Recount of tied races enhances ballot integrity
After a stunning tie vote in the congressional race to replace retiring Rep. Anna Eshoo, it looks as if voters will get the recount they deserve.
Sadly, it's coming with shameful, politically opportunistic, anti-democratic demonizing by two leading South Bay elected officials who should instead be embracing this victory for election integrity.
The recount, if it begins on Monday, will provide a muchneeded check on the highly improbable deadlocked vote for second place in the March 5 primary.
And if the recount breaks the tie, we will have a November runoff between two rather than three candidates, meaning the winner will need a majority of voter support rather than just a plurality.
To recap where we are today: The final results of the District 16 congressional primary covering parts of Santa Clara and San Mateo counties show that former San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo finished first with 38,489 votes, or 21.1% of the ballots cast. Assemblymember Evan Low and Santa Clara County Supervisor Joe Simitian tied for second place, each receiving 30,249 votes, or 16.6%.
The tie is unprecedented for a congressional race under California's 13-year-old open primary system in which, normally, the top two finishers, regardless of party, move on to the general election.
But if there's a tie for second, both candidates advance to the general election runoff. Absent a recount, that was the scenario we were facing.
Fortunately, two people stepped forward this week asking for a recount and volunteering to foot the bill, which could top $400,000.
To be clear, this is a recount that should be funded by the state. In exceptionally close races, a recount should be automatic. In 23 states and Washington, D.C., recounts are automatically triggered if results are within a certain margin. But not California.
That's why Simitian successfully pushed a Santa Clara County automatic recount policy for local races in which the margin of victory is either less than 0.25% or less than 25 votes. Unfortunately, it doesn't apply to congressional races over which the county does not have authority to set rules.
That's also presumably why Low in 2015 voted for legislation that now permits the governor to order a state-funded manual recount in a race for statewide office or for a state ballot measure if the margin is less than 0.015% or less than 1,000 votes. Again, it doesn't apply to congressional races.
But it should. And if they still care about election integrity, Simitian and Low should be clamoring for a recount in the District 16 race. Instead, after supporting automatic recounts in the past, neither candidate sought one when it could hurt them — when one of them would be booted from the congressional race if the tie is broken.
Worse, Low and his supporters have taken it a step further, trying to blast Liccardo because at least one of the two people seeking a recount has been a supporter of the former mayor.
Which, of course, misses the point. If Liccardo is driving the recount push, he should be applauded for it. It would show that at least someone in this race cares about the integrity of the vote.
Nevertheless, Low has doubled down. His spokesperson blasted the recount as “a page right out of Trump's political playbook” that will “subvert the will of the voters.”
Trumpian? Hardly. Trump tried to undermine the integrity of the 2020 election results; a recount in the District 16 race would strengthen confidence in the outcome.
Rep. Ro Khanna, one of Low's key supporters, piled on with more trash talk, saying that “a candidate wanting to overturn the will of the voters is undemocratic.”
In this era of attempts to undermine elections, Khanna, a leading surrogate for President Joe Biden's reelection campaign, should be more responsible with his language.
In the congressional race, no one is trying to overturn the will of the voters. Rather, the recount will ensure that we know without a doubt what the voters want. Everyone should be supporting that.