With former President Donald Trump and his right-wing conspiracy followers attacking election officials nationwide, it’s disappointing to see Democratic Party activists piling on in the Bay Area.
The attack from the left targets Tim Dupuis, the Alameda County elections chief, calling for his removal and claiming he has been unresponsive and responsible for ballot mistakes.
To be sure, there’s room for improvement of the county elections office. But there is no evidence that Dupuis and his staff are undermining the vote. Quite the contrary.
Rather than attack Dupuis with thin and misleading claims, the activists would better serve the election process by constructively seeking improvements. For buried in their accusations is a legitimate beef that Dupuis has too many responsibilities.
Dual roles
Unlike in Contra Costa County where the elections chief is selected by voters, and in Santa Clara County where the head of the office reports to the county executive, Dupuis officially reports directly to the county Board of Supervisors.
Due to a decision made nearly two decades ago that started with Dupuis’ predecessor, Alameda County’s elections chief also serves as the county’s chief technology officer. It’s a ridiculously large portfolio. The two jobs should be split, and Dupuis should handle one or the other, but not both.
There are also legitimate complaints that Dupuis, who has held both jobs since 2012, has shied from his role as a public face of, and voice for, the elections office. Whether it’s because of the demands of his dual roles or Alameda County government’s troubling culture of secrecy, it needs to change.
In these difficult times, in which our democracy is under attack, county election officials such as Dupuis must be front and center, talking to the public and the press, transparently providing information that’s crucial for ensuring trust.
Ranked choice vote
That said, those concerns do not justify the broadside that the Alameda County Democratic Party and nine left-leaning groups have launched at Dupuis.
Their attacks focus on three issues:
First, there was the widely reported error in the tabulation of ranked choice ballots that led to an outcome reversal early this year in a race for an Oakland school board seat.
The incident stemmed from an incorrect setting on Dominion Voting Systems’ tabulation software that affected 235 ballots. To his credit, Dupuis, upon learning of the problem, quickly consulted the vendor, had the problem corrected and recounted the votes.
Some have faulted Dupuis because it took judicial intervention to officially change the results. That narrative ignores that there was no other legal means of correction: The new tally came after the first count had been officially certified and after the deadline for a recount request. Dupuis had to work within the boundaries of state law.
Youth vote
Second, Dupuis is being criticized for the county’s slow implementation of voting by 16- and 17-year-olds in elections for school trustees. Berkeley voters adopted the change in 2016; Oakland voters in 2020.
But the legality of the change had been questionable until this year. A lower-court ruling in San Francisco struck down that city’s plan for allowing non-citizen parents to participate in school board elections. The judge found in 2022 that the state Constitution only permitted voting by citizens 18 years and older.
However, an appellate court in August ruled that local jurisdictions could expand those eligible to vote in local elections.
While that legal uncertainty hovered over youth voting, there were logistical challenges as well, including how to maintain voter rolls for thousands of youngsters that ensures only those who live in the two cities participate and that they only cast ballots in school board elections.
Dupuis says the county’s vendor for its voter roll systems has figured out a way to make youth balloting happen securely by the November 2024 election. One caveat: Like for any election in which local jurisdictions must pay for their county election services, Oakland and Berkeley must cover additional costs for youth voting.
2020 problems
Third, the Democratic critics have lambasted Dupuis for problems during the pandemic’s November 2020 election.
One stemmed from new state requirements for additional secure boxes where voters could drop their ballots. The change left vendors rushing to meet the increased demand. Alameda County placed its order earlier than some counties so that by Election Day it had installed all the required boxes. But they weren’t all in place before voters started receiving their ballots.
The second problem was traceable to a temporary election worker — one of 1,700 volunteers — who gave wrong information to voters. As a result, some took their ballots home thinking they were receipts rather than the actual ballots.
When Dupuis learned of the problem, he had his office contact the voters who might have been affected, collected 34 ballots that had been taken home and obtained a court order allowing his office to count those ballots.
The county civil Grand Jury reviewed the 2020 incidents and the elections office performance during the pandemic and provided a report of “reassurance that the county’s election processes and procedures are functioning properly.”
Nevertheless, at least one election overseer has suggested that the county bring in an independent expert to review the elections office performance. That’s a good idea, not just for Alameda County but for all California counties to provide an extra level of reassurance.
Meanwhile, none of the issues raised by critics justify the personal attack on Dupuis or his office. Room for improvement? Absolutely. But the threats to his job should cease.
Reach Editorial Page Editor Daniel Borenstein at [email protected]