SACRAMENTO — If Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Legislature truly believe that slow vote counting is a horrible problem — which it’s not — right now is the time to fix it.They’re crafting a new state budget. And they could choose to spend the money needed to help counties hire more temporar...

SACRAMENTO — If Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Legislature truly believe that slow vote counting is a horrible problem — which it’s not — right now is the time to fix it.

They’re crafting a new state budget. And they could choose to spend the money needed to help counties hire more temporary election workers, buy more sophisticated vote-counting machines and add space for all of it.

That’s the only way to significantly speed up vote counting and mute the MAGA drivel about California being a national “laughingstock.”

How much money?

“We’ve suggested $55.5 million,” says Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, which pushes to improve the election process.

“That’s not a lot in the big scheme of the state budget.”

She’s right. It’s essentially pocket change in a proposed budget still being negotiated that tentatively totals $356 billion.

But don’t bet on much of it being allotted for swifter vote counting.

Regardless of all the potshots at California from cable news panelists about our “embarrassing” elections, faster vote tallying doesn’t seem to be a high priority for the Legislature.

Democrats are justifiably much more concerned about protecting poor people’s healthcare, in-home services for seniors and the unraveling safety net as the Trump administration and GOP Congress slash federal funding.

Federal cutbacks aside, the state for years has been spending more money than it takes in despite tax revenue exceeding expectations. Sacramento has a severe deficit spending problem that is projected to last for a while.

So, allocating more money to speed up vote counting by a few days isn’t very high on the governor’s and legislative leaders’ to-do lists.

“The reality is elections currently are underfunded,” says Assembly Elections Committee Chairwoman Gail Pellerin, a Democrat who was Santa Cruz County’s chief elections official for 27 years.

She also says, referring to demands for faster counting: “The media outlets want to call the races and be the first. And that’s what this is all about.”

I don’t disagree. By our nature, we journalists are anxious to report fresh news, including the outcomes of elections. And we become impatient when vote counts roll in seemingly at a snail’s pace.

But come on, it’s not a horrendous burden on the public to wait a few days for an accurate vote count.

It does, however, provide an excuse for President Trump and MAGA Republicans to regurgitate unfounded accusations that elections won by Democrats are “stolen” from the GOP.

“Look what’s happening in California … it’s a rigged election,” Trump bellowed in a June 7 interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press” with Kristen Welker. “They’re cheating on the election.”

When Welker challenged him for evidence, Trump heatedly replied: “They’re crooked just like you’re crooked. Your press is crooked. And ‘Meet the Press’ is crooked. … You’re either crooked, or you’re stupid.”

To put this in context, the Trump diatribe came immediately after he called police officers attacked by Jan. 6 Capitol invaders “a bunch of dirty cops” and “crooked cops.” The Trump-inspired rioters were trying to prevent Congress from certifying President Biden’s “rigged” election.

It’s constantly puzzling why millions of Americans take this unhinged man’s blatherings so seriously. But they do.

And when the president lies about ballot fraud, it erodes public confidence in the integrity of our election system and undermines democracy. Americans become even more cynical and polarized.

So, the governor, Legislature and counties would do everyone a favor by investing in a faster vote count.

“It’s a problem,” Alexander asserts. “The slow vote count has become the norm in California, but it’s not normal for a democracy. It opens the door for false fraud claims.”

Much of the slow count results from tallying mail ballots, which amount to at least 80% of votes cast. They take longer to process, largely because each voter’s signature on the ballot’s envelope needs to be checked against one on file.

So, California could speed up counting by mailing out fewer ballots. Now, every registered voter gets one. We could go back to requiring voters to request an “absentee” ballot.

But forget that. We’re right to make it easy for people to participate in democracy — as long as safeguards are maintained to prevent fraud.

Some counties have taken advantage of a new law that allows a voter to drop off a filled-in mail ballot inside a voting center. There, it’s handled like an old-fashioned ballot that’s filled out at a booth. This significantly reduces processing time. But many counties say they need more state money to implement the program. I have no idea why.

Counting also is slow, of course, because lots of voters wait until election day — or near it — to cast their mail ballot. That clogs the system.

If the ballot is postmarked by election day, it’s allowed seven days to reach vote processors. Trump and fraud conspirators want to trash all ballots arriving after election day. That would speed up counting. But it’s un-American.

California election officials also try to pressure voters into mailing their ballots early. Rubbish.

Election day should mean something. It’s a day citizens are allowed to vote — whether they hand their ballot to a clerk at a voting center or drop it in the mail. They’ve got a right to take their sweet time in concluding what the wisest voting decisions are.

After all, the government allows us to drop our tax return in the mail on April 15 each year — and is very happy to receive our check a few days later. They process that check plenty fast.

“There’s nothing wrong with a slow count,” says Rick Hasen, a UCLA law professor who specializes in election law. “But it‘s a major problem because, unfortunately, it’s a manufactured crisis that can undermine public confidence. And it has gotten worse.”

So, Sacramento needs to undermine the demagogic manufacturers by stepping up vote counting while keeping elections virtually fraud-free.

You're reading the L.A. Times Politics newsletter

George Skelton and Michael Wilner cover the insights, legislation, players and politics you need to know. In your inbox Monday and Thursday mornings.

By continuing, you agree to our Terms of Service, which include arbitration and a class action waiver. You agree that we and our third-party vendors may collect and use your information, including through cookies, pixels and similar technologies, for the purposes set forth in our Privacy Policy such as personalizing your experience and ads.

The must-read: Trump prosecutor in L.A. pushing unusual public search for voter fraud during ongoing count
California love: From the scene of South L.A.’s erupting sidewalks, 5 questions for Bass and Raman
The L.A. Times Special: Who loved Bass, Raman and Pratt the most? A district-by-district breakdown

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Perspectives

The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.

Ideas expressed in the piece

  • The article contends that California’s slow vote counting is not a “horrible problem” in itself, emphasizing that waiting several days for accurate results is a reasonable trade-off in a large, vote-by-mail state and far less burdensome than critics suggest.

  • At the same time, the piece argues that the drawn‑out tally has become politically dangerous because it gives President Trump and “MAGA” Republicans an opening to claim, without evidence, that elections are “rigged” or “stolen,” thereby undermining public confidence in democracy.[1][2][3]

  • The column maintains that the most constructive response is not to roll back voting access but to spend more money on election administration, including hiring temporary workers, upgrading counting machines, and expanding space so counties can process ballots more quickly and close the window for conspiracy theories.

  • The article highlights a proposal of roughly $55.5 million in state funding for faster counting and notes that this is a tiny fraction of California’s overall budget, framing the investment as modest but important in shoring up trust in elections rather than as a major new entitlement.

  • Yet the piece stresses that elections have long been underfunded and that Democratic lawmakers are focused on shielding healthcare, in‑home care, and the social safety net from federal cuts and state deficits, which makes dedicated money for faster counting politically unlikely, even if it would be helpful.

  • The column strongly defends California’s expansive vote‑by‑mail system, including universal mailing of ballots and the rule that ballots postmarked by election day can arrive up to seven days later, arguing that these policies make participation easier and are worth the extra time needed to verify signatures and process late‑arriving ballots.[1][5]

  • It criticizes demands from Trump and fraud conspiracists to discard ballots that arrive after election day as “un-American,” insisting that election day should still “mean something” by allowing voters to use all available time to make decisions, just as taxpayers are allowed to mail returns on the filing deadline.

  • The article points to reforms such as allowing voters to drop completed mail ballots at voting centers, where they can be processed like traditional in‑person ballots, as practical ways to speed up counting if counties receive the state funding they say they need to fully implement these options.[5]

  • Citing election experts, the piece suggests that there is nothing inherently wrong with a slow, careful count; the real problem is that bad‑faith actors have turned it into a “manufactured crisis,” which Sacramento could blunt by investing in faster processing while keeping safeguards and broad access in place.[1][3][5]

Different views on the topic

  • In contrast, Trump has repeatedly portrayed California’s slow vote counting as proof of a “rigged” or fraudulent system, alleging “cheating” in the state’s elections and citing the protracted tally as justification for ordering federal inquiries into California’s vote.[1][2][4]

  • The LA Times and broadcast reports describe how Trump’s Republican allies on Capitol Hill have echoed and amplified these unfounded claims, seizing on late‑reported ballots and delayed results to argue that California’s process invites manipulation and to suggest that the state has become a national “laughingstock.”[1][2][4]

  • Critics aligned with Trump focus especially on mail ballots that arrive after election day, treating the extended counting window as inherently suspicious and pressing for rules that would limit or invalidate such ballots in the name of “election integrity,” even though California law explicitly allows this timeline and requires signature verification.[1][5]

  • Some opponents of the current system argue that universal mailing of ballots to all registered voters is too permissive and that California should return to a model where only voters who specifically request absentee ballots can vote by mail, contending that this would reduce the volume of late‑arriving ballots and shorten the counting period.[1][2]

  • While rejecting Trump’s fraud narrative, certain lawmakers and budget hawks implicitly oppose the article’s call for new funding by emphasizing that the state faces ongoing deficits and competing demands; they prioritize protecting healthcare and social programs over spending tens of millions of dollars to speed up vote counting by only a few days.

  • Election officials and experts interviewed in broadcast coverage stress that every additional step that slows California’s count—such as verifying signatures, allowing time for late‑arriving ballots, and fixing errors—is designed to ensure that all valid votes are counted, and they caution that pushing too aggressively for faster tallies could jeopardize accuracy or strain already thinly resourced county offices.[1][3][5]

  • Consequently, some officials emphasize public education and rebutting misinformation as the best response to conspiracy theories, arguing that voters should be told why California takes longer to count—its heavy reliance on mail voting and built‑in safeguards—rather than expecting election administrators to deliver near‑instant results that might sacrifice transparency or thoroughness.[3][5]