The latest debate followed California’s primary election, when it took about a week for enough votes to be counted to project the outcome of the high-profile governor’s race. The slow release of results attracted national attention, renewed accusations from election skeptics and prompted calls for reforms to make California’s vote count faster.

Election analyst Nate Silver called California an extreme outlier in how slowly it counts ballots compared with other states and industrialized democracies. Some online responses to the delays falsely suggested the extended count was evidence of manipulation. The New York Times editorial board also criticized California’s election system, arguing that delayed results can undermine public confidence and create openings for misinformation. Gov. Gavin Newsom has similarly urged counties to report results more quickly, warning that delays can weaken trust in the process.

But many California Democrats, including those who oversee election policy in Sacramento, say faster results cannot come at the expense of voters who rely on mail ballots or late voting options.

Assemblymember Gail Pellerin, a Democrat who chairs the Assembly elections committee and previously served as Santa Cruz County registrar, said same-night results would require major restrictions, such as a return to mostly in-person voting or earlier deadlines for mailed ballots.

“If you want results election night, you’re going to have to go back to in-person voting, way earlier deadlines for returning by mail, and you’re going to end up disenfranchising voters,” Pellerin said.

Pellerin said that despite public frustration, county elections offices are doing their jobs and continuing to process ballots carefully.

“It’s actually going really well, and elections officials are working around the clock, and we’re getting results,” she said.

Other Democratic lawmakers who have worked on election legislation, including Assemblymember Marc Berman of Palo Alto and Sen. Tom Umberg of Santa Ana, have also said they do not support restrictions on voting access as a way to accelerate results. Sen. Scott Wiener, a San Francisco Democrat who chairs the Senate elections committee and is running for Congress, said candidates may want quicker answers, but that cannot be the top priority.

“As a candidate, believe me, I would love for the counting to happen faster,” Wiener said. “I don’t think the right answer is disenfranchising people.”

Secretary of State Shirley Weber has also said accuracy should take precedence over speed. Weber, who is expected to win another term this fall, has previously dismissed some concerns about the slow count as echoing rhetoric used by President Donald Trump and his allies.

“I know the value of being fast for some folks,” Weber told CalMatters in April. “For me, accuracy is far more important.”

Some critics have focused on California’s rule allowing mail ballots to be counted if they arrive up to seven days after Election Day, as long as they are postmarked on time. That policy could face broader legal uncertainty as the U.S. Supreme Court considers whether to invalidate a similar law in Mississippi.

But election officials and researchers say much of California’s delay comes from the large number of mail ballots that arrive on Election Day or shortly before it — not only from ballots that arrive days later.

California adopted universal vote-by-mail during the pandemic, sending every registered voter a ballot. The system has become highly popular. In last year’s statewide special election, nearly 90% of votes were cast by mail. A decade ago, by comparison, fewer than 60% of voters in general elections used mail ballots.

Mail ballots, however, take more work to process than ballots cast in person and scanned at vote centers. Counties must verify registration, ensure voters have not cast multiple ballots and check signatures. That process requires time, staff, equipment and space.

Eric McGhee, a senior fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California, said counties have not received a consistent stream of state funding to match the demands of the vote-by-mail system.

“They’re kind of managing the best they can with the budget that they have,” McGhee said of county registrars. “But it’s a lot to handle.”

Unlike some states, California does not provide ongoing election administration funding to counties. Colorado, another universal vote-by-mail state, covers 45% of election costs when a statewide issue appears on the ballot. Hawaii shares expenses with counties for statewide and federal elections. Arizona reimburses counties $1.25 per active registered voter for presidential primaries.

In Yolo County, Registrar Jesse Salinas said more than half of the primary ballots that arrived this month were mail ballots returned on Election Day. He said only about 30% of ballots can be matched automatically by scanners, while the remaining 70% require human review.

“When people ask, ‘Well, why aren’t you working harder?’” Salinas said, he tells them that vote center staff work 19 straight days, including early voting periods that can last up to 15 days.

On Election Day, Salinas said, the Yolo County elections office is so packed with boxes of mail ballots that there is no room for additional machines or employees, even if funding were available. Handling more ballots quickly would require a larger facility.

“When you have that large volume hitting you at the 11th hour, there’s no way you can go through all of that in one night,” he said.

Orange County, by contrast, counted ballots more quickly this year after investing $4 million in new mail ballot processing equipment. Registrar Bob Page and his staff processed more than 807,000 ballots in a little over a week, with employees working from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. on weekdays and also working a Saturday shift.

Salinas said state funding would make a significant difference for counties. California paid for the costs of Newsom’s 2021 recall election and the 2025 statewide special election on redistricting, which allowed Yolo County to upgrade equipment.

But counties are facing other financial pressures, including the loss of federal and state Medi-Cal dollars and structural budget deficits that have forced departments to reduce spending. Even during an election year, Salinas said, his office was told to cut $1.1 million.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Democrats Resist Stricter Voting Deadlines as Calls Grow for Faster Election Results appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

More than a decade later, the system has not consistently delivered that result.

The open primary, used for most state and congressional contests, allows all candidates to appear on the same ballot regardless of party. The two candidates with the most votes advance to November, even if they belong to the same party. In theory, that setup was meant to encourage broader campaigning and give independent and moderate voters more influence.

In practice, most statewide races still end up looking much like traditional partisan elections: one Democrat and one Republican advancing to the general election.

Andrew Sinclair, a political scientist at Claremont McKenna College, said California’s political balance helps explain why. Although Democrats dominate statewide politics — no Republican has won statewide office in California since 2006 — the state is not so overwhelmingly Democratic that two Democrats routinely capture both runoff spots.

There are exceptions. In the current insurance commissioner’s race, two Democrats have been holding the top two positions as ballots continue to be counted. But those cases remain relatively uncommon in statewide contests.

Political analysts say voters also tend to approach the top-two primary much like an old-style partisan primary. Democrats often rally around the Democrat they see as most viable, while Republicans do the same on their side. That leaves less room for candidates trying to draw distinctions based on ideology rather than party label.

That dynamic can hurt candidates who are trying to run as moderates or outsiders. San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, a moderate Democrat who entered the governor’s race with criticism of “extremism on both sides,” received about 4% of the vote. Progressive challengers without strong party or institutional support can face similar barriers.

Eric McGhee, a political researcher at the Public Policy Institute of California, said many voters are not closely tracking the ideological differences among candidates from the same party.

“The evidence we have of how voters view these contests is that they don’t have a clue who the moderate or the liberal is,” McGhee said. “It’s always a good bet that voters are way, way, way less tapped into the nuances of what’s going on than you are if you’re interested in politics.”

The system also has created opportunities for strategic spending by campaigns and outside groups. In the 2024 U.S. Senate primary, a super PAC supporting Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff spent heavily to elevate Republican Steve Garvey, a move that helped shape the field and damaged former Democratic Rep. Katie Porter’s chances of advancing.

Critics describe that kind of tactic as evidence that the top-two primary can be manipulated by well-funded campaigns seeking the most favorable November opponent.

Democratic political consultant Steve Maviglio, among those calling for an overhaul, has filed a proposed ballot measure that would repeal the system. Opponents of the current model have suggested returning to partisan primaries or moving toward ranked-choice voting, which allows voters to list candidates in order of preference.

The debate is likely to continue as California reviews the results of its latest primary. For voters across Southern California and the Inland Empire, the question is not just which candidates advance, but whether the primary system itself is producing the broader choices and more moderate politics its backers once promised.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California’s Top-Two Primary Falls Short of Voters’ Expectations appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Democrat Xavier Becerra was running in second place behind Republican Steve Hilton in the most recent count, while progressive billionaire Tom Steyer trailed in third. That positioning would ensure at least one Democrat advances to November, averting what had been a politically alarming possibility for the party: two Republicans moving forward in one of the most Democratic states in the country.

But the way the race arrived at this point has renewed concerns about whether California’s primary system is producing healthy democratic outcomes.

For much of the campaign, Democrat Eric Swalwell had been a leading contender. He left the race after multiple women accused him of sexual misconduct, including one allegation under investigation by the Manhattan District Attorney. Whether the timing of those allegations was driven by political strategy or by the normal pace of reporting and corroboration, the result was unmistakable: the race was upended, the Democratic field shifted quickly, and the party narrowly avoided a disastrous general-election matchup.

That kind of volatility, critics argue, is not evidence of a strong system. It reflects a political structure shaped by low-turnout primaries, crowded fields and enormous campaign spending — conditions that can leave major decisions in the hands of a relatively small slice of the electorate.

The eventual first-place finisher in the primary may do so with roughly a quarter of the vote. In a state where primary turnout often includes only about 20% of eligible voters, that means a candidate can effectively lead the field with the active support of only a small fraction of Californians.

For voters across Southern California and the Inland Empire, the consequences are not abstract. The state’s political system continues to struggle with issues that dominate daily life: housing costs, utility bills, school funding challenges and growing wildfire risk. Those problems persist not because policy options are unknown, but because the incentives facing elected officials often reward partisan loyalty, donor support and base turnout more than broad public problem-solving.

One proposed change is ranked-choice voting, which allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference rather than choosing only one. Supporters say it reduces the chance that a candidate wins with a narrow plurality after similar candidates split the vote.

Another model would allow the top five primary finishers to advance to the general election, where voters would then use ranked-choice ballots to determine the winner. Advocates say such a system would make it more likely that California elects a governor with broader majority support.

Alaska has adopted a version of this approach, sending the top four primary candidates to the general election and using ranked-choice voting to select the winner. Voters there approved the system six years ago and rejected an attempt to repeal it in 2024.

Still, election mechanics alone may not solve California’s deeper civic problem. A better ballot does not automatically persuade disengaged voters to participate. Many Californians skip primaries because they do not believe voting will produce visible results on the issues that matter to them.

That points to a larger challenge: the weakening of civic institutions that once connected residents to government. Unions, religious congregations, neighborhood groups, veterans’ organizations and other trusted local networks historically helped voters understand candidates, organize around shared concerns and hold officeholders accountable.

Rebuilding that kind of civic infrastructure may be as important as changing the ballot itself. Without stronger public engagement, California may continue to depend on luck, scandals or fragmented vote totals to avoid troubling political outcomes.

The latest governor’s race may have spared Democrats their worst-case scenario. But narrowly escaping a political crisis is not the same as fixing the system that made it possible.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Governor’s Race Raises Concerns About Democracy’s Resilience appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

In the governor’s race, speculation had circulated about the possibility of two Republicans, or perhaps two Democrats, advancing to the general election. Instead, voters may be looking at a more conventional contest between Xavier Becerra, the Democratic front-runner, and Republican Steve Hilton, the former Fox News host.

That kind of matchup is common under California’s top-two system, even though the rules allow the two highest vote-getters to advance regardless of party. In a state where Democrats have not lost a statewide race to a Republican since 2006 and where Democratic registration is nearly double that of Republicans, the result of many November contests can be easy to anticipate.

The question for critics and election analysts is why California does not more often produce two-Democrat general elections in statewide races.

Andrew Sinclair, a political scientist at Claremont McKenna College who has studied the top-two system, said California is strongly Democratic — but not quite Democratic enough to routinely block Republicans from November ballots.

Democratic candidates often receive around 60% of the statewide vote, Sinclair said. That is enough to make many general election results predictable, but not always enough to allow two Democrats to finish first and second in a crowded primary field.

Once the Democratic share reaches roughly 60% to 65%, same-party Democratic contests become more likely, Sinclair said. California, he said, often sits in a political middle ground where Democrats dominate statewide elections but Republicans still have enough voters to secure one of the two November spots.

California adopted the top-two primary after voters approved the system in 2010. Under the rules, all candidates appear on the same primary ballot, and the top two finishers advance to the general election. Party affiliation does not determine who moves forward.

Supporters argued the system would force candidates to reach beyond their partisan bases. Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican who championed the measure, said at the time that it would help reduce gridlock and partisan fighting in Sacramento. Both major political parties opposed the change.

The reform was also intended to make elections more competitive in districts dominated by one party. Instead of a lopsided Democrat-versus-Republican race, voters in a heavily Democratic district might choose between two Democrats with different policy views. The same could happen in Republican areas.

That has occurred in some races. But if the current vote counts hold, with many ballots still to be counted, several marquee statewide contests this fall are not expected to be especially competitive.

In races for lieutenant governor, attorney general, controller and treasurer, prominent and well-funded Democrats appear likely to face Republicans with steep odds in November. In congressional districts in West Los Angeles and Napa Valley, progressive challengers to moderate Democratic incumbents appear to have fallen short, leaving veteran Democratic Reps. Brad Sherman and Mike Thompson on track to face Republican opponents.

There are exceptions. In the race for insurance commissioner, Democrats Jane Kim and Ben Allen currently hold the top two spots. The 2018 lieutenant governor’s race also featured two Democrats in November, and same-party matchups have occurred in some U.S. Senate races. Still, the more common result remains a traditional partisan contest.

Part of the reason is turnout. June primaries generally draw fewer voters, and those who participate are more likely to be strong partisans. Eric McGhee, a political researcher at the Public Policy Institute of California, said voters often behave as though the top-two primary is still a party primary. Democrats tend to rally around the candidate they see as the strongest Democrat, while Republicans do the same.

There may be some independent or swing voters willing to cross party lines, but McGhee said they are not numerous enough in most June elections to reshape the results.

The governor’s race offered one example. San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, a moderate Democrat, campaigned on concerns about extremism in both parties, focused on economic issues and pledged to rein in state spending by his own party. Democratic consultant Steve Maviglio, a critic of the top-two system who voted for Mahan, said the mayor seemed like the sort of candidate the system was built to elevate.

Mahan received about 4% of the vote.

“At the end of the day,” Maviglio said, “voters are partisan.”

Same-party contests are more common at the legislative and congressional district level, where one party may dominate a particular region far more than it does statewide. In parts of the Bay Area, Sacramento, Los Angeles and other liberal areas, two Democrats are on track to face each other in November.

Christian Grose, a political science professor at USC, said that over the past decade about one-third of legislative general elections in California have featured two candidates from the same party.

That can allow voters to weigh differences in policy, temperament or effectiveness rather than simply voting by party, Grose said. But it can also lead voters to make decisions based on factors less connected to governing, including race or gender.

In a 2020 paper, Grose found that candidates in top-two states have an incentive to move toward the political center, suggesting the system may have moderating effects even when it does not produce a same-party runoff.

The system may also make it easier for independents to compete. In a newly drawn swing district northeast of Sacramento, Rep. Kevin Kiley, described as a former Republican turned independent, appears to have finished first in his race. Running without major party backing can be more viable in a nonpartisan primary than in a traditional party primary.

Still, the top-two system has drawn criticism for creating opportunities for strategic maneuvering and unusual results.

Tom Charron, co-founder of the California Ranked Choice Voting Coalition, said the system can encourage candidates or outside groups to boost opponents they believe will be easier to defeat in November.

Gov. Gavin Newsom used that strategy in 2018, signaling support to Republican voters for John Cox, whom he viewed as a more favorable general election opponent than Democrat Antonio Villaraigosa. In 2024, a super PAC supporting Democratic U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff spent millions to elevate Republican Steve Garvey, hurting Democrat Katie Porter’s chances of advancing.

The system can also produce “shutouts,” where a party with substantial support fails to place any candidate in the general election because too many candidates split the vote.

That happened in 2012, when four Democrats ran in a San Bernardino congressional race and divided the left-leaning vote. Two Republicans advanced, even though Democrats had a modest registration advantage. A decade later, in a heavily conservative state Senate district east of Fresno, too many Republican candidates split the GOP vote and allowed two Democrats to move forward.

This year, some Democrats worried a similar dynamic could unfold in the governor’s race, where a crowded Democratic field raised the possibility that Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, both Republicans, could claim the top two spots.

That outcome did not materialize. Becerra and Democrat Tom Steyer were well ahead of Bianco in the vote count, which Sinclair said showed how unlikely a Democratic shutout was despite the crowded field.

Sinclair said several factors could have made such a result possible: a weak or divided Democratic field, the abrupt exit of Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell and the lack of an endorsement from the state party or major California Democratic figures. But the concern itself may have prompted some Democratic voters to act strategically and consolidate behind candidates they believed could avoid a shutout.

The renewed debate has already prompted efforts to change the system.

Maviglio has filed a proposed ballot measure to repeal the top-two primary and return California to partisan primaries. He argues same-party general elections leave voters without a true party choice in November.

Supporters of top-two say same-party races can still provide meaningful distinctions, such as a contest between a business-aligned moderate and a progressive. But McGhee said many voters struggle to identify those ideological differences.

Others want California to move in a different direction: ranked-choice voting.

Charron’s group supports a system similar to Alaska’s, where the top four or five primary candidates advance to a ranked-choice general election. Voters rank candidates in order of preference. If their first choice is eliminated, their vote transfers to their next choice.

Several California cities, including Oakland and San Francisco, already use ranked-choice voting in mayoral elections.

Charron said ranked-choice voting could encourage a broader candidate field and reduce concerns about spoiler candidates dividing a party’s vote.

In May, the nonpartisan nonprofit Independent Voter Project launched an effort to bring ranked-choice voting to California through a constitutional amendment that could appear before voters in 2028.

For now, California’s primary system remains in place. But after another election cycle in which the top-two system produced more familiar partisan matchups than political surprises, the debate over whether it has fulfilled its promise is far from settled.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Did California’s Top-Two Primary Deliver on Its Promise to Reshape Politics? appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

California has repeatedly drawn attention for reporting final election results more slowly than many other states. Last month, Gov. Gavin Newsom sent a letter to county elections officials urging them to “accurately count every legally cast vote as quickly as possible,” warning that misinformation and disinformation can spread in the gap between Election Day and the official certification of results.

The slower timeline is partly a result of voting changes California adopted to make casting a ballot easier, particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic. Every registered voter is mailed a ballot, and mail ballots are valid as long as they are postmarked by Election Day and arrive at county elections offices within seven days.

California is one of eight states that allow all-mail elections, though deadlines for receiving postmarked ballots vary by state. Those grace periods could face changes as the U.S. Supreme Court considers whether states may require ballots to arrive by Election Day.

For mail ballots that arrive before Tuesday, elections workers can begin verifying signatures and preparing the ballots to be counted. Ballots that arrive later must go through that process after Election Day, slowing the release of results.

As of Monday afternoon, nearly 17% of California’s registered voters had cast ballots, according to Political Data Inc., a firm that analyzes election data. That early turnout rate was similar to the pace in 2022.

Paul Mitchell, the company’s founder, said he expects overall turnout to exceed the 2022 level. Early returns have shown stronger Republican participation, he said, while some Democrats who had not yet returned ballots are considered highly likely voters.

“There are a lot of indications that we’re probably headed toward a total turnout of 38% or 40%, rather than the 33% turnout we saw in 2022,” Mitchell said.

Election experts have also pointed to California’s large number of competitive districts and the state’s generous deadlines for voters to fix ballot problems as reasons some results can take longer to settle.

Several recent changes could affect how quickly Californians see results in certain races.

One major change involves the amount of time counties have to complete most ballot counting. Under Assembly Bill 5, signed into law last year, counties now have 13 days to finish counting most ballots, down from the previous 30-day window. Newsom highlighted the change during a news conference last week as a step toward speeding up the vote count.

County officials still have 30 days to finalize official election results.

Jesse Salinas, Yolo County’s top elections official and president of the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials, said the new 13-day requirement does not apply to ballots that take longer to process. Those include ballots from people who registered on Election Day and ballots with signature mismatches. State law gives voters several weeks to resolve those issues.

“I hear comments like, ‘We should be done by day 13,’ but that is not legally possible under state law,” Salinas said.

Another effort to speed up counting aims to reduce the large number of mail ballots dropped off on Election Day, which can delay processing, said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation.

A survey by the foundation found that 26 of California’s 58 counties will give voters the option Tuesday to bring their mail ballot to the elections office, where it can be scanned and counted the same day as an in-person ballot. The option was authorized through Assembly Bill 626, approved in 2023.

In Placer County, where the system debuted in 2024 under the name “sign, scan and go,” officials said it reduced post-election processing time by about three to four days.

Not everyone agrees that California’s lengthy counting process fuels distrust in elections.

Mindy Romero, a political sociologist and director of the Center for Inclusive Democracy at the University of Southern California, said that criticism often rests on allegations of voter fraud that have been repeatedly debunked. She said the notion that elections are being manipulated has been “artificially created” by politicians such as President Donald Trump to undermine confidence in the electoral process.

“I don’t think we should focus on fixing something that is wrong or flawed, because that longer count is the product of making sure every vote is verified,” Romero said. “It is actually the opposite of the fraud allegations.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Voting Ends Tuesday, but Final Results Could Take Time appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The state has long been known for taking more time than many others to report complete election results. That is partly by design: California has expanded voting access in recent years, particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic, by mailing a ballot to every registered voter and allowing ballots to be counted if they are postmarked by Election Day and arrive at county elections offices within seven days.

For voters across Southern California and the Inland Empire, that means early election night totals may offer only a partial picture, especially in close contests where late-arriving mail ballots, signature reviews and provisional ballots could affect the outcome.

Gov. Gavin Newsom last month urged county election officials to count legally cast ballots “as quickly as possible” while maintaining accuracy. In a letter to local registrars, he warned that delays between Election Day and certification can create space for misinformation and disinformation to spread.

Still, election officials and voting experts say the state’s process is not simply a matter of slow counting. It includes multiple steps required under California law to verify ballots and protect voters’ rights.

Mail ballots that arrive before Election Day can be reviewed in advance, including signature verification and preparation for tabulation. But ballots dropped off on Election Day or received in the following week must go through that same process later, which can slow the release of updated results.

As of Monday afternoon, nearly 17% of registered California voters had returned ballots, according to Political Data Inc., a voter data firm. That pace was similar to the 2022 midterm election.

Paul Mitchell, founder of Political Data Inc., said he expects overall turnout to exceed the 2022 level. He pointed to stronger early turnout among Republicans and noted that many Democrats who had not yet returned ballots are frequent voters.

“There’s a lot of evidence here that we’re probably headed towards 38%, 40% turnout in total, rather than 33% which was the turnout in 2022,” Mitchell said.

Several recent changes are intended to speed up the process. Under Assembly Bill 5, signed into law last year, counties now have 13 days to complete counting most ballots, rather than 30 days. Counties still have 30 days to certify official results.

Newsom cited the change during a recent news conference as part of the state’s effort to produce election results more quickly.

But local election officials caution that the new deadline does not apply to every category of ballot. Jesse Salinas, Yolo County’s elections chief and president of the California Association of Clerks and Elections Officials, said some of the most time-consuming ballots are excluded from the 13-day requirement. Those include ballots from voters who registered on Election Day and ballots with signature issues that must be resolved under state law.

“I’m hearing these comments about ‘We should be done by the 13th day’ — that’s legally not possible by state law,” Salinas said.

California also gives voters time to correct certain problems, such as a missing or mismatched signature. Voting rights advocates say that process helps ensure eligible voters are not disenfranchised, but it also contributes to the longer wait for final results.

Another change could reduce the number of mail ballots that pile up at drop boxes and elections offices on Election Day. According to a survey by the California Voter Foundation, 26 of California’s 58 counties will allow voters to bring their mail ballots to an elections office Tuesday and have them scanned and counted that day as in-person ballots.

That option was authorized by Assembly Bill 626, passed in 2023. In Placer County, where officials introduced a version of the system in 2024 called “sign, scan and go,” the county reported that it reduced post-election processing time by about three to four days.

Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, said the shift is aimed at easing the late surge of mail ballots that otherwise must be processed after polls close.

California is one of eight states that allow all elections to be conducted by mail, with different rules for how long ballots may arrive after Election Day if postmarked on time. Those grace periods are now under scrutiny nationally, as the U.S. Supreme Court considers whether states may require mail ballots to be received by Election Day.

The pace of California’s vote count has also drawn political attention because the state has a large number of closely contested districts. In such races, incomplete returns can leave candidates and voters waiting while counties continue processing ballots.

Some election experts reject the idea that slower counting is evidence of a flawed system.

Mindy Romero, a political sociologist and director of the Center for Inclusive Democracy at USC, said concerns about delays have often been tied to unfounded claims of voter fraud. She said the lengthy count reflects the safeguards built into the system, not evidence of tampering.

“I think the focus should not be on fixing something that is flawed or wrong, because that long count is a product of making sure that every ballot is verified — indeed, just the opposite of the claims around fraud,” Romero said.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Voting Wraps Up Tuesday, but Results Could Take Days or Weeks appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Alameda, to succeed Xavier Becerra. He resigned to become the U.S. Health and Human Services secretary.

The Assembly approved Bonta’s nomination on a 62-0 vote with Republicans abstaining, while the Senate followed on a 29-6 rollcall with three additional Republicans not voting.

GOP Caucus chairwoman Sen. Patricia Bates said Republicans remain concerned about Bonta’s progressive track record since he was elected to the Assembly in 2012, but were reassured by his promise “that he is very committed to a bipartisan role on issues that do affect our constituents.”

Republicans didn’t support his nomination, Bates said, “but do want to recognize a commitment and a passion that he will bring to this assignment, and we wish him well and we very much look forward to working with him in the coming years.”

Bonta will be up for election with other statewide officials next year.

He takes office during a time of “a very strong examining of our justice system and whether it has really truly been just,” said Democratic Sen. Nancy Skinner.

Bonta will be responsible for enforcing laws that the Legislature has recently enacted “through the lens of racial equity,” Skinner said, including a law requiring his office to investigate police shootings that result in the deaths of unarmed civilians.

Bonta said after his confirmation that he views the attorney general as “the people’s attorney.”

“To fight for everyday folks, the vulnerable, the voiceless, the disadvantaged, those who need a champion, those who are hurting, being abused, and to push back and fight back against those in power who are overreaching that power or abusing that power,” he said. “That’s the job.”

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post California OKs 1st Filipino American as attorney general appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

It is so easy to get into the mindset of voting against someone or something. For many Americans, watching the shenanigans of Donald Trump, his demeaning of women, of veterans, his constant lying, his name calling, it is easy to make a choice to vote against Donald Trump. But let’s look at the other side of the coin. Here is a partial list of the things that you can vote for in this election.

Addressing climate change

Clean water and air

A tax structure that favors the lower and middle class instead of the wealthy

Affordable health care for everyone

A effective response to the Covid-19 epidemic

Equality opportunity and justice for all people

Fixing the problems with our infrastructure

Establishing a living wage for all workers

Improving a broken educational system

A fair and accessible voting system

Restoring our leadership around the world

Reestablishing a climate of cooperation, of compromise in Washington

A vote against Donald Trump is the same as a vote for all of the above. It will accomplish the same thing. It is a vote for our country moving forward, a vote for the future not just of our country but for our very democracy. Be positive. Vote for an improved future, not just overcoming the mistakes of the past four years. Vote for the candidate who shows empathy. Vote for the candidate who shows compassion. Vote for the candidate who has proven his ability to get us through a moment of crisis. Above all, just vote. Let your voice be heard. Earn your right to complain. Let the world know what the will of the people is. America needs your vote.

Dick Gale

President of Democrats of Hemet-San Jacinto

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post What are you voting for? appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

If you plan on voting by mail, election officials say it’s best to do it as early as possible so your ballot gets to its destination well before Election Day, which is Nov. 3.

Postal officials have repeatedly said the agency has more than enough capacity to handle the surge of ballots this fall, and its leaders have committed to prioritizing election mail. But on-time delivery rates vary widely depending on where you live, and the service has been falling short of its internal goals to deliver all first-class mail within five days.

On top of that, each state has different rules on whether it accepts mail ballots that arrive after Election Day. Some policies are the subject of court cases and could change before Nov. 3, so voters should check with their local election officials if they’re unsure.

All that is to say, the earlier you mail your ballot, the better.

It has been a tumultuous few months for the Postal Service. This summer, the agency’s new leader, Louis DeJoy, a major donor to the GOP and President Donald Trump, set in motion a series of controversial policy changes that have delayed deliveries nationwide.

Then, not too long after DeJoy took over, Trump openly admitted he was starving the Postal Service of coronavirus relief money to make it harder for the agency to process ballots. The combination of Trump’s remarks and DeJoy’s policies have led to a lot of distrust in the agency and fears about political manipulation.

The Postal Service has been sued several times in multiple states over the policy changes and has been handed a series of bruising court decisions blocking them. One judge in Washington state called them “a politically motivated attack on the efficiency of the Postal Service” before the election.

The Postal Service agreed Wednesday to reverse changes that had slowed mail service nationwide, settling a lawsuit filed by Montana Gov. Steve Bullock. The changes had included reduced retail hours, removal of collection boxes and mail sorting machines, closure or consolidation of mail processing facilities, restriction of late or extra trips for timely mail delivery, and banning or restricting overtime. The agreement also requires the Postal Service to prioritize election mail.

So, if you’re worried about voting by mail, what should you do? Consider early voting options in your state, check if your area has ballot drop boxes or go to the polls on Election Day.

Otherwise, return your ballot early and don’t wait until the last few days.

Vision 2020 is a new series from the AP dedicated to answering commonly asked questions from our audience about the 2020 U.S. presidential election. Submit your questions at: Vision2020@AP.org

. AP’s Advance Voting guide brings you the facts about voting early, by mail or absentee from each state: https://interactives.ap.org/advance-voting-2020.

The post Vision 2020: Will mailed-in ballots be delivered on time? appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

WASHINGTON (AP) — They’ve been fighting in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania over the cutoff date for counting mailed ballots, and in North Carolina over witness requirements. Ohio is grappling with drop boxes for ballots as Texas faces a court challenge over extra days of early voting.

Measuring the anxiety over the November election is as simple as tallying the hundreds of voting-related lawsuits filed across the country in recent months. The cases concern the fundamentals of the American voting process, including how ballots are cast and counted, during an election made unique by the coronavirus pandemic and by a president who refuses to commit to accepting the results.

The lawsuits are all the more important because President Donald Trump has raised the prospect that the election may wind up before a Supreme Court with a decidedly Republican tilt if his latest nominee is confirmed.

“This is a president who has expressed his opposition to access to mail ballots and has also seemed to almost foreshadow the inevitability that this election will be one decided by the courts,” said Kristen Clarke, executive director of the National Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

That opposition was on display Tuesday during the first presidential debate when Trump launched into an extended argument against mail voting, claiming without evidence that it is ripe for fraud and suggesting mail ballots may be “manipulated.”

“This is going to be a fraud like you’ve never seen,” the president said of the massive shift to mail voting prompted by the pandemic.

The lawsuits are a likely precursor for what will come afterward. Republicans say they have retained outside law firms, along with thousands of volunteer lawyers at the ready. Democrats have announced a legal war room of heavyweights, including a pair of former solicitors general.

The race is already regarded as the most litigated in American history, due in large part to the massive expansion of mail and absentee voting. Loyola Law School professor Justin Levitt, a former Justice Department elections official, has tallied some 260 lawsuits arising from the coronavirus. The Republication National Committee says it’s involved in more than 40 lawsuits, and a website operated by a chief Democrat lawyer lists active cases worth watching in about 15 states.

Democrats are focusing their efforts on multiple core areas — securing free postage for mail ballots, reforming signature-match laws, allowing ballot collection by third-parties like community organizations and ensuring that ballots postmarked by Election Day can count. Republicans warn that those same requests open the door to voter fraud and confusion and are countering efforts to relax rules on how voters cast ballots this November.

“We’re trying to prevent chaos in the process,” RNC chief counsel Justin Riemer said in an interview. “Nothing creates more chaos than rewriting a bunch of rules at the last minute.”

But there have been no broad-based, sweeping examples of voter fraud during past presidential elections, including in 2016, when Trump claimed the contest would be rigged and Russians sought to meddle in the outcome.

Some of the disputes are unfolding in states not traditionally thought of as election battlegrounds, such as Montana, where there is a highly competitive U.S. Senate race on the ballot. A judge Wednesday rejected an effort by Trump’s reelection campaign and Republican groups to block counties from holding the general election mostly by mail.

But most of the closely watched cases are in states perceived as up-for-grabs in 2020 and probably crucial to the race.

That includes Ohio, where a coalition of voting groups and Democrats have sued to force an expansion of ballot drop boxes from more than just one per county. Separately on Monday, a federal judge rejected changes to the state’s signature-matching requirement for ballots and ballot applications, handing a win to the state’s Republican election chief who has been engulfed with litigation this election season.

In Arizona, a judge’s ruling that voters who forget to sign their early ballots have up to five days after the election to fix the problem is now on appeal before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld a six-day extension for counting absentee ballots in Wisconsin as long as they are postmarked by Election Day. The ruling gave Democrats in the state at least a temporary victory in a case that could nonetheless by appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. In neighboring Michigan, the GOP is suing to try to overturn a decision that lets the state count absentee ballots up to 14 days after the election.

In battleground North Carolina, where voters are already struggling with rules requiring witness signatures on absentee ballots, the RNC and Trump’s campaign committee have sued over new election guidance that will permit ballots with incomplete witness information to be fixed without the voter having to fill out a new blank ballot.

In Iowa, the Trump campaign and Republican groups have won a series of sweeping legal victories in their attempts to limit absentee voting, with judges throwing out tens of thousands of absentee ballot applications in three counties. This week, another judge upheld a new Republican-backed law that will make it harder for counties to process absentee ballot applications.

Pennsylvania has been a particular hive of activity.

Republican lawmakers asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday to put a hold on a ruling by the state’s highest court that extends the deadline for receiving and counting mailed-in ballots. Republicans also object to a portion of the state court’s ruling that orders counties to count ballots that arrive during the three-day extension period even if they lack a postmark or legible postmark.

Meanwhile in federal court, Republicans are suing to, among other things, outlaw drop boxes or other sites used to collect mail-in ballots.

The Supreme Court itself has already been asked to get involved in several cases, as it did in April, when conservative justices blocked Democratic efforts to extend absentee voting in Wisconsin during the primary.

There is, of course, precedent for an election that ends in the courts. In 2000, the Supreme Court settled a recount dispute in Florida, effectively handing the election to Republican George W. Bush.

Barry Richard, a Florida lawyer who represented Bush during that litigation, said there’s no guarantee the Supreme Court will want to get involved again, or that any lawsuit over the election will present a compelling issue for the bench to address.

One significant difference between then and now, he said, is that neither candidate raised the prospect of not accepting the results.

“There was never any question, in 2000, about the essential integrity of the system. Neither candidate challenged it,” Richard said. “Nobody even talked about whether or not the losing candidate would accept the results of the election. That was just assumed.”

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Voting lawsuits pile up across US as election approaches appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.