L.A. Clerk says vote-by-mail could bring dramatic boost in turnout -- and costs

Switching to vote-by-mail citywide elections in Los Angeles -- and doing away with traditional polling places -- could increase voter participation but be costly and pose a threat to the integrity of elections, a report by the Los Angeles City Clerk concluded today.

However, the use of vote-by-mail balloting could be a good option for small, non-citywide special elections, including those to fill vacant City Council seats, the report stated. In those cases, the city could save money and eliminate the need for poll workers and polling places.

City Clerk June Lagmay conducted the study at the request of council members who expressed alarm over the dismal voter turnout in city elections, which usually are held during different times than statewide or national elections.

From 1978 to 2008, the average city turnout for a mayoral election was 30%, and 15% for a non-citywide municipal election. By comparison, the average city turnout for a gubernatorial election during that time period was 46%, and turnout increased to 61% during presidential elections, the report found.

The report concluded that using a vote-by-mail system for citywide elections could increase voter participation by as much as 700% -- if registered voters returned ballots at the same high rate as the city’s current absentee voters have done in recent elections.

But the clerk’s office would have to hire 560 employees to process the ballots, and could be so overwhelmed that the “integrity of the election" could be put at risk,  Lagmay said in the report. The office would be able to handle smaller special elections with existing staff, she said.

If the city switches to a vote-by-mail model, L.A. could also establish neighborhood voting centers and ballot drop-off boxes to address any voter concerns about the elimination of polling places, the report said.

Changing the way city elections are conducted would require voter approval, since the City Charter, L.A’s primary governing blueprint, would have to be amended.

The vote-by-mail report is scheduled to be presented to the council’s Rules and Election Committee on Wednesday.

-- Phil Willon at L.A. City Hall

Twitter: @Phil_Willon

More breaking news at L.A. Now:

LAPD Chief Charlie Beck sworn in, for a second time, in ceremony at headquarters

Boat carrying 21 illegal immigrants is seized off La Jolla coast, U.S. officials say

FBI serves search warrants at Yahoo, Google in Erin Andrews tape case

Chapman University group finds new way to relieve stress during finals week -- puppies

Comments

[SP Jose]

The city should fully implement a vote by mail system like that of absentee voters. Like with everything else, the initial costs would be high, but over time the city might be able to purchase some mail sorting system and they wouldn't have to hire so many folks. On the flip side, the city could alleviate the unemployment situation in LA by hiring temp workers and give them something to do. The job is a no brainer. Sit and tally votes.

[Chuck]

The big risk in vote by mail is fraud. You don't really know who filled in the ballot.

The second largest is speed. As noted in the article someone has to be hired to open the ballots, and presumably compare signatures to prevent fraud (see #1, above).

Third is the all important Speed. Vote by mail is spread over several days, usually about two weeks. The ballots might take 2-3 days to show up, which means results won't be final until Saturday after a Tuesday election. The news media will freak out if they don't have results by 11pm the night of Election Day.

[Tam]

We have this in Oregon. It works just fine. Ballots dribble in over a period of time, so they have time to prep the ballots - maybe even verify the signatures of most before they actually do the counting. You could still have people observe from the different parties to make sure of the integrity of the election. We get our results in about a day. Many more people vote and it is done like absentee ballots. It works great. We have no complaints at all. They even put up with a lot of write-ins because after all, why not? It costs much less than a regular election, but that is just one of the benefits. Oh and you have drop off points so everyone knows that after Friday, you can't mail it - it has to be received by Tuesday to be counted.

[Diane]

Unacceptable. This notion would eliminate the RIGHT TO A PRIVATE VOTE - a right guaranteed by the "Voter Bill of Rights", which I understand to be Federal Law.

There is currently no *efficiency in voting* with various government agencies all creating vote days in different polling places. I have voted 4 or 5 times this year, all at different places and I ONLY vote in person because *I claim my right a private vote*. Without being assured of a private vote, I would not vote.

If nobody in LA City Government, if none of our elected politicians, if no attorney retained by the City (in any capacity) has a copy of the Voters Bill of Rights, I will be happy to deliver a copy of this to the City Clerk's office.

I cannot believe a study was ordered on a matter that would eliminate a stated and cherished right in the Voter Bill of Rights. That is squandering time, and time is money. Is this how City Hall got to a budget deficit?

For shame on the City Council, for shame on the City DA, for shame on all involved in this travesty, for shame on every attorney in City employ, for shame on the journalist reporting this story too.

Shame on the lot of you - how dare you so cavalierly and boldly go ahead with the notion of eradicating the right to a private vote in city elections. It is not your right to do that.

Voters have a bill of rights, read it, understand it, bide by it.