Slow Vote Counting in California Primary Was Both Predictable and Avoidable

California held primary elections in early June for a slate of federal, state, and local offices. One of the most closely watched races was the unexpectedly competitive campaign for Mayor of Los Angeles. While two conventional candidates ultimately prevailed—incumbent Mayor Karen Bass will face off against sitting council member Nithya Raman in the November general election—the strong performance from political newcomer and reality TV star Spencer Pratt thrust the mayoral race onto the national stage. It also shined a light on the shortcomings of California’s ballot-counting procedures, which—while ill-suited for use in competitive elections—can be remedied through changes in state policy.

California conducts primary elections under a nonpartisan model in which all candidates appear on the same ballot. The two candidates who receive the most votes advance to the general election; however, any one candidate who receives more than 50 percent of the vote in the primary wins the office outright. L.A.’s mayoral race became a three-way competition between Bass, Raman, and Pratt wherein each candidate received enough support to ensure that none would receive 50 percent. Initial Election Day results showed Bass as the front-runner, Pratt in second place, and Raman coming in third. However, as additional ballots were counted, Raman gained ground on Pratt and ultimately overtook him five days after the election. With 99 percent of ballots now counted, Pratt ended up receiving 25.5 percent of the vote—nearly the same level of support President Trump received in 2024 in Los Angeles, where over half of registered voters are Democrats (compared to just 15 percent Republicans).

This scenario was entirely predictable because of the way California’s election rules are designed and the likelihood that late-arriving ballots would skew Democratic. While Pratt was the only option for L.A. Republicans, Democrats had a choice between Bass and Raman—thereby raising the chances that some of those voters would hold their ballots before deciding which candidate to support. Furthermore, California’s voting laws maximize the amount of time voters have to cast their ballot and accept mail ballots postmarked by Election Day even if they arrive at the election office up to seven days later. Then, as election workers process the mail ballots, state law provides an extensive timeframe for voters to correct ballot envelopes with missing or incongruent signatures, which can further delay the determination of the winner in a close election. For the 2026 primary, the deadline for voters to remedy a signature issue is June 24—three weeks after the election.  

This combination of voter behavior and election policy contributed to the situation that played out in the mayoral race. Pratt’s lead over Raman evaporated as election officials processed the late-arriving mail ballots. While there is a logical explanation for why this occurred, it unnecessarily creates an environment in which voters may question the legitimacy of election results after watching their preferred candidate lose following an early lead.

In most elections, the public remains unaware of the timing issues posed by these policies because the margin of victory is large enough for the winner to be projected based on the ballots counted early in the process. Election workers go through the same procedures to process, count, and cure the ballots that arrive later; however, because those votes do not change the outcome, that work goes unnoticed. For policymakers, the goal should be to create an election system with timelines that can withstand scrutiny and deliver timely results even in competitive elections. The ability of other states to achieve this demonstrates that California could do the same with the right policies in place.  

One place to start is requiring mail ballots to arrive by Election Day, as 36 states already do. While the Watson v. Republican National Committee case pending at the U.S. Supreme Court could impose a nationwide Election Day deadline (at least for general elections for federal office), California should adopt an Election Day mail-ballot deadline for all elections in the state. L.A.’s mayoral race clearly demonstrates that late-arriving ballots contribute to delays, and there is little evidence that current state policy improves voter turnout in any meaningful way.  

Reducing the duration of the ballot-curing period is another thing to consider. Giving voters the opportunity to correct problems with mail ballot signatures is a reasonable policy that strikes the proper balance between ensuring the security of the mail voting process and preventing legitimate ballots from being discarded due to clerical errors. While 34 states have adopted this practice, California’s ballot-curing period is over three weeks in duration—far beyond the more common 5 to 10 days. A shorter curing period would help further reduce the risk of delayed reporting in especially close races while continuing to give voters the opportunity to make needed corrections.

California’s election policies are oriented toward maximizing voting access. While this is a laudable goal, the 2026 primary shows that access at the expense of timely results can create an environment that allows distrust in the process to take root. Rather than ignoring the problem and hoping for uncompetitive campaigns in which timing is a non-issue, lawmakers should adopt policies that simplify the ballot processing timeline in order to deliver timely results in future Golden State elections.