In last month’s election, a City Council race in Richmond ended in a tie. Another in Sunnyvale was decided by one vote. And one in Antioch was determined by a three-vote margin.
There are recounts ongoing in all three races. There should be. But the candidates and their backers have had to pay to make sure the results are right. That’s morally wrong.
Election integrity should not be determined by candidate wealth. Yet the state’s elitist election laws only provide for recounts if a member of the public foots the bill.
It’s time to change that. Recounts in razor-thin elections should be automatic and publicly funded. State lawmakers should end payment requirements that favor affluent candidates.
We have seen repeatedly just how close elections can be. In 2000, after the U.S. Supreme Court intervened, the infamous presidential recount debacle in Florida ended with George W. Bush beating Al Gore by 537 votes out of almost 6 million cast, a margin of 0.009%.
In California, we saw a repeat in the 2014 open primary for state controller in which Betty Yee edged out a fellow Democrat for the critical second-place slot by 481 votes, about 1/100th of 1 percent of the ballots cast in the race. This year, in a state Senate race in the southern Central Valley, Democrat Melissa Hurtado beat Republican David Shepard by 20 votes out of 136,894 ballots cast, a margin of 0.015%.
In such tight races, making sure there are no errors should be essential. That’s why 22 states and Washington, D.C., have automatic recounts for close outcomes. Among those states, the most common recount trigger is a vote margin of 0.5% or less.
California has a recount provision in exceptionally close races, but it only applies to statewide races and is at the option of the governor — a formula ripe for political abuse.
While our election counting systems are very good, they are not perfect. We need to acknowledge that and ensure there are safeguards. Which is why Santa Clara County, as an outlier in the state, has an automatic recount policy for local races within the county in which the margin of victory is either less than 0.25% or less than 25 votes. It’s a reasonable threshold.
The Santa Clara County recounts have presented startling examples of why they are needed statewide. In a 2016 San Jose City Council race, the automatic recount narrowed the margin of victory from 36 votes to 12. In the 2018 race for three seats on the San Jose-based Orchard School District board, the automatic recount changed the winner of the third seat.
As more cities and school districts, facing threats of voting-rights litigation, shift from at-large elections to selection by districts, the number of narrow races is going to increase. Indeed, the three Bay Area cities awaiting the outcomes of ongoing recounts — Richmond, Sunnyvale and Antioch — have all in recent years migrated to district elections.
While the Santa Clara County automatic-recount system is better than nothing, it doesn’t go far enough. That’s because there are two parts to a recount, the actual manual tabulating of the votes and the resolution of disputes over which ballots should be included. Santa Clara County’s policy doesn’t address the latter.
There are legitimate disputes in every election over, for example, voter intent when a ballot is not clearly marked or voter eligibility when a signature doesn’t match the election office records. The means for resolving those disputes are spelled out in state laws that affect recounts.
But Santa Clara County’s recount policy only addresses the manual tabulation. Consequently, the Sunnyvale race, for which the ballots already have been recounted under the county policy, is now subject to another recount under state law. But under the state law, the candidate must foot the bill.
It’s time for California lawmakers to ensure that every close race is automatically reviewed under state recount rules and to drop the payment requirement. Democracy should not depend on a candidate’s ability to pay.
Join the Conversation
We invite you to use our commenting platform to engage in insightful conversations about issues in our community. We reserve the right at all times to remove any information or materials that are unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable to us, and to disclose any information necessary to satisfy the law, regulation, or government request. We might permanently block any user who abuses these conditions.