California's Elections Chief Says System Works. Critics Aren't Buying It.

Assemblymember Gail Pellerin is tired of the talk. When the California Assembly Elections Committee leader sat down for an interview on California Politics 360 in mid-June, she was ready to defend what she calls a system that’s working just fine—even as the state faces a barrage of criticism from national media, concerned voters, and federal officials questioning whether California’s election process is broken.

The controversy boils down to timing. California’s primary election wrapped up a week after Election Day before major media outlets could call winners in high-profile races like the Los Angeles mayoral contest and the gubernatorial race. For a state that prides itself on accessibility and voter choice, the slow count has become a liability in the court of public opinion. The New York Times editorial board called it“voluntary ineptitude.”Others have questioned whether the system inspires confidence or erodes it.

Pellerin, a Democrat from Santa Cruz who spent decades as a county elections official before her legislative career, isn’t apologizing. She points to the reality behind California’s approach: record turnout in the primary, all 58 counties executing the count with“great speed and security and transparency,”and a rigorous manual recount process that takes time for good reason. When ballots arrive in the final days before Election Day—which they do in droves—verification is meticulous. Election officials aren’t dragging their feet; they’re checking signatures, processing same-day registrations, and running audits across every contest to ensure accuracy. That process works, but it takes a week, sometimes longer.

The tension reveals a deeper challenge. Governor Gavin Newsom has said he wishes the count were faster. The Secretary of State offered a more philosophical shrug: results arrive when they arrive. Pellerin acknowledges the disconnect while refusing to sacrifice security for speed. She’s pushing for $35 million in state funding for voter education and outreach, partly because nobody knows what new rules might land before November. She’s also supporting the California Voter Foundation’s request for $55 million to help counties with equipment, staffing, and space—though she’s realistic about June timelines. You can’t redesign ballot envelopes or install new equipment in five months.

What Pellerin won’t do is validate the narrative that California’s elections are rigged or fundamentally broken.“I don’t like to give it oxygen,”she said when pressed on presidential claims and social media conspiracy theories. Instead, she invites skeptics to visit their local election office, watch the process unfold, and see for themselves. The ballots are there. The observers are there. The work is real, methodical, and transparent—just not instant. In a polarized moment when speed feels like a proxy for legitimacy, that distinction matters more than ever.