CalWatchdog.com asked the two candidates a half dozen questions about the job. The responses from both candidates, which are posted in their entirety below, show frequent agreement on the major issues as well as a similar level of caution in the curve balls we threw their way.

Both Padilla and Peterson intend to use technology to improve the office that oversees everything from the state’s election system to business registration. Both the Democrat and the Republican want to increase transparency in the state’s campaign finance disclosure system and promote greater civic engagement in the political process. Both candidates believe it should be faster and easier to start a business in California.

The pair are so similar on the issues that editorial boards have resorted to tacit endorsements of both candidates and consider each to be an improvement over the embattled incumbent, Debra Bowen, who is leaving due to term limits and has admitted having problems with depression.

“Whether you select Pete Peterson or state Sen. Alex Padilla, our expectation is that a problem-plagued, underperforming office will receive the caliber of leadership that has been lacking under two-term Democratic incumbent Debra Bowen,” the Fresno Bee observed in its editorial endorsement for Peterson.

Praise for Bill Jones, Jerry Brown

The similarities even extend to their opinion of recent secretaries of state.

“Bill Jones successfully used technology to increase transparency, placing campaign finance information online, and posting live election results online in statewide elections,” Padilla said of the Republican who held the job from 1995 to 2003. Padilla also offered praise for Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown, who held the post from 1971 to 1975.

In response to the same question, Peterson, who has said he is modeling his campaign off of Brown’s past secretary-of state campaign in 1970, offered similar praise for Jones.

“Bill Jones is my Honorary Campaign Chair, and in several ways, it feels that we are both approaching the office in similar environments,” Peterson said. “Bill came to an office that had become bureaucratic and antiquated. Over his two terms, he transformed the office into one that used technology (like Cal-Access) to make government more transparent and responsive.”

Both cautious, avoid strong positions on controversial issues

On civic engagement, Padilla said he’d “prioritize greater civic education through schools and community groups.” That’s not far from Peterson’s belief that the state “can be doing a better job in civics education at the high-school level to encourage greater youth civic participation.”

But everyone supports improving civics education. What about a controversial proposal to increase youth involvement in politics by lowering the voting age?

In last month’s Scottish independence referendum, 16 and 17 year olds were allowed to vote. It was a resounding success. Young people took the franchise seriously, registered to vote and then turned out in droves.

“Across Scotland, 90.1 percent of 121,497 16 and 17-year-olds have registered to vote,” one U.K. newspaper reported.

According to the Guardian, “Scotland’s first minister, Alex Salmond, was so impressed, in fact, that he declared there was ‘not a shred of evidence for arguing that 16- and 17-year-olds should not be allowed to vote’.”

Polling showed a huge disparity in public opinion between younger voters who supported independence and older voters who opposed it.

Here in California, neither candidate for the state’s top election post was willing to embrace lowering the voting age. Both candidates demurred — only going so far as to embrace pre-registration for young voters.

Neither candidate champions disenfranchised voters with disabilities

Padilla and Peterson were similarly reluctant to champion the cause of advancing voting-rights complaints by people with disabilities.

Earlier this year, a complaint filed by the Disability and Abuse Project alleged that Los Angeles Superior Court judges used literacy tests to deny voting rights to thousands of people with autism spectrum disorder, cerebral palsy and other developmental disabilities.

The group’s analysis of 61 conservatorship cases in Los Angeles County found that 90 percent of individuals were denied voting rights. With more than 40,000 conservatorships in California, the group extrapolates that thousands of Californians could be illegally deprived of their franchise.

Surely, the candidates for secretary of state would have an opinion about this denial of voting rights?

Padilla seemed completely unaware of the problem, offering a generic statement. “Every citizen has the right to vote and to have that vote counted,” he said. “While many people with disabilities prefer the convenience of vote-by-mail, there are privacy concerns, and some prefer to go to the polls.”

But his reply doesn’t begin to address the disenfranchisement occurring across the state, nor does it offer an opinion on whether “competency tests” should exist.

Peterson proved to be more familiar with the issue but said only that “he was hoping a court or Justice Dept decision might bring clarity to what the appropriate level of capacity should be.”

Peterson offers more specifics on transparency, business fee

About the only difference between the candidates was Peterson’s willingness to offer more specifics about his plans if elected to the position.

Peterson said he’d work to lower the business registration fee from $800 per year to $100, a level comparable with other states. He also definitely pledged to post his calendar online, a move that would aid the press and public, who currently are required to submit formal public records requests to get that information.

“I am committed to putting my calendar online so Californians know what their SoS is doing,” Peterson said.

Padilla didn’t directly answer the question, saying, “I will comply with the Public Records Act.”

While Peterson had more definitive positions on openness and transparency, he was less forthcoming about his vote for governor in the June 3 primary. In the new Top Two system, Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown got the most votes. For the second slot, the battle was between two Republicans: Assemblyman Tim Donnelly and Neel Kashkari. Kashkari won and faces Brown on Nov. 4.

Padilla voted Brown.

Peterson has refused to endorse a candidate, but said he likes Kashkari’s stance on education issues.

Text of the CalWatchDog.com interviews

What follows is the full Q&A CalWatchdog.com conducted with the candidates.

Question: In the June Primary, whom did you vote for governor?

Padilla: Jerry Brown

Peterson: While I’m not endorsing candidates, I can repeat what we discussed in an earlier email exchange, that I like Neel’s focus on jobs and education. And, more recently, I was disappointed with Governor Brown’s decision to oppose the Vergara verdict, which I view (as the judge did, and Neel does) as a civil rights decision.

Question: In Scotland, 16 and 17 year olds were allowed to vote on the independence referendum. Should we lower the voting age in California?

Padilla: I support legislation to allow 15-, 16-, and 17-year-olds to pre-register to vote, so that they are automatically eligible to vote when they turn 18. And to increase turnout among young voters, I will prioritize greater civic education through schools and community groups.

Peterson: I don’t support lowering the voting age, but we can be doing a better job in civics education at the high school level to encourage greater youth civic participation, and I will be making proposals in this area. I do support the pre-registration of 17 year olds, and know we must reform our motor-voter registration system to make this easier to do.

Question: Business documents: As secretary of state, will you commit to putting all business registration documents online? Right now, there’s a processing delay and fee for copies. It’s unclear why the documents cannot be posted online. What other changes can we expect in the area of the office’s business programs?

Padilla: We need to make it easier and quicker to start a business in California. The first stop for entrepreneurs starting a new business is the Secretary of State’s office, and the business filing process should take no more than five business days. In the past, business owners have waited weeks, or even months, to get their registrations approved. That’s unacceptable. And yes, I will work to enable businesses to file online.

Peterson: I am committed to transitioning as many business filing processes to an online platform as soon as possible – particularly business registration and the filing of Statements of Information by LLCs. I am also committed to bringing transparency to how the $800/yr Business Franchise Tax is “spent” in Sacramento, then I will fight to reduce to $100 – similar to other states we compete against for small business jobs.

I am also exited about reforming the SoS office into a data gathering office on our “small business climate”, modifying our business registration and dissolution forms to survey businesses as to why the starting up in, and (unfortunately) leaving the state or closing. I want to make this data available on an annual basis.

Question: Openness and Transparency: Will you promise to post your calendar online? How will your administration interpret the California Public Records Act? Under what circumstances will you pursue an exemption from disclosure? What can voters expect in the area of openness and transparency?

Padilla: I will comply with the Public Records Act. I have proudly sponsored legislation to increase transparency and help restore trust in government, including requiring weekly disclosure of all campaign contributions and online disclosure of all advertisements. I will continue to push for greater disclosure if elected Secretary of State.

Peterson: First, I am committed to putting the SoS budget up online in a format that’s understandable by a 10-year old and an 80-year old. I have done some of this work with cities, and advise a data visualization company in Mountain View called OpenGov.com. Whether that platform or similar, we need transparency to how money is being spent in this agency.

I am committed to putting my calendar online so Californians know what their SoS is doing.

I’m not sure how to answer the PRA question. I have been a long-time advocate for government transparency, and promise to bring this perspective to the SoS office.

On a related matter, I am committed to fully cataloging the data resources compiled by the SoS office (in both voter engagement and business engagement), and making that data available (in a secure but “open” format) to all Californians who want to develop their own applications and visualizations. I look forward to working with civic tech organizations (like MapLight, others) to help them develop applications that are helpful to all Californians – whether in campaign finance reporting or business data reporting.

Question: Of recent CA Secretaries of State, who do you think did the best job, and most closely reflects your approach to the office?

Padilla: I admire Jerry Brown for sponsoring legislation to reform campaign finance reporting, and when that failed, he worked with citizen groups to pass the Political Reform Act of 1974.

I respect Bruce McPherson [Republican secretary of state from 2005-07] for visiting with election officials in each of California’s 58 counties, as I have during my campaign. Listening and learning from local elected officials is crucial to understanding how our elections work on the ground.

Bill Jones successfully used technology to increase transparency, placing campaign finance information online, and posting live election results online in statewide elections.

Debra Bowen did the right thing in decertifying unauditable electronic voting machines when legitimate questions were raised about the reliability and security of the vote.

Peterson: Over the last 20 years, Republicans have proven to be excellent Secretaries of State. Bill Jones is my Honorary Campaign Chair, and in several ways, it feels that we are both approaching the office in similar environments. Bill came to an office that had become bureaucratic and antiquated. Over his two terms, he transformed the office into one that used technology (like Cal-Access) to make government more transparent and responsive. He’s also known by “good government” advocates as conducting the operations of the office in a non-partisan way. He worked well with staff, and demonstrated a real commitment – again, over two terms – to the office.

I also know that Bruce McPherson was an excellent Secretary of State in his (almost) two years in the office. He, too, brought a non-partisan commitment to the office.

Question: In late July, Pete Peterson said he was “looking into the story” of disabled citizens being denied their right to vote. The complaint alleges people with disabilities were barred from voting. What are your thoughts on the disenfranchisement of disabled voters?

Padilla: Every citizen has the right to vote and to have that vote counted. While many people with disabilities prefer the convenience of vote-by-mail, there are privacy concerns, and some prefer to go to the polls. For those who prefer poll voting, counties are working to accommodate people with disabilities. In some counties, for example, there are provisions for curbside voting.

Peterson: I think what I said is that I wanted to “[follow] the case” as I was hoping a court or Justice Dept decision might bring clarity to what the appropriate level of capacity should be.

Question: Should Debra Bowen resign? Are you concerned about the administration of the upcoming election?

Padilla: The nuts and bolts of elections are administered at the local level, by county clerks and elections officials. I’ve met with elections officials in every one of California’s 58 counties and they are prepared for the November 2014 election.

I do not think it is necessary for Secretary Bowen to resign and I believe it would be disruptive this close to the election. During Secretary Bowen’s eight years in office, we have had 7 regular elections and 46 special elections, and we have not had controversies such as butterfly ballots or hanging chads. I intend to be a more active and visible Secretary of State as we work to modernize the office.

Peterson: The premise of my campaign has been that the office has not had committed, creative leadership for many years, and has regressed (relative to other states) in both voter engagement and business engagement. As of today, I don’t think we have a clear sense of how much time the Secretary is committing to the operations of the office, so I can’t say to what degree administration of the office is suffering.

Pete Peterson, the Republican candidate for Secretary of State, plans to use the entrepreneurial qualities of Californians to reignite the greatness of the Golden State.

But I just got in the mail Secretary of State Debra Bowen’s “California Statewide Direct Primary Election Tuesday, June 3, 2014 Official Voter Information Guide.”

Although he has dropped out of the race, the Guide still includes Lee’s Candidate Statement in his bid to be the next secretary of state, which also is online.

Here’s the amusing sentence, “Under the Constitution, the Secretary of State’s job is to empower Californians to govern California, to guarantee fair elections, expose special interests, and prevent corruption.”

Oh, well.

The rest of his statement is standard Democratic boilerplate, interspersed with him writing several times, “It’s your California.” Which also is the name of his website, still online for now, to make it easier to register to vote.

The P.C. Democratic boilerplate brings up, “a place of exclusion to one of inclusion….end tuition discrimination against immigrant college students…. struggle for marriage equality….finally raising the disgracefully low minimum wage….”

It’s been frequently ignored, but a late amendment to Assembly Bill 1436 required officials to conduct a statewide voter review before California’s same-day voter registration law can be implemented. According to the Legislative Counsel’s digest for the bill, it becomes operative “on January 1 of the year following the year in which the Secretary of State certifies that the state has a statewide voter registration database that complies with the requirements of the federal Help America Vote Act of 2002.”

The law was expected to take effect in 2014. However, to be operative for the 2014 general election, the Secretary of State needed to complete its HAVA compliance by December 31, 2013. Last month, Bowen took to Twitter to explain why the state won’t be adopting California’s landmark same-day voter registration law anytime soon.

“That law (CA Elections Code section 2170) will likely take effect in 2016 or later,” Bowen tweeted on Jan. 13.

VoteCal: Voter registration database debacle

The state’s HAVA compliance has been illusory, and the statewide voter registration database project nothing short of a debacle. VoteCal, the project for a new statewide voter registration database, began in 2006 as a replacement for the system built in 1995.

Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, has been critical of the project and worries the technology will be out-dated by the time it’s completed.

“VoteCal has been in development since 2006 and already failed once,” Alexander wrote in a November 2013 blog post comparing the project to the federal government’s troubled Obamacare website, HealthCare.gov. “It is not scheduled to be in operation until 2017. It’s hard to imagine the technology they are planning for today will still be state-of-the-art by 2017 and that assumes the project is not further delayed.”

Same-day voter law not as extensive

Same-day voter registration is expected to boost voter turnout. But just how much — that’s up for debate.

“We expect same-day registration to be an important factor in helping to increase everyone’s participation in the electoral process,” said Mindy Romero of the California Civic Engagement Project at UC Davis. “In general, states with same-day registration laws have shown higher turnout rates. It should be noted though that California’s same day registration law is potentially not as extensive of a reform as similar laws in other states.”

In California, a provisional ballot will be issued to same-day voters and counted only upon later verification.

Secretary of State Candidates: Yet another tech problem

Bowen is term-limited and cannot run for re-election. Three of the candidates running to replace Bowen as Secretary of State criticized her office for the voter database delays.

“This is yet another example of the Secretary of State’s problems with technology,” said Republican Pete Peterson, who serves as executive director at Pepperdine University’s Davenport Institute for Public Engagement and Civic Leadership.

Democrat Secretary of State candidate Derek Cressman, a former vice-president of the good government group Common Cause, said the implementation delay was further proof that better management is needed at the top elections office.

“This is why it is imperative that our next Secretary has both the policy background and management experience to implement a new registration database without further delays,” said Cressman, a supporter of same-day voter registration.

Other reforms delayed with VoteCal

Same-day voter registration isn’t the only electorial reform put on hold by the state’s vote registration database. Other laws being delayed include the ability for 17 year olds to pre-register to vote and the email delivery of a sample ballot.

“Same-day registration is one of numerous election reforms enacted in recent years in California that are on hold as we wait for the state’s new voter registration database to be built and deployed,” Alexander said. “California is one of only two states with no statewide voter information lookup tools. These are online tools that let voters check if they are registered to vote or registered at an old address, find their polling place, check the status of their vote-by-mail ballot and see what contests will be on their ballot.”

At least one Secretary of State candidate has experience sidestepping bureaucratic delays related to the voter registration database. In 2011, State Senator Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, authored the state’s online voter registration law. Yee’s hugely successful SB397, which helped register more than a million new voters in 2012, was drafted because an earlier measure — SB381 in 2008, by State Sen. Ron Calderon, D-Montebello — couldn’t take effect because of VoteCal delays.

“I look forward to the day in California when eligible voters will have the opportunity to walk into their local polling location, and immediately be able to cast a ballot and participate in our democracy,” Yee said.

• Ensure that the state’s voting systems are accurate and secure by introducing strict auditing requirements so that every vote is counted as it was cast.
• Register every eligible voter, encourage every voter to participate on Election Day and ensure that every vote is counted accurately.

Bowen, a Democrat who narrowly defeated Republican Bruce McPherson in 2006 and won an easy re-election in 2010, has fallen short in achieving those top priorities, according to a recent state audit. In addition, Bowen has wasted more than $22 million in federal funds from the Help America Vote Act of 2002, according to the report by California State Auditor Elaine Howle.

The audit, “Office of the Secretary of State: It Must Do More to Ensure Funds Provided Under the Federal Help America Vote Act Are Spent Effectively,” details years of mismanagement by Bowen’s office in the administration of California’s voting systems. Bowen’s response to the audit places much of the blame on unrealistic federal regulations.

Audit highlights

According to the audit:

• Bowen has not effectively spent HAVA funds for new voting systems; more than $22 million has been spent on replacing voting systems with new systems that counties and voters cannot fully use.
• Bowen has not adopted regulations that define the state’s process for voting system approval, as required by state law.
• Many counties need additional funding to replace their voting systems, and some have concerns about Bowen’s process for voting system approval or are waiting for vendors to develop new systems.
• Bowen has not declared compliance with certain HAVA requirements to the federal government, which would enable the Legislature to determine how best to appropriate the remaining $131 million in HAVA funds.
• The first attempt to develop VoteCal, a statewide database of voter registration information, failed, costing the state at least $4.6 million.
• Bowen’s practice of providing the Legislature with financial information that does not come from her office’s accounting system unnecessarily weakens a key accountability and transparency tool.
• Bowen can do more to implement important requirements of the National Voter Registration Act to increase the rates of voter registration.

Unusable voting machines

The waste of more than $22 million resulted from Bowen and other secretaries of state “reaching different conclusions as to whether particular direct recording electronic voting systems — such as computer-based push-button or touch screen systems — were suitable for use in California,” the audit said. “As a result, some counties that used HAVA funds to buy certain voting systems subsequently found that they could no longer use these systems or could use them only with significant restrictions.”

Six counties collectively wasted more than $22 million in HAVA funding and more than $29 million in California Voting Modernization Act funding on voting systems they can no longer fully use. San Diego County spent $15.5 million on 8,200 machines, Riverside County spent $13.5 million on 7,200 machines, Santa Clara County spent $11 million on 3,500 machines, Alameda County spent $8.8 million on 2,781 machines, and Kings and Los Angeles counties each spent a little over $1 million.

Bowen’s response to the audit chides Howle for failing to note that the problem with direct recording electronic voting systems existed nationwide, with many states banning the machines after “many computer scientists proved [them] to be vulnerable to tampering and inaccurate vote tallying.”

Bowen blames the federal government for requiring that new voting systems be in place (replacing paper punch cards with their notorious hanging chads) by 2006, but not issuing new voting standards until December 2005, “after many jurisdictions had already purchased inferior early model systems to meet the January 1, 2006 deadline.” Those jurisdictions included several California counties who were either unaware or ignored the fact that “[s]tate officials continued to be appropriately skeptical about DRE voting systems.”

Bowen blames Congress

Bowen said she then carried out legislative direction to conduct an in-depth review that revealed that DRE systems “could be exploited to change election results” and that “electronic systems that optically scanned paper ballots proved to be much more reliable. … It is truly unfortunate that the U.S. Congress foisted poorly constructed DRE voting systems onto governments and the voting public without first establishing high security, accuracy and reliability standards for these systems to meet.”

But the case against DRE machines may not be as conclusive as Bowen asserts. In February 2006, her predecessor, McPherson, approved a DRE voting system based on the fact that the vendor had received federal certification, the system was being used in 19 states and UC Berkeley computer scientists investigated the system and found that, while some problems did exist, they were manageable, and any risks could be mitigated by counties following appropriate use procedures, according to the audit.

So, Bowen’s ban on the machines may have been unnecessary, costing taxpayers the $51 million for unusable machines.

“Adding to the problem, there appears to be a lack of clarity for the counties buying voting systems, the manufacturers who make them, and the general public as to what California’s expectations are for its voting systems and what standards are being applied as part of the secretary of state’s process for voting system approval,” the audit states.

As a result, despite California’s counties having received a total of $252 million since 2003 to replace their voting systems, nearly a fifth of the state’s counties indicated that they are currently using aging voting systems. And nine indicated that they need additional funding to upgrade them, four of them having exhausted their funds for voting-system replacement.

Bowen sitting on $131 million

A potentially larger waste of tax dollars is that Bowen is sitting on $131 million in HAVA funds that could be used to increase voting registration because she refuses to declare that California is in full compliance with HAVA requirements — even though Bowen’s office and the auditor’s analysis show California is in fact in full compliance.

Bowen’s office “has chosen not to declare its compliance because it has yet to successfully deploy a new statewide computerized voter registration list called VoteCal,” the audit states. “[T]he lack of a fully deployed VoteCal system should not prevent it from declaring the State’s compliance with HAVA …. Doing so would enable the Legislature to determine how best to use the remaining HAVA funds.”

Bowen responded that the implementation of the VoteCal system is necessary in order to fully comply with HAVA. “California taxpayers could end up footing more of the bill if the Legislature and Governor spend these limited federal funds before knowing the true costs of maintaining and operating VoteCal,” her response states.

But Howle countered that Bowen could renegotiate the agreement with the U.S. Justice Department to implement VoteCal. In any case, an official in Bowen’s office confirmed that the terms of that agreement with Justice “do not prohibit the State from declaring compliance with HAVA,” the report states.

Following tradition

In Bowen’s defense, she’s actually following in the footsteps of the last Democratic California secretary of state, Kevin Shelley. In 2004 an audit found that Kevin Shelley poorly managed the $81 million in HAVA funds he received, failing to spend nearly $35 million of it for the replacement of outdated voting machines in the time allotted by the grant, according to the San Francisco Business Times.

Also in Bowen’s defense, she has followed through on her third top priority when she was running for office in 2006: “Improve disclosure of campaign contributions to candidates and ballot initiatives so people can easily track how the money flows in politics.” Last week, nearly seven years after winning election, Bowen announced that she is now providing raw campaign finance data online that was formerly only available on CD-ROM or paper.