Congressional recount shows need for state law change

Well, that didn’t take long.

Just a few days into the recount of the Bay Area congressional race that resulted in a tie, we are seeing why state rules for re-tabulating ballots need major reform.

Already, at least 23 ballots that were not originally counted are now under review — suggesting that, as expected, the recount is likely to break the tie.

Yet, unless someone is willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to complete the recount process, none of that will matter. We will be stuck with a count that is almost certainly wrong.

To repeat what we’ve said before: The integrity of our election system should not be dependent on a candidate’s, or their supporter’s, ability to pay. When races are exceptionally close, a recount should be automatic — and funded by the state.

In 23 states and Washington, D.C., recounts are automatically triggered if results are within a certain margin. But not California. State lawmakers should change that.

Meanwhile, to recap how we got to the current recount: The final results of the District 16 congressional primary covering parts of Santa Clara and San Mateo counties showed that former San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo finished first with 38,489 votes, or 21.1% of the ballots cast.

Assemblymember Evan Low and Santa Clara County Supervisor Joe Simitian tied for second place, each receiving 30,249 votes, or 16.6%. It was unprecedented for a congressional race under California’s 13-year-old open primary system in which the top two finishers, regardless of party, normally move on to the general election.

And if the District 16 results stand, it would mean that both second-place finishers would advance to the general election to face Liccardo, creating a three-way race and the possibility that someone could win with a plurality of just over one-third of the vote rather than a majority mandate.

Clearly, a recount is needed. And for the recount to count, it must be completed. You can’t do a partial recount.

Jonathan Padilla, a former Liccardo mayoral campaign staffer, has requested, and is at least thus far funding, the recount, which requires daily installment payments to the two county election offices.

There’s been much hyperventilation by Liccardo opponents about where Padilla is getting the money. Frankly, that misses the point. Padilla and his financial backers should be applauded for thus far covering the cost to ensure the count is accurate.

Sadly, rather than joining the push for that accuracy, Low has been trying to halt it. It’s cynical and shamefully self-serving. Low’s campaign has gone so far as to hypocritically call the recount effort “a page right out of Trump’s playbook,” when in fact it’s Low who is trying to undermine the integrity of the election.

Meanwhile, the recount in the two counties is proceeding. Right now, it’s a machine recount of the ballots and a manual review of ballots that were originally disqualified. A manual recount of all the ballots would be much more expensive.

Nevertheless, San Mateo County Elections Chief Mark Church on Wednesday more than doubled the cost for his county’s part of the tabulation, increasing it from $45,000 to $108,000. That’s the same amount as Santa Clara County, which has nearly four times as many ballots to count, is charging.

Church needs to better explain why San Mateo County jacked up the cost so much, making the recount so much more expensive to achieve. Church did not return an email seeking comment.