Over the last decade, California became a national leader in voter accessibility and security, expanding options for when and how ballots can be cast while also strengthening election safeguards.<\/p>\n
But those reforms came at a cost: speed. And in a political climate where unsupported conspiracies about election fraud can run rampant on social media \u2014 pushed, at times, by top political leaders \u2014<\/a> some fear the slow vote count is becoming a liability.<\/p>\n Election outcomes in recent years have become more drawn out in California, most recently taking about a week<\/a> to determine the gubernatorial and Los Angeles mayoral candidates advancing to November\u2019s runoff after hotly contested primaries. And in prior years, it\u2019s taken even longer to determine tight U.S. House<\/a> or state Senate<\/a> seats. <\/p>\n That trade-off \u2014 election accessibility and security over quick results \u2014 has long been defended<\/a> as a byproduct of California\u2019s desire to make it as easy as possible to cast a ballot while ensuring accuracy and integrity<\/a>, something backers say remains vital to a thriving democracy. <\/p>\n But some experts say the increasing backlash over the slow vote count sows distrust.<\/p>\n \u201cWe\u2019ve allowed the long count to be normalized, \u2026 but that doesn\u2019t mean it\u2019s normal,\u201d said Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation<\/a>, who has become an advocate for accelerating the state\u2019s vote count. \u201cThere\u2019s no question that voter confidence is eroding.\u201d<\/p>\n A slower vote count does not signal any indication of fraud, despite unfounded claims over the last week by President Trump<\/a> and others. Election officials and nonpartisan groups make clear that voter fraud remains extremely rare in the U.S., and there\u2019s been no evidence of any such issues in California\u2019s latest primary count.<\/p>\n But studies have found<\/a> that voter trust slides as results lag, and this primary made clear that disinformation<\/a> gains more traction the longer contests drag on, especially with lead changes. <\/p>\n That came to pass this primary, particularly as reality TV personality Spencer Pratt slowly lost his initial second-place ranking<\/a> in the L.A. mayor\u2019s race, before later batches of votes bumped him from the runoff \u2014 fueling an onslaught of social media hysteria: claims of so-called corruption and vote dumping<\/a>, misinformed examples of alleged fraud<\/a> and right-wing disinformation campaigns.<\/p>\n But making any substantive changes \u2014 particularly before November\u2019s general election \u2014 would be an uphill battle, especially in deep-blue California, where Democrats tend to resist limits to voter access. And some are urging restraint.<\/p>\n \u201cWe should never drive policy based on conspiracy theories and lies,\u201d said David Becker, the executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research. \u201cThat said, are there things California can do?\u201d<\/p>\n Some suggestions, such as increased funding for county election offices and more education about early voting, would probably make some difference. <\/p>\n But the crux of the slow count comes from a flood of last-minute mail-in ballots \u2014 in a state with about one-eighth of the U.S. population. When a large percentage of California\u2019s voters mail or drop off these ballots on or just before election day \u2014 as they tend to \u2014 it creates what Alexander calls the \u201cpig in the python\u201d effect: a major backlog of labor-intensive ballots to process, in a state that already handles the largest-volume ballot counts.<\/p>\n While verification occurs simultaneously during in-person voting, election officials in California are required to confirm a voter\u2019s registration status, verify each voter\u2019s signature and ensure each person did not vote elsewhere for each vote-by-mail ballot. Becker called it an \u201cintensively human process\u201d that cannot be sped through \u2014 but could be spread out by more early voting.<\/p>\n \u201cIt is a lot easier to report results out faster when ballots come in sooner,\u201d Becker said. <\/p>\n Altering that process significantly enough to ease that bottleneck would likely come with other trade-offs, experts said, such as earlier deadlines to turn in certain ballots or more time-consuming ballot drop-offs \u2014 either of which might dissuade some voters from showing up. Mail-in ballots have overwhelmingly become Californians favorite way to vote, with more than 80% of voters using that method in every election since 2020. <\/p>\n But California didn\u2019t become known for slow ballot counting overnight. Since the turn of the millennium, the state has taken several steps to increase voter access by expanding options for how, when and where voters can cast their ballot, while also strengthening its processes to become what the secretary of state\u2019s office calls<\/a> \u201cthe strongest voting security standards in the country.\u201d <\/p>\n Those changes have included same-day voter registration<\/a>, more early voting options, replacing neighborhood-specific polling places with vote centers<\/a>, and most notably, universal vote-by-mail<\/a>, which in 2021 required that all registered voters be mailed their ballot, which can be mailed back, returned to a secure drop box or vote center or ignored if the voter opts to vote in person.<\/p>\n Many Democratic voters this year waited to turn in their ballots <\/a>due to the crowded pool of gubernatorial candidates, which probably exacerbated the already-slow process. <\/p>\n Still, that was expected. Election watchdogs and party officials from both parties tried to temper Californians\u2019 expectations about the timing of results from the primary, reminding voters that it would likely take days if not weeks<\/a> to call close races. <\/p>\n But when that exact process began to play out \u2014 particularly in the extremely tight contests for California governor and Los Angeles mayor \u2014 it almost immediately brought criticism and concern. <\/p>\n \u201cNone of the optics are good,\u201d complained Roxanne Hoge, chair of the Los Angeles County Republican Party. \u201cNone of this is designed to inspire confidence.\u201d<\/p>\n As Gov. Gavin Newsom\u2019s office tried to dispel misinformation about California\u2019s ballot tabulation process, the statement also said<\/a>, \u201cFor the record: we wish the votes were counted faster, too.\u201d<\/p>\n Not only would a speedier election count improve voter trust, which can often increase participation, Alexander said, it would also decrease harassment of election workers and help newly elected candidates step into their new roles faster \u2014 and eliminate a long limbo period for the losing candidate. <\/p>\n \u201cWe can get it right and do it faster, and we should,\u201d Alexander said. <\/p>\n A 2023 law<\/a> allowed counties to provide voters an opportunity to cast their vote-by-mail ballot as an in-person ballot, by submitting it sans envelope and signing for it at a vote center, which reduces the verification process required by election workers. About half of California counties have adopted some option of this expedited process, according to the California Voter Foundation, some calling it \u201cSign, scan and go!\u201d or the \u201cnaked ballot\u201d option, but more widespread implementation of this could help speed up the count, Alexander said. Los Angeles County, which processes more ballots than many states, has not yet implemented this time-saving option. <\/p>\n California also allows ballots, if postmarked by election day, to be accepted up to a week after polls close \u2014 though that policy may soon be forced to change depending how the Supreme Court rules on a case challenging ballots arriving after election day<\/a>. Still, these late-arriving ballots don\u2019t account for a large share of the delays in California: in 2024, only about 2.5% of all ballots arrived in the mail after election day. <\/p>\n But some election observers point out that even when compared with states with similarly run elections, California still lags behind<\/a>. <\/p>\n \u201cCalifornia simply counts the ballots it has too slowly and its elections offices are underfunded,\u201d election analysts Eli McKown-Dawson and Nate Silver recently wrote in a Substack piece<\/a>. \u201cIf you want people to be confident in your electoral system, a good first step is to build one that works properly.\u201d<\/p>\n And while seven other states<\/a> also automatically mail voters ballots, experts say it\u2019s hard to make direct comparisons with California. Some critics often point to Colorado as an example of a state with similarly ubiquitous mail-in voting, yet a much faster count than California. But the scale of states\u2019 elections are so different: In 2024, California processed about 13 million vote-by-mail ballots; not even 3 million were counted in Colorado.<\/p>\n Some have also pointed out that despite all the ways California has worked to expand voter accessibility, turnout hasn\u2019t dramatically changed. California remains relatively in the middle of the pack when it comes to voter turnout across the U.S<\/a>., and while the state has seen some spikes in turnout during certain election years, there\u2019s been no noticeable uptick over the last 15 years, according to a review of data from 2008 to 2024<\/a>.<\/p>\n But Becker contended that there are many factors that can influence voter turnout, in particular, California\u2019s strong blue tilt.<\/p>\n \u201cPerceived competitiveness\u201d \u2014 or lack thereof \u2014 often keeps voters from the polls, as can uninspiring campaigns or even the weather, Becker said, but he was adamant that shouldn\u2019t be a reason to make it harder for people to vote. <\/p>\n \u201cAccessibility is always worth it,\u201d Becker said. <\/p>\n Hoge, the GOP chair, had a different take, highlighting concerns about the voter registration process as well as the slow count \u2014 though she has been clear<\/a> that the latter doesn\u2019t necessarily signal fraud. <\/p>\n She has continued to push a more tempered narrative to many Republican leaders, including from the White House<\/a>. On X, she shared a post that fact-checked<\/a> a photo of vote tabulations from L.A. County, which appeared to \u2014 erroneously \u2014 show reality TV personality Spencer Pratt receiving no new votes in a daily vote count. And she boosted a video<\/a> that dispelled rumors about Democrats stealing votes and ones about widespread fraud in California\u2019s process. <\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s a horrible roller coaster,\u201d Hoge said about California\u2019s election results. \u201cIt doesn\u2019t make sense, and the fact that you\u2019re just noticing it today doesn\u2019t mean that it\u2019s newly not making sense. … But until we win, we can\u2019t change it.\u201d<\/p>\n No matter what California might change or improve, Becker said he is confident it won\u2019t stop the criticism or campaigns of misinformation. He also said that most elections in California are called relatively quickly \u2014 take the state\u2019s pick for president, which is usually confirmed on election night \u2014 but it\u2019s a small share of extremely tight races that take longer, because they require a more complete count to call a winner. <\/p>\n \u201cIt doesn\u2019t matter how fast California counts its ballots, \u2026 we would be seeing similar conspiracy theories, maybe just with a different framing,\u201d Becker said. \u201cCalifornia ends up being a very effective bogeyman.\u201d<\/p>\n Staff writer Kevin Rector contributed to this report.<\/p>\n