Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters misses mark

The Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters’ (ROV) mission statement is “to provide quality service with the highest level of integrity, efficiency and accuracy in voter registration and election processes.”

However, when observing the automatic recount following the June 7 San Jose City Council District 4 election, I discovered that “integrity, efficiency and accuracy” are severely lacking. I believe the ROV’s management of the recount must be investigated.

The June election between myself and Lan Diep resulted in a razor thin margin of victory for my opponent, separating us by only 36 votes out of 20,334 cast. Since the difference in this election was less than 0.2 percent, it became the test case in the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors’ new automatic recount pilot program requiring a recount if the difference is less than 25 votes or 0.5 percent.

The recount was open to public observation, and I was surprised at what I saw. Despite being the first automatic recount performed by the ROV, Registrar of Voters Shannon Bushey wasn’t present to oversee the process.

Also, ballots went missing. The total vote count changed from 20,334 total votes cast after the first count to 20,079 following the recount. After my team questioned this discrepancy, the ROV miraculously discovered 37 ballots. Still, that leaves 218 ballots missing between the two counts. How had they disappeared?

The ROV’s problems didn’t end there. They tried to restrict observer photography and audio/ video recording of the automatic recount process, and they allowed media to conduct interviews in the recount area, both in violation of election law. They used shortcuts around their procedures to create and tally duplicates of bad ballots (those rendered unreadable by the counting machines but clearly showing voter intent), which removed checks put in place to ensure ballots couldn’t be fraudulently created or discarded. Perhaps these shortcuts were attempts to fulfill their mission of “efficiency,” but we can’t allow that at the expense of the ballots’ “integrity” and “accuracy.”

I’m not alone in calling for an examination of the ROV’s actions. On Sept. 6, the Santa Clara County Citizens’ Advisory Commission on Elections discussed the District 4 recount and unanimously passed a motion recommending an investigation to the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors.

Even Lan Diep, at the Santa Clara County Finance and Operations Committee meeting on Sept. 8, noted that despite the “professionalism” of the ROV, changes are needed to “make the process more efficient, more transparent.” Supervisor Cindy Chavez, at the County Board of Supervisors meeting on Sept. 13, remarked that issues raised by recount observers “were of concern” to her, and that “we need to make sure that we’re training people appropriately.” Although they aren’t calling for full scale reform, Diep and Chavez recognize that there is work to do.

I’ve stood up against government procedural issues before. When I fought fines levied by the San Jose Ethics Commission in 2015 for failing to file late contribution forms, the resulting investigation of the San Jose City Clerk absolved me of wrongdoing and led to a reform of San Jose’s election contribution laws, aligning them with state laws. Once again, I hope my efforts will benefit the city and county at large.

An investigation of the ROV may or may not change the District 4 election’s outcome. But whether I win or lose, the fast-approaching presidential election highlights the urgency of this issue; we must ensure that Santa Clara County’s votes are counted correctly for every contest.

Santa Clara County ROV: it’s time to live up to your mission.