Kern County meeting features multiple public comments on voter ID initiative, recount law changes and a DOJ redistricting lawsuit
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Public speakers at the Nov. 18 Kern County Board meeting pressed officials on a proposed California voter ID constitutional amendment and concerns about Assembly Bill 930, which commenters said would change recount staffing and costs; speakers also read a Department of Justice press release challenging the state's redistricting (Prop 50).
Several members of the public addressed the Kern County Board of Supervisors on Nov. 18 about proposed changes to California election rules and a Justice Department legal challenge to the state's redistricting plan.
Glenn Clayton presented letters related to a proposed statewide voter identification initiative and said proponents submitted amendments to the attorney general and a certification package to the secretary of state. Dennis McLean summarized proposed constitutional text that would require in‑person voters to present government‑issued identification and require mail voters to provide the last four digits of a government ID number; he said the amendment would also direct the secretary of state and county officials to use best efforts to verify citizenship and to annually report verification percentages.
Mercy Pena told the board about Assembly Bill 930 and said the measure — as described in her remarks — would make recounts more costly by requiring those requesting recounts to pay staffing rates for each day and could allow non‑voters to serve on recount boards; she said the bill would permit recounts using scanned ballot images rather than re‑examining original ballots.
Separately, speakers including Ron Barger and Russell Person read material regarding a Justice Department filing challenging the state’s newly adopted congressional map (referenced in the record as a Department of Justice press release alleging race‑based redistricting in violation of the U.S. Constitution). Commenters urged county officials to monitor the litigation and to ensure proper voter‑roll maintenance.
Board members did not take action on the matters (all remarks were part of the public presentations period). The comments included several procedural and statutory references (the California Constitution, the California Elections Code and Assembly Bill 930) and assertions by speakers that some statutory language could allow noncitizens to staff recount boards; those claims were presented as speaker arguments and were not adjudicated at the meeting.
Next steps: Items raised by speakers are matters for state law and the state elections apparatus; the board did not vote on or adopt local changes during the morning session.