepting and counting absentee ballots it never should have on election day.
But a disparity in the laws governing how absentee ballots can be returned in person and through the mail only the muddied the entire process for local election officials.
Supervisor-elect Jaime De La Cruz and Ignacio Velazquez have admitted they returned absentee ballots for friends after receiving advice from the local Elections Office that it was OK. That happened even though the election code states only immediate family can hand deliver absentee ballots and, even then, only if the voter is sick or disabled. The code also states “The provisions of this section are mandatory, not directory, and no ballot shall be counted if it is not delivered in compliance with this section.” The law also states no absentee ballots will be returned by a paid or volunteer worker on a campaign committee.
The Elections Office makes voters returning absentee ballots sign a log book, but officials admit many ballots are returned without anyone ever signing in. With 1,228 absentee ballots delivered to the Elections Office during the March election, undoubtedly some of those broke the strict laws defining who can return them. Of those ballots, it is unclear exactly how many were returned by someone other than the voter.
Elections officials said when a ballot appears in the box and doesn’t have a signature in the log, they assume it was delivered by the voter, but they do not have the staff to investigate. Likewise, there is no way to determine which of the absentee ballots returned by immediate family were for a voter who was sick or disabled. So the Elections Office can’t tell which ballots should be disqualified.
It’s anyone’s guess how the results of the District 5 race should look if the Elections Office followed the letter of the law on absentee ballots.
The real kicker in the controversy is, had the ballots in question been mailed and not delivered personally by De La Cruz, Velazquez or anyone else, there would be no violation of election code. The laws governing absentee ballots have strict rules about who should return ballots personally, but the laws allow anybody to mail a ballot for someone else. Over the course of the entire race, 3,687 absentee ballots were mailed into the Elections office.
The state elections division says that’s because it’s impossible to regulate people putting ballots in the mail.
It’s a catch-22 in our state’s election process that the Legislature needs to change. If anyone can put an absentee voter’s ballot in the mail, it seems logical that anyone should be able to hand deliver it to the Elections Office to keep the system fair.
Changes also need to occur locally. The Elections Office must stick to its promise to educate poll workers on absentee voting procedures to ensure only the ballots returned under the provisions of election code are counted. Once the Elections Office accepts an absentee ballot and puts it into the ballot box, there is no taking it back. The Elections Office must ensure only valid ballots returned under the strict election code are counted and no others.
If we do not learn from mistakes of this past election, they will be repeated in the future.
To respond to this editorial or comment on this issue, please send or bring letters to Editor, Hollister Free Lance, 350 Sixth St., Hollister, Calif. 95023 or fax to 637-4104 or e-mail to
ed****@fr***********.com
