Assemblyman Evan Low, who fought vehemently against a recount during his own congressional campaign within the Bay Area to interrupt a surprising stalemate, suddenly desires to revise California's rules for recounting close elections.
His newfound desire for electoral integrity is difficult to take seriously after two months ago he tried unsuccessfully to undermine that integrity on the grounds that an accurate vote count wouldn’t profit him politically.
However, one a part of a bill he introduced within the state legislature on Tuesday deserves serious discussion if it corrects a glaring error in it. The other part is mere political posturing.
The crux of the issue lies in California's flawed recount law, which usually doesn’t provide public funds for a second count. In 23 other states and Washington, DC, Recounts are initiated mechanically if the outcomes are very close to one another.
But the recounts in California require private money. That's incorrect. Candidates shouldn't must pay for the initial vote count, nor should they must hunt down wealthy donors to cover the prices of constructing sure election officials got it right.
The useful a part of Low's bill would require automatic manual recounts in particularly close elections for the U.S. Senate, House of Representatives, Senate, or State Assembly. The part referring to political posturing calls for stricter disclosure requirements for individuals who fund a recount.
For two months now, Low has been attempting to distract from his undemocratic opposition to a recount in his own congressional campaign by redirecting public attention to the political motion committee that funded the recount.
What he keeps missing, nonetheless, is that if he solves the primary problem—the necessity for personal funding for a recount—he wouldn't must worry concerning the second, which is identifying the committee or wealthy individual forced to bear the prices.
Primary elections on March 5
In Low's race to fill the seat of retiring Assemblywoman Anna Eshoo, vote counts within the March 5 primary election before the recount showed him tied for second place with Santa Clara Mayor Joe Simitian.
Had that remained the case, it will have led to a three-candidate runoff in November between Low, Simitian and first-place finisher Sam Liccardo, the previous mayor of San Jose. There would likely have been a winner who didn’t have majority support, undermining a key reason for a two-candidate runoff.
Low would have preferred a three-way race in November due to the benefits he would have had because the only gay or Asian candidate within the group and because the youngest and most progressive candidate over two older white men who would have divided the more moderate voters. So Low didn’t wish to break the tie.
But that is precisely what happened through the recount. It showed that Low Simitian was ahead by five votes. Now MP Liccardo has to face the challenge.
Low apparently hopes voters will forget that he was the candidate who campaigned against an accurate primary count, so on Tuesday Low gutted an earlier, unrelated bill that had been stuck in committee and replaced it together with his proposed changes to recall elections.
Low's laws
The bill, AB 996In its current form, would require a recount if the election results show that there’s a difference of lower than 25 votes or 0.25% of the votes solid between the candidates (whichever is lower).
Low's spokesman says the bill is modeled on Santa Clara County's similar requirements for local elections – requirements that, mockingly, were introduced at Simitian's urging but don’t apply to congressional elections, where the county has no authority.
Unfortunately, the wording of Low's bill appears to be incorrect as a consequence of a drafting error. To replicate the Santa Clara County standard, the bill would have needed to apply if the margin between the candidates was lower than the greater of 25 votes or 0.25% of the votes solid.
The difference is very important to be certain that the brink for a recount is acceptable in most elections. And from a practical standpoint, it will eliminate the necessity to privately fund a voter-requested recount. After I identified the error, Low's spokesperson said it will be fixed.
If that's the case, passage of this a part of the bill could be a big step forward. Certainly, it will do nothing to deal with the shortage of mandatory recounts in other local or state elections.
Nor wouldn’t it change California's bizarre rules that give the governor the flexibility to demand a recount in very close races for statewide offices – and the secretary of state the identical ability in an in depth race for governor. No one should want their politicians to come to a decision whether to order a recount. That's a recipe for politically manipulating our electoral system.
Wellbeing care
The second a part of Low's bill is driven by his obsession with funding his congressional campaign's recount. Instead of thanking anyone willing to supply money to make sure the votes are counted appropriately, Low is indignant that the general public was unaware on the time of the recount that a number of the funding got here from a political motion committee funded primarily by Liccardo supporter and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
To be clear, evidence so far suggests that recount funders have complied with disclosure requirements under federal election law. All sources of recount funding must be known when federal campaign finance reports are filed in late July.
Yet Low's bill requires almost immediate disclosure of donors who provide $10,000 or more for recounts. One wonders whether Low would feel the identical way if the tables were turned and his Labor supporters had funded a recount that may have benefited him politically.
This a part of Low's bill is a feel-good provision that may speed up transparency but would don’t have any impact on the final result of an election.
Furthermore, it doesn’t solve the larger problem that the integrity of our electoral system is dependent upon wealthy donors. If that were fixed, there could be no need to lift money for recounts.
Reach Opinion Editor Daniel Borenstein at dborenstein@bayareanewsgroup.com.
image credit : www.mercurynews.com