Politics
MELTDOWN: Democrat Official Blames State’s Inability To Count Votes On ‘Cost’
California’s top election official is drawing fire after claiming that counting votes faster would simply be too expensive.
Secretary of State Shirley Weber posted on social media this week that speeding up California’s famously slow ballot counting — especially for ballots arriving after Election Day — would cost counties a significant amount of money. “What would ‘faster vote counting’ actually cost?” she asked on X. “Faster counting doesn’t increase accuracy—it only makes it more costly.”
Weber cited one example in which a single county would have to expand to 950 polling places to accommodate quicker counting, with an estimated price tag of up to $110,000 per election.
The statement quickly drew criticism, with many pointing out that smaller and less wealthy states manage to report election results within hours — while California, with a nearly $3 trillion economy, regularly takes weeks to finalize its vote counts.
In 2024, some California counties took more than a month to certify final results, leaving voters frustrated and raising questions about the state’s election infrastructure.
What would “faster vote counting” actually cost?
Faster counting doesn’t increase accuracy—it only makes it more costly. pic.twitter.com/9NHRqoePMU
— California Secretary of State (@CASOSVote) June 18, 2025
Weber’s defense of the status quo comes as pressure mounts from lawmakers and the public to bring more accountability to the process. Republican legislators introduced the Election Results Accountability Act earlier this year, aiming to require counties to report at least 90% of votes in federal elections within 72 hours of polls closing.
Supporters of the bill say it’s a necessary step to rebuild public confidence in elections. By contrast, Democratic leaders argue that rushing vote tallies could compromise the integrity of the process.
Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA), who served as California’s secretary of state before Weber, defended the current system and slammed the Republican bill.
“This is another Republican attempt to disenfranchise voters who cast legal ballots under California law,” Padilla told The Sacramento Bee. “California has nearly 23 million registered voters, so it takes time to accurately and efficiently count the millions of votes cast each election. We must always prioritize an accurate count over a rushed process that may not capture the will of the people.”
Still, critics say the drawn-out timelines are a growing liability, especially in tight races where outcomes can change dramatically days or even weeks after Election Day. The slow pace also fuels public speculation and distrust, particularly when early results show one trend and later ballots shift the outcome — a phenomenon commonly referred to as the “blue shift.”
California’s system is structured to favor access over speed. Every registered voter is mailed a ballot, and ballots postmarked by Election Day can be counted up to seven days later. The process includes layers of signature verification and ballot curing, all of which are aimed at ensuring valid votes aren’t thrown out — but at the cost of efficiency. Roughly 38% of ballots in the state are counted after Election Day, creating long delays in reporting final outcomes.
While some states, like Florida, can report nearly all votes the night of the election, California’s commitment to mail-in voting and provisional ballots creates significant logistical hurdles. Larger urban counties, which process far more ballots, tend to face the biggest bottlenecks. Rural counties, by comparison, often report much faster.
The issue isn’t just procedural — it’s political. In a climate of rising election skepticism and political polarization, delays in reporting results are increasingly viewed not just as an annoyance but as a vulnerability.
Budget concerns are also driving the debate. California is facing a projected $12 billion deficit.