Californians take pride in living at the center of technological innovation. This is the state where artificial intelligence companies set the pace, where smartphones were reimagined and where engineers built systems capable of processing billions of transactions in the blink of an eye. Yet for all that ingenuity, it took the state 38 days to certify the results of its June 2 primary election, with certification not finalized until July 10.
That delay is not the product of faulty machines or election fraud. It is the predictable outcome of policies that were never designed with speed in mind.
Under current law, California counties have up to 30 days after Election Day to finish counting, auditing and certifying results. Mail ballots postmarked on Election Day can legally arrive up to a week later, and elections officials are required to verify the signature on every single ballot envelope before it can even be opened. As the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation has noted, county officials are essentially running two parallel election systems at once — one for early and in-person votes, another for the flood of mail ballots that trickle in afterward.
The consequence is that a state of 23 million registered voters routinely waits weeks to learn who actually won a contest.
Even Gov. Gavin Newsom seemed to recognize the problem earlier this year. After the current secretary of state — whom he originally appointed — pushed back on calls for faster counting and insisted she would not compromise accuracy for speed, Newsom sent a letter to all 58 county elections officials urging them to tally ballots “as quickly as possible” in order to prevent, in his words, “election lies from taking hold.”
To be clear, none of this suggests that California’s elections are compromised or rigged. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the practice of counting ballots that arrive up to five days after Election Day, as long as they were postmarked in time. That ruling means the state will keep operating under a legal framework that was never built for efficiency.
But other states prove that speed and accuracy aren’t mutually exclusive — they’re simply a matter of when the counting is legally allowed to begin. Florida offers perhaps the sharpest contrast: while California often needs more than a month to finish counting, Florida regularly wraps up within four days.
Three specific reforms could close that gap.
First, California should join the 28 other states that already allow counties to begin processing and verifying mail ballots before Election Day itself. In Florida, state law permits officials to start processing and even counting mail ballots roughly three weeks in advance, which is why the state can often report results within hours of polls closing. Giving California’s counties that same head start would dramatically shrink the post-election counting window.
Second, the state needs to properly fund the staffing and equipment counties require to count more efficiently. The California Voter Foundation has called for $55 million in dedicated state funding for elections personnel and technology upgrades. The Legislature allocated $29 million in this year’s budget — a reasonable step, but not nearly enough if it isn’t paired with structural changes to how and when counting happens. Money alone won’t fix a slow system.
Third, California should establish a mandatory interim reporting deadline, requiring counties to release results covering the vast majority of ballots within 72 hours of Election Day.
None of these changes would take away a single voter’s rights. Every ballot postmarked by Election Day — even those arriving up to five days later — would still be counted in full. Every existing voter protection would remain intact. The only thing that would change is how long Californians have to wait to learn the outcome of their own elections.
After three decades of public service at nearly every level of California government — school board, the state Assembly, city hall and now county government — I’ve come to understand that broken processes don’t fix themselves. Someone has to decide the problem is worth solving, build support for change, and see it through.
California should be a leader in running elections efficiently and transparently, not an outlier known for taking longer than almost anywhere else. We have the technology. We have the expertise. What’s missing is a Secretary of State willing to treat this as the urgent, nonpartisan reform it needs to be. That change has to start with new leadership in that office.
Secretary of State Shirley Weber’s campaign did not respond by deadline to an invitation to offer her perspective on this issue.
Original source: CalMatters
