|
|
|
| Co. No. |
County Name | Status When Reviewed | CFABA.ORG Grade |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01. | Alameda County | No Candidate List on their Website. Did not respond to our request for a list. |
Grade = F |
| 02. | Alpine County | Sent us a Candidate List, only had two candidates for office, both without email addresses. | Grade = C |
| 03. | Amador County | No Candidate List on their Website. Did not respond to our request for a list. |
Grade = F |
| 04. | Butte County | Did not have email addresses on their candidate lists. | Grade = C |
| 05. | Calaveras County | Did not have email addresses on their candidate lists. | Grade = C |
| 06. | Colusa County | No election other than the special statewide election. | Grade = N/A |
| 07. | Contra Costa | No Candidate List on their Website. Did not respond to our request for a list. |
Grade = F |
| 08. | Del Norte County | No Candidate List on their Website. Did not respond to our request for a list. |
Grade = F |
| 09. | El Dorado County | No Candidate List on their Website. Did not respond to our request for a list. |
Grade = F |
| 10. | Fresno County | Had Candidate List on their Website with clickable email addresses but used a PDF formatted page instead of an HTML formatted page. Please see S03 above. |
Grade = B |
| 11. | Glenn County | No Candidate List on their Website. Did not respond to our request for a list. |
Grade = F |
| 12. | Humboldt County | No Candidate List on their Website. Did not respond to our request for a list. |
Grade = F |
| 13. | Imperial County | No Candidate List on their Website. Did not respond to our request for a list. |
Grade = F |
| 14. | Inyo County | No Candidate List on their Website. Did not respond to our request for a list. |
Grade = F |
| 15. | Kern County | No Candidate List on their Website. They responded with: "We do not post the list of candidates until between the 40th and 30th day before the election." |
Grade = D |
| 16. | Kings County | No Candidate List on their Website. Did not respond to our request for a list. |
Grade = F |
| 17. | Lake County | No Candidate List on their Website. Did not respond to our request for a list. |
Grade = F |
| 18. | Lassen County | They collect email addresses from their candidates but do not post them. | Grade = C |
| 19. | Los Angeles County | This is the very best example of what we would
like every county to do. They post their list on their
website. They have clickable website and email
addresses for their candidates. We continue to
appreciate how Conny B. McCormack,
Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk has worked
with us to make their candidate list the best in the USA. Please see S01 above. |
Grade = A |
| 20. | Madera County | No Candidate List on their Website. They faxed it to us. It was unusable when we received it. |
Grade = D |
| 21. | Marin County | Had Candidate List on their Website with clickable email addresses but used a PDF formatted page instead of an HTML formatted page. Please see S05 above. |
Grade = B |
| 22. | Mariposa County | No Candidate List on their Website. Did not respond to our request for a list. |
Grade = F |
| 23. | Mendocino County | Sent us a Candidate List with email addresses. Please see S07 above. |
Grade = C |
| 24. | Merced County | Did not have email addresses on their candidate lists. | Grade = C |
| 25. | Modoc County | Website=[NONE LISTED] | Grade = F |
| 26. | Mono County | Website=[NONE LISTED] | Grade = F |
| 27. | Monterey County | Had Candidate List on their website in a HTML formatted page with email addresses but they were not clickable. Please see S09 above. |
Grade = B |
| 28. | Napa County | Did not have candidate list on website. | Grade = D |
| 29. | Nevada County | No Candidate List on their Website. Did not respond to our request for a list. |
Grade = F |
| 30. | Orange County | No Candidate List on their Website. Did not respond to our request for a list. |
Grade = F |
| 31. | Placer County | No Candidate List on their Website. Did not respond to our request for a list. |
Grade = F |
| 32. | Plumas County | No Candidate List on their Website. Did not respond to our request for a list. |
Grade = F |
| 33. | Riverside County | Did not give email address to Secretary of State. No information about candidates other than just the candidate name. | Grade = F |
| 34. | Sacramento County | No Candidate List on their Website. Did not respond to our request for a list. |
Grade = F |
| 35. | San Benito County | Website=[NONE LISTED] | Grade = F |
| 36. | San Bernardino County | Did not have email addresses on their candidate lists. | Grade = C |
| 37. | San Diego County | They responded with: "The Registrar of Voters does not have a candidate list for the November, 2005 election. The City of San Diego has candidates and their candidate list..." The City of San Diego did not have email addresses for their candidates, just websites. It is our policy not to go looking at websites for email addresses, it is too time consuming. | Grade = C |
| 38. | City & County of San Francisco | Had Candidate List on their Website with clickable email addresses but used a PDF formatted page instead of an HTML formatted page. Please see S10 above. |
Grade = B |
| 39. | San Joaquin County | Had Candidate List on their Website with clickable email addresses but used a PDF formatted page instead of an HTML formatted page. Please see S08 above. |
Grade = B |
| 40. | San Luis Obispo County | Did not have email addresses on their candidate lists. | Grade = C |
| 41. | San Mateo County | Had Candidate List on their Website with clickable email addresses but used a PDF formatted page instead of an HTML formatted page. Please see S04 above. |
Grade = B |
| 42. | Santa Barbara | No Candidate List on their Website. Did not respond to our request for a list. |
Grade = F |
| 43. | Santa Clara County | Did not have email addresses on their candidate lists. | Grade = C |
| 44. | Santa Cruz County | Did not have email addresses on their candidate lists. | Grade = C |
| 45. | Shasta County | No Candidate List on their Website. Did not respond to our request for a list. |
Grade = F |
| 46. | Sierra County | They responded with: "We do not have any candidates for upcoming November 8, 2005 election." | Grade = N/A |
| 47. | Siskiyou County | No Candidate List on their Website. Did not respond to our request for a list. |
Grade = F |
| 48. | Solano County | Candidate list only had names on it. | Grade = C |
| 49. | Sonoma County | No Candidate List on their Website. They sent us a Candidate List with email addresses. Please see S06 above. |
Grade = C |
| 50. | Stanislaus County | No Candidate List on their Website. They sent us a list but it did not have email addresses. |
Grade = D |
| 51. | Sutter County | No Candidate List on their Website. Did not give email address to Secretary of State. |
Grade = F |
| 52. | Tehama County | They responded with: "We are not putting a candidates list on the web page this time because none of the few candidates that we have for our special districts signed the waiver so we could post them on the web page." | Grade = C |
| 53. | Trinity County | No Candidate List on their Website. Did not respond to our request for a list. |
Grade = F |
| 54. | Tulare County | Did not have email addresses on their candidate lists. | Grade = C |
| 55. | Tuolumne County | Website=[NONE LISTED] | Grade = F |
| 56. | Ventura County | Had Candidate List on their Website with clickable email addresses but used a PDF formatted page instead of an HTML formatted page. Please see S02 above. |
Grade = B |
| 57. | Yolo County | No Candidate List on their Website. Did not respond to our request for a list. | Grade = F |
| 58. | Yuba County | No Candidate List on their Website. Did not respond to our request for a list. |
Grade = F |
Grading system used by CFABA.ORG:
Grade A (Best) = All contact information available for voters. Such as full mailing address, phone number, email and website address. Email and website addresses are clickable within an Internet browser. All of this information is posted on their Internet website as an HTML formatted webpage rather than some other format like a PDF file.
Grade B = Had Candidate List on their Website with clickable email addresses but used a PDF formatted page instead of an HTML formatted page. This means users must download a PDF reader to be able to view the webpage. If they used a HTML formatted page then the email addresses were not clickable.
Grade C = They had a candidate list but it did not have email addresses. Or they had to send us their list of candidates via email and that list had email addresses on it.
Grade D = They did not have a candidate list on their website, and they could only send us the list either by fax or regular mail instead of by email. This meant they only had paper copies of their lists and were not thinking of their constitutes who use the Internet as a main source for getting information. Or, if they could send it via email the list did not contain email addresses.
Grade F (Worst) = Did not have any kind of a candidate list on their website or did not have a website. When requested to provide either a link to where it is on their website or a list they "Did not respond to our request." The counties that did not have an email or website address on the California Secretary of State's webpage [http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_d.htm] are receiving an F Grade as well, because it demonstrates a lack of interest in constitutes who use the Internet as a main source for getting information.
Grade N/A = Did not have an election, there was no way to see what grade they would be given.
A total of twenty six (25) counties did not respond to our request sent on 08/15/2005 An Open Letter Requesting Candidate Lists. The bottom line is they ignored us. That is forty four percent (44%) of California County Registrar Recorder / County Clerks did not even have the courtesy to send us a simple email. We are extremely disappointed with the counties that did not respond to our request. They received a Grade of F, for failure.
It is our goal continue to do this same kind of 'Report Card' on all election officials in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and the U.S. Territories of AMERICAN SAMOA, GUAM, PUERTO RICO, and the US VIRGIN ISLANDS.
If you are a registered voter in one of the counties receiving less than an 'A grade', we would encourage you to contact your county officials and encourage them to improve.
Or, if you are an official in one of the counties receiving less than an 'A grade', we would encourage you to improve.
If you are an election official somewhere outside of California and you know that you would not receive an 'A grade' then we would encourage you to improve, since soon we may be grading your website like we have done here.
We want to see election officials using the Internet to its fullest. Voters use the Internet, so election officials should make it easier for them to find the information they need. Any election official who doesn't use the Internet to its fullest is behind the times, the voters expect more and these officials should change or be replaced," said Colaco.
###
This is the end of News Release from Citizens For A Better America ® (CFABA.ORG).
If you use this story or link to it, we would appreciate you sending us a notice. Thank you!
| Copyright ©1992-2010 Citizens For A Better America ® (CFABA.ORG) |
| Paid for and authorized by Citizens For A Better America ® (CFABA.ORG) | Not authorized by any candidate or candidate committee |
| Contact Us | E-mail Policy | FEC # C00278333 | FPPC # 1265022 |
