Gov. Gavin Newsom is putting millions behind an effort to tackle one of California’s biggest election headaches: the state’s notoriously slow vote count.
As part of California’s newly approved $351.7 billion state budget, Newsom and Democratic lawmakers allocated $40 million to help counties process ballots more quickly before the November general election.
Republican strategist Matt Klink argued the funding addresses the symptoms rather than the underlying cause.
“California shouldn’t need a $40 million fix for a problem of its own making,” Klink told The California Post. “If Sacramento wants faster election results, the governor and the legislature should examine and alter the laws that allow ballots to arrive after Election Day and require weeks of processing. Given a recent Supreme Court decision, that’s unlikely to occur.”
The package includes $29 million for counties to hire additional election workers and upgrade ballot-processing equipment, while another $10 million will fund a statewide public awareness campaign urging voters to return their mail ballots before Election Day. The budget also sets aside $750,000 to counter election misinformation.
The funding comes after California again faced criticism over the pace of its vote counting during this month’s primary elections, when it took nearly a week to determine winners in several marquee contests. The Los Angeles mayoral race wasn’t settled for six days, while the governor’s primary took seven days to call.
In 2024, some of the state’s closest congressional races weren’t decided for roughly three weeks.
Despite the additional funding, Californians shouldn’t expect every closely contested race to be resolved on Election Night.
California allows voting by mail, in person at vote centers, through secure drop boxes and by provisional ballot. Election officials can process many mailed ballots before Election Day — verifying signatures and preparing envelopes for tabulation — but they cannot count the votes until polls close.
The state also accepts ballots that arrive after Election Day as long as they were postmarked on time. Voters have up to 14 days to cure certain signature or identification problems, giving election officials additional time to verify ballots that might otherwise be rejected.
That policy remains in place after the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to overturn a similar Mississippi law challenged by the Trump administration.
Staffing can also be a factor, which this new investment aims to address.
Counties face intense workloads during a relatively short election window, and adding enough temporary staff to dramatically accelerate counting would require significant additional funding.
“If the state spent the money to give county registrars larger staffs so they could facilitate the counting of ballots at the end, I’m sure counties could get the count done quicker. But that would be a huge investment in staff for something that is really short term,” a county election official told The Post.
For instance, at the LA County level, there are between $600$ and $700$ employees, ‘ranging from seasonal and permanent staff,’ according to the registrar. Given that $2,129,411$ people voted this election cycle, that means one person counted and verified anywhere from $3,042$ to $3,549$ votes, with an average of approximately $3,296$ votes per employee.
Klink said encouraging Californians to submit ballots earlier could help election workers, but only to a point.
“Every ballot returned earlier gives election officials more time to verify signatures and prepare results, so it helps at the margins,” he said. “The biggest delays are driven by state law, not voter behavior, so education alone won’t solve the underlying problem.”
Election experts believe the new investment could significantly reduce delays, with many expecting most statewide results to become clear within about five days after polls close.
Supporters of the funding say encouraging voters to mail or drop off ballots earlier could have one of the biggest impacts because counties can begin processing many ballots before Election Day, allowing more votes to be included in the initial election-night totals.
“Voters want to see more timely results, too, and I think if we let them know that they can play a role in achieving that, many would,” said Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation told the New York Times.
Klink said more sweeping changes would be needed to significantly improve the speed of California’s election results.
“Money can buy more staff and equipment, but it can’t fix flawed election laws,” he said. “California should revisit policies like universal vote-by-mail, ballots accepted after Election Day, and same-day voter registration if it truly wants a more efficient system.”
Election reform advocates had sought $90 million in additional funding this year but welcomed the smaller investment as a meaningful step toward improving the state’s election system.
Advocates also say many counties simply lack the staff and equipment needed to process ballots efficiently, particularly smaller and rural jurisdictions that have struggled to afford new technology.
Ben Gips, who works on state policy issues for the nonpartisan watchdog group Protect Democracy, told the Times that while some counties may not have enough time to purchase and install new equipment before November, they should still be able to use the funding to hire additional workers to handle manual ballot processing.
Klink said faster election returns could help rebuild trust in California’s elections, but argued speed alone is only part of the equation.
“While there’s no fraud in California’s system, faster results are welcome. Californians should expect both,” he said. “Speed alone won’t restore confidence. Voters also want a system that’s transparent, consistent, and produces timely outcomes without weeks of uncertainty.”
Klink argued that California’s decision to invest millions of dollars to speed up ballot processing is itself an acknowledgment that the current vote-counting system is falling short of voters’ expectations.
“The fact that California is spending millions to accelerate vote counting acknowledges that the current system isn’t meeting public expectations. Voters deserve election results that are both accurate and timely, because confidence erodes every day the outcome remains unresolved.”
