Assemblymember Evan Low, who vehemently fought a recount to break an amazing tie in his own Bay Area race for Congress, suddenly wants to revamp California’s rules for retabulating close elections.
It’s hard to take seriously his new-found desire for election integrity when two months ago he tried unsuccessfully to undermine it because an accurate vote tally didn’t work to his political advantage.
That said, one part of a bill he introduced in the state Legislature on Tuesday deserves serious discussion, if he fixes a glaring error in it. The other part is merely political posturing.
At the root of the issue is California’s broken recount law, which, in most cases, does not provide public money for a second tally. In 23 other states and Washington, D.C., recounts are automatically triggered if results are very close.
But California recounts require private funding. That’s wrong. Candidates don’t have to pay for the original counting of ballots, and they shouldn’t have to find wealthy donors to cover the cost of ensuring that election officials got it right.
The useful part of Low’s bill would require automatic manual recounts for exceptionally close races for U.S. Senate, House of Representative, state Senate or Assembly. The political-posturing portion calls for greater disclosure requirements for the funders of a recount.
For two months now, trying to distract from his anti-democratic opposition to a recount in his own congressional race, Low has tried to refocus public attention on the political action committee that financed the new tally.
What he keeps missing is that if he fixes the first problem — the requirement for private funding of a recount — there would be no need to worry about the second, identifying the committee or wealthy individual forced to cover the cost.
March 5 primary tie
In Low’s congressional race for the seat of retiring Rep. Anna Eshoo, the March 5 primary vote tally before the recount showed him tied with Santa Clara Supervisor Joe Simitian for second place.
If that had stood, it would have meant a three-way November runoff between Low, Simitian and first-place finisher Sam Liccardo, the former mayor of San Jose. It likely would have led to a winner who did not have majority support, undermining a key reason for a two-person runoff.
Low would have preferred the three-way November race because, as the only gay or Asian candidate in the group and as the youngest and most progressive, he would have benefited against two older White males who would have divided more-moderate voters. So Low didn’t want to break the tie.
But the recount did just that. It showed that Low had bested Simitian by five votes. Now the assemblymember must go head-to-head against Liccardo.
For that, Low apparently hopes voters forget he was the candidate who fought against ensuring an accurate primary count. So, on Tuesday, Low gutted an earlier, unrelated bill that had stalled in committee and replaced it with his proposed recall changes.
Low’s legislation
The bill, AB 996, as currently written, would mandate recounts when election results show candidates are separated by less than the lesser of 25 votes or 0.25% of the votes cast.
Low’s spokesman says the bill was modeled after Santa Clara County’s similar requirements for local races — requirements that, ironically, were implemented at Simitian’s urging but do not apply to congressional races over which the county lacks authority.
Unfortunately, apparently due to a drafting error, the wording of Low’s bill is wrong. To model the Santa Clara County standard, the bill should have applied when candidates are separated by less than the greater of 25 votes or 0.25% of the votes cast.
The difference is important to ensure the recount threshold is reasonable in most races. And, from a practical perspective, it would eliminate any need to privately finance a voter-requested recount. After I flagged the error, Low’s spokesman said it would be fixed.
If it is, passage of that part of the bill would represent a significant step forward. To be sure, it would do nothing to fix the lack of mandatory recounts for other local or statewide races.
Nor would it fix California’s bizarre rules that provide the governor with the option to call for a recount in very close races for statewide offices — and the secretary of state the same option in a close race for governor. No one should want their politicians deciding whether to call a recount. It’s a recipe for politically tainting our electoral system.
Feel-good provision
The second part of Low’s bill is driven by his obsession with the recount funding in his congressional race. Rather than thank someone willing to provide money to ensure the vote count was accurate, Low is angry that the public didn’t know at the time of the recount that part of the funding came from a political action committee funded mainly by Liccardo-backer and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
To be clear, evidence so far indicates that funders of the recount have complied with federal election law disclosure requirements. All sources of the recount funding should be known when federal campaign finance reports are filed at the end of July.
Related Articles
Borenstein: Bay Area transit tax plan goes off the rails as South Bay leaders object to bailing out BART, SF Muni
Borenstein: Evan Low just won the congressional recount he tried to stop
Borenstein: In tied Bay Area congressional race voters deserve a recount
Borenstein: $12.8 billion San Jose BART extension plan should be scrutinized. Here’s how.
In the meantime, no voters were influenced by untoward last-minute contributions, a key concern disclosure laws are intended to address.
Nevertheless, Low’s bill proposes near-immediate disclosure of funders who provide $10,000 or more to pay for recounts. One wonders if Low would feel the same if the tables had been turned and his labor backers had financed a recount that would have politically benefitted him.
This portion of Low’s bill is a feel-good provision that would add quicker transparency but would have no effect on the votes in an election.
Moreover, it fails to address the bigger problem that ensuring the integrity of our election system depends on wealthy donors. If that were fixed, there would be no need to raise money for recounts.
Reach Opinion Editor Daniel Borenstein at [email protected].
