Carter-Baker Commission Warned America: California Ignored Bipartisan Election Reforms, Creating a System Ripe for Doubt
- Robert Exter
- Jun 8
- 2 min read
In 2005, former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James A. Baker III co-chaired a bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform. Their report, Building Confidence in U.S. Elections, offered 87 practical recommendations to balance ease of voting with strong safeguards following the controversies of 2000 and 2004.
Two decades later, California has ignored or directly opposed most of these bipartisan suggestions—especially the integrity measures. The result is one of the nation’s most questioned election systems, with universal mail ballots, weak verification, and persistent problems with the voter roll. Shasta County voters feel the impact in every local race.
Simple Side-by-Side Comparison
Here’s how California’s practices stack up against the Carter-Baker recommendations:
Aspect | Carter-Baker Recommendation | California's Practice | Contrast / Deviation |
Voter Identification | Require government-issued photo ID at the polls. States provide free IDs. | No photo ID required for most voting. Signature match only. | Direct opposition — relies on easily challenged signature verification. |
Voter Registration & Roll Maintenance | Accurate statewide lists with regular cleaning (remove deceased, duplicates, ineligible). | Statewide database exists but plagued by outdated records and resistance to strong maintenance. | Major gap — inflated rolls undermine trust. |
Mail/Absentee Voting | Treat as high-risk. Strong verification and chain-of-custody. Not the default. | Universal mail ballots sent to every registered voter. Lax curing processes. | Major deviation — Commission warned mail voting is most fraud-prone; CA made it dominant. |
Voting Technology & Audits | Voter-verifiable paper trails + routine audits. | Paper trails exist; audits conducted but often limited in scope. | Partial compliance, but lacks full rigor recommended. |
Election Administration | Professional, nonpartisan oversight to reduce conflicts. | Run by elected/partisan officials with policies limiting scrutiny. | Contradicts call for independence and transparency. |
Access vs. Integrity | Expand access (early voting, etc.) but pair with strong safeguards. | Maximum access (universal mail, same-day elements) with minimal verification. | Prioritizes access over integrity — erodes public confidence. |
Summary of the Table: The Carter-Baker Commission wanted easier voting paired with real security to build trust. California took the access parts and largely discarded the security parts.
Local Impact in Shasta County
These statewide failures directly affect Shasta elections — from Board of Supervisors races and Measure B outcomes to the various candidates. Delayed mail ballot counting, questions about signature verification, and concerns over voter rolls leave many wondering if only legitimate votes are counted.
Why This Matters
The bipartisan commission warned that without proper safeguards, public faith in elections collapses. California’s choices have produced exactly that outcome — widespread skepticism, especially in conservative areas like Shasta County.
What Shasta Residents Can Do:
Support ballot initiatives for photo ID and clean voter rolls.
Volunteer as poll watchers.
Demand transparent audits and aggressive list maintenance from county officials.
Stay informed and share facts with neighbors.
Shasta Unfiltered delivers honest coverage of local and state issues. Send tips, reader submissions, or photos from your precinct. Share this article to spread awareness about election integrity in Northern California.
