Alpine 02 30 voters in the voter history file are recorded as "Voted at Polling Place" even though county is all MB. Teola Tremayne said that they were election day provisional voters. No further. Recorded them as vbm Butte 04 SOS reports 103635 voters but county SOV has 104151. Tanya Colvin responds: "On December 1, 2020 we certified our election results with a SOV of 103,635. On December 21, 2020 we re-certified our election results with a SOV of 104,151. We have also submitted the re-certified results and appropriate documentation to the SOS." Counts for individual races are also off compared to the SOS report as of 2/1/2021 but are accurate when compared to the county's amended official election results on their website. ***USED AS IS*** Colusa 06 SOS reports 1778 precinct voters and 6272 vbm voters. Voter hist has 915 P and 7105 A. County SOV has 898 Election Day, 6272 vbm and 880 mail ballot only voters. It appears that MB voters were added to precinct voters for SOS and to vbm voters for voter hist ***USED AS IS*** Fresno 10 the consolidation file (5. ewmr008_votabsregpctxref.pdf) lists the following registration precincts as being consolidated into election precinct 0000261: Voting Precinct MB? VBM Regular Precinct 0000261 - 261 Yes 8000261 0000620-A 620A 116 Yes 8000261 0000836-C 836C 116 Yes 8000261 0000836-D 836D 116 When I look up those precincts in the precinct district file ( 6. PDMJ001_DistPctExtract.txt), I see that 836-C and 836-D are assigned to SD 12 but 620-A is assigned to SD 14: District ID District Name Precinct Portion Precinct Name Last Update 214 0 14th Senatorial District 0000620 A 620A 8/3/2015 2:11:29 PM 212 0 12th Senatorial District 0000836 C 836C 8/7/2015 11:10:37 AM 212 0 12th Senatorial District 0000836 D 836D 8/7/2015 11:11:52 AM From Chufeng Vang, Fresno county: "Your team is correct. This was an error on our consolidation. 620-A should have been it’s own voting precinct due to it being in another senatorial district. I’m usually good at catching this kind of stuff. I believe we may have overlooked it because the poll counts shows 0. ***USED AS IS*** Imperial 13 The SOV has: vote prec registration count 121019 1306 121020 2267 but there's a file (see att'd) that lists voting precincts and reg by party and it shows: 121019 1265 121020 1276 According to the consolidation file (see att'd), 121019 is consolidated from two registration precincts, 121011 and 121019. 121020 is consolidated from 121020. If we look at the counts by registration precinct from the registration file, we see: vote prec reg prec registration count 121019 121011 982 121019 1319 Total 2301 121020 121020 1332. Should rgprec 121011 be consolidated with 121020 instead of 121019? From Rebecca Terrazas-Baxter, Imperial county: "If I’m understanding your question correctly, yes. 121011.00 precinct is consolidated with 121020.00." Cecilia altered the consolidation accordingly New voter history file (SOV.xls for some reason) has 48681 A and 7398 V. SOV has 21982 V and 35384 A. Totals are similar but split is way off tried separating out mb only precincts but that only gives 43318 A, 5804 M and 6957 V. A's are still too high. Per Rebecca Terrazas-Baxter: "After further review and participating in the federal elections survey, we have come to the realization that those numbers are different, because of the way the categories were broken down in the Dominion system, was different that in DIMS, and the SOV reflects the numbers as reflected in the dominion system." ***USED AS IS*** Kern 15 rgprec 0012167 is consolidated into svprec 7011153. All of the other rgprecs in that svprec are in SD 14 but this one is in SD 16 - possible consolidation across districts. Additionally, election precinct 7013182 is consolidated from registration precincts 0013182 and 0013189. According to the county precinct district file, 0013182 is assigned to SD 14 while 0013189 is assigned to SD 16. The SOS has 0013182 assigned to SD 14, 0013189 wasn't listed (probably because it has 0 reg voters). Per Sophia Sanchez: "In reviewing our reports it looks like this was an error. There are not registered voters in this precinct and there were no Senate races this election so luckily this didn’t affect any voters." ***USED AS IS*** Los Angeles 19 Registration count in the county SOV is 5,709,853 whereas the county reported 5,813,167 to the SOS and there were 5,786,864 records in the SOS reg file. The difference is around 100K. Brian Ikenaga confirmed this is correct and is due to the SOV using a 29-day close count ***USED AS IS*** rgprec 3900063B is assigned to tct/block 060375008001014. That block doesn't exist in block file from 2011, must be newly added by census. ***USED AS IS*** County no longer sets districts for precincts (rg and sv) when those districts are not active in that election. As a result some precincts have 2 districts (eg 3500016A lists BOE 1 and 3 or 0520004A lists SD 22 and 32 in the county precinct/district file). In these instances, the first district is selected for the sov file. Issues can then arise when comparing the districts in the sov file with those from the precinct district file from the SOS. Where differences occur, the districts are set to 0. TBH, the inactive districts for any precinct should not be trusted and this will also throw off the district totals in the SOV. svprec 4800014B has 2572 registered voters but 2692 ballots cast - 120 more voters who voted than were registered, Brian Ikenaga said that this is the headquarters precinct and was likely used for homeless and provisional ballots ***USED AS IS*** Mariposa 22 svprec 4004 has 40 reg voters but 356 voters. County replied that it was a typo, there should be 400 reg voters. Adjusted SOV to reflect that voter history file has only 4572 voters but SOV has 10410 Mendocino 23 Voter history file has 41900 A and 1521 P but their SOV reports 43801 vbm and 334 poll voters. Skylar Gravatts from the county states: "we logged provisional and CVR ballots in the EMS system as Poll votes... and when actually scanned the ballots, they were scanned as VBM ballots. I apologize for the confusion." ***USED AS IS*** Merced 24 349 voters in voter history file (MVMJ004_Hist_20210201_082355_clerk4.txt) listed as voted at polling place but county is supposed to be all MB Marina Ortega from the county stated: "Yes, our county was All Mail for the November election, there should have not been any numbers given in the file for any polling place. All voters placed their ballots in an envelope and were submitted." Altered all poll voters to "A" Orange 30 svprec has 0 reg but 61 voters in the sov. Per Justin Berardino: "Yes, this is a precinct that is in Camp Pendleton Marine Base. Most of the base is in San Diego County, but a small portion is in Orange County. The voters who lived in the small Orange County portion, did not register in Orange County, but voted a same day registration ballot." ***USED AS IS*** voter hist file appears to have poll voters lumped in with vbm. SOS has 260,909 poll voters/1,285,661 vbm. History has 260,071 Vote Center Location 25,999 Voted at polling place, 3 voted by mail ballot and 1,255,809 vbm. The only way to make the numbers equivalent is by adding poll voters to vbm voters. From Justin Berardino: "Orange County had 26,280 counted ballots from Conditional Voter Registration voters. After adjudication, those paper ballots were scanned into the central ballot scanning system, and they consequently were counted in the vote-by-mail category on the Statement of Votes." ***USED AS IS*** San Bernardino 36 Some sv precincts had a lot more voters than registrants. Precinct reg voters who voted AP50001 0 47 RC11971 0 19 UNI0005 0 17 UNI0549 699 875 UNI0551 2 26 From Bob Page, SB ROV "I can think of two possible reasons why there can be more ballots counted than registered voters in a precinct. And, for some of voters, both reasons could apply. Poll workers issued the wrong ballot type to a voter (who signed the roster). In this case, the voter’s history record reflects the precinct associated with their voter record, but the ballot that was counted triggers a different precinct in the SOV. The voter casts a CVR/Provisional Ballot." ***USED AS IS*** San Joaquin 39 2 SOV precincts are not in the county consolidation file except as registration precincts: rgprec 11304 is supposedly consolidated into svprec 11233 and there are two 91209 reg precs with subs (rgprec 91209-A is in svprec 91203 and rgprec 91209-B is in svprec 91205). As well, svprec 11304 and 91209 are listed in the SOV as having 0 reg but 374 and 93 ballots cast respectively: RGPREC REG SVPREC REG BALLOTS CAST 11304 890 11304 0 374 91209-A 589 91209 0 93 91209-B 27 according to the county consolidation file rgprec 11304 is consolidated into 11233. Based on the other rgprecs consolidated with it, svprec 11233 has 1992 reg per the reg file. The SOV has it as 2017 rgprec 91209-A is consolidated into svprec 91203. Based on the other rgprecs consolidated with it, svprec 91203 has 1448 reg per the reg file. The SOV has it as 1464. rgprec 91209-B is consolidated into svprec 91205. Based on the other rgprecs consolidated with it, svprec 91205 has 374 reg per the reg file. The SOV has it as 377. So it looks like they created svprecs 11304 and 91209 but left the reg in the original consolidations. This is the explanation they gave: "I have attached a zipped folder with 3 docs, “ewmr005_consolidation worksheet 11032020 “ is the only consolidation report our EMS produces. It shows all ballot types and the precincts and precinct portions associated with them. Pages 13-14 of “ewmr005_consolidation worksheet 11032020 “ shows ballot type 19 and precinct 11304. The excel doc “Consolidation snapshot 11304 11032020” shows our Consolidate Voting Precincts Election workspace and where regular precinct 11304 was folded into voting precinct 11203. Page 58 of “ewmr005_consolidation worksheet 11032020 “ shows ballot type 76 and regular precinct portion 91209-A. Excel doc “Consolidation snapshot 91209-A 11032020” shows how regular precinct portion 91209-A was folded into voting precinct 91203. The snapshots also show the disassociation of 11304 & 91209-A as Voting precincts (they have the red-lined-through-circle & no ballot type listed). 11304 was once its own ballot type #24, and 91209-A was once ballot type #77. You will see they no longer exist on the “ewmr005_consolidation worksheet 11032020 “ (ballot type #88 is a third deleted ballot type but unrelated to this issue)." and this is how they explained it to Melodie: "11304 was its own voting precinct with another one (likely 11350...but our rep there wasn't 100% sure) 91209A was its own voting precinct and should not have been these errors were made because someone redid the consolidation and there was an incorrect association which would have resulted in all the voters in that precinct having a race left off their ballot 91209B was correct because of these incorrect associations, another person had to go in and roll 11304 into a proper ballot-type precinct consolidation and roll 91209A into voting precinct 91203 how does this affect the numbers we're seeing: our rep there believes there was a scenario where people in the incorrectly consolidated voted precincts got the ballots with the missing races. The county had to issue a mea culpa to the public and send out another round of ballots (that included the missing race) HOWEVER, if someone had voted with the ballots with that missing race (i.e. 1st round ballots) but did NOT vote with the ballots with NO missing races (i.e. 2nd round ballots) the county would have then counted the 1st round ballots for those voters ...so its possible that the vote totals popping up in the SOV were the ballots cast from that first round of "incomplete" ballots." I don't pretend to understand what happened so I created an sr and sv file from the original consol and SOV and Cecilia consolidated rgprec 11304 into svprec 11304 and rgprec 91209-A into svprec 91209. She then consolidated svprec 11304 with svprec 11233 and 91209 with 91205 and 91203 to balance the voting precincts. Solano 48 counts for registration for srprecs differ between the registration file and the SOV: registration prec registration voting prec SOV registration 17122 36 17120 125 17320 171 17315 335 49695 179 49730 722 49700 257 49702 180 total for 49730 616 Response from John Gardner: "We can hop on a call, but some explanations may be related to voters being issued the wrong pct ballot at a polling place, or the wrong provisional ballot causing votes to report to the wrong precinct, or the provisional ballot not getting duplicated to the correct precinct (clerical staff error)." ***USED AS IS*** Stanislaus 50 311 voters were recorded as "V" but the county is an all MB county. Aaron Rosa from the county replied "Please count the 311 V records as A." Those voters were coded as "A" Trinity 52 46 voters were recorded as "V" but the county is an all MB county. Shanna White from Trinity indicated that this was an error and they were recoded as "A"