Opinion by Francisco Ramirez | King’s Network News

Writer’s Note: This opinion is not about helping a Democrat, a Republican, or any political side. It is about factual information and what the numbers show. To me, the principle is simple: the voter’s voice should be measured by the votes actually cast for candidates, not by blank selections where no choice was made.

In the Kings County Supervisor District 1 race, the numbers tell two different stories depending on one important question:

Should undervotes be included when calculating whether a candidate received a majority?

Right now, according to Kings County’s election summary report, Garrett A. Gilcrease received 1,853 votes, Martin Chavez received 1,382 votes, and Stefanie Silveira Chavez received 380 votes. That equals 3,615 valid votes cast for candidates in the race.

The same report also lists 174 undervotes and 0 overvotes, bringing the total “Times Cast” number to 3,789.

That is where the confusion begins.

Using Kings County’s displayed formula, Garrett Gilcrease is listed at 48.90%. That appears to be calculated by taking his 1,853 votes and dividing them by 3,789, which includes the 174 voters who left the race blank.

ADVERTISEMENT

But if you calculate the percentage based only on the valid votes cast for candidates, Garrett received 1,853 out of 3,615 valid candidate votes. That equals 51.26%.

California Elections Code Section 8140 states that a candidate for a nonpartisan office who receives “votes on a majority of all the ballots cast for candidates for that office” at a primary election shall be elected.

ADVERTISEMENT

That wording is important. It does not say a majority of all ballots, including blank undervotes. It says ballots cast for candidates for that office. In this race, Garrett Gilcrease received 1,853 of the 3,615 valid votes cast for candidates, or 51.26%. The 174 undervotes were blank selections, not votes cast for any candidate.

That is not a small technical difference. It could be the difference between an outright victory and a runoff.

To be fair, this article is not declaring the official legal outcome of the race. That determination belongs to the Kings County Elections Office and whatever election law, charter provision, or county rule applies to this specific race. But the public deserves to understand the math, because the same election results can tell two different stories depending on whether blank votes are included in the percentage calculation.

An undervote is not a vote for any candidate. It simply means a voter chose not to vote in that specific race. That voter may have voted in other races, but for County Supervisor District 1, they left the contest blank.

That matters because if someone did not vote in a race, should that blank selection reduce the percentage of the people who actually did vote?

In my opinion, the answer should be no.

The citizens who voted in that race made their voices heard. The people who left the race blank did not choose a candidate. That is their right, but a blank vote should not carry the same weight as a vote cast for a candidate when deciding whether someone reached a majority.

This is not about favoring one candidate over another. It is about a basic principle: election percentages should reflect the choices made by voters who actually voted in that contest.

Other jurisdictions show that this is not an unusual way to look at election results.

In Santa Clara County, California, an official final summary report for a San José District 3 special runoff listed both “Voters Cast” and “Total Votes.” The candidate percentages were calculated from the total valid votes, not from every voter who received or cast a ballot in that contest. In that example, the percentages excluded undervotes from the candidate percentage calculation.

In Maricopa County, Arizona, election reports also list undervotes and overvotes separately, but candidate percentages are based on the total valid votes cast for candidates. That means undervotes are documented for transparency, but they are not treated as votes against the candidates when calculating candidate percentages.

In King County, Washington, official election results show candidate percentages adding up to 100% based on the votes cast for candidates, even though the number of ballots counted is higher than the total votes in that particular contest. In plain terms, blank votes are not used to reduce a candidate’s percentage in the candidate-result calculation.

New York City provides another example through its ranked-choice voting system. In ranked-choice elections, ballots can become inactive if they no longer contain a usable ranking for a continuing candidate. New York City reports those inactive ballots separately, and the final-round candidate percentages are based on active votes, not inactive ballots. That means the final percentage reflects the voters still participating in the candidate choice at that stage of the count.

Maine’s ranked-choice voting process also separates exhausted ballots, which can include ballots affected by undervotes or overvotes, from continuing ballots. In Maine’s system, the winner is based on receiving more than 50% in the final round, with the process focused on continuing votes rather than treating exhausted ballots as votes against the remaining candidates.

There is also an important contrast. Minneapolis has a ranked-choice system where certain exhausted ballots may continue to count toward the threshold calculation even though they no longer count for a candidate. That shows why the legal rule matters and why each jurisdiction’s election law must be reviewed carefully.

But that is exactly the point: there is not one universal public reporting method across the country. Some jurisdictions calculate displayed percentages using total ballots cast in the contest. Others calculate candidate percentages using valid votes cast for candidates. Some ranked-choice systems use active or continuing ballots. Others have specific threshold rules.

Because of that, Kings County voters deserve clarity.

If Kings County’s legal standard for winning outright is based on total ballots cast, including undervotes, then Garrett Gilcrease’s 48.90% would suggest he did not reach the majority threshold and the race could head to a runoff.

But if the legal standard is based on valid votes cast for candidates, then Garrett Gilcrease received 51.26%, which would place him above the majority threshold.

That is why the question is not simply, “Did Garrett get over 50%?”

The better question is: “Over 50% of what?”

Over 50% of all ballots cast in the race area, including voters who skipped the race?

Or over 50% of the valid votes actually cast for candidates?

To me, the fairer standard is the second one. If a voter leaves a race blank, that should be recorded as an undervote for transparency, but it should not be used to dilute the votes of citizens who actually participated in that contest.

A blank vote is not a vote for Garrett Gilcrease. It is not a vote for Martin Chavez. It is not a vote for Stefanie Silveira Chavez. It is no vote in that race.

So why should it be counted in a way that changes whether a candidate reached a majority?

That is a fair question, and it is one Kings County should answer clearly for the public.

This is especially important because local elections are often decided by small margins, and public trust depends on transparency. Voters should not have to be election experts to understand whether a candidate won outright or whether a runoff is required.

The numbers should be explained in plain language.

Here are the facts as they currently stand:

Garrett Gilcrease received 1,853 votes.

Martin Chavez received 1,382 votes.

Stefanie Silveira Chavez received 380 votes.

There were 3,615 valid votes cast for candidates.

There were 174 undervotes.

There were 0 overvotes.

Using the county’s displayed percentage method, Garrett received 48.90%.

Using only valid candidate votes, Garrett received 51.26%.

That difference matters.

This opinion is not about ignoring undervotes. Undervotes should absolutely be reported. They are part of the election record. They help show how many voters chose not to participate in a particular race.

But reporting undervotes is different from using them to decide whether a candidate reached a majority.

In my view, the citizens’ votes should count. The actual votes cast for actual candidates should determine the percentage. If someone did not vote in the race, their blank selection should not function as a silent vote against every candidate.

Kings County should clearly explain which standard applies to this race and why.

Until that answer is officially confirmed, the most accurate way to describe the situation is this:

Garrett Gilcrease has 51.26% of the valid votes cast for candidates, but Kings County’s report lists him at 48.90% because the displayed percentage includes undervotes in the denominator. Whether he wins outright or faces a runoff depends on how the majority requirement is legally applied.

That is the issue.

And voters deserve a clear answer.