Skip to content
Grand Jury Hub
← Report overview
Response synthesis and audit

Adopted County response: Los Angeles County Election Integrity

County expressly agrees with all four findings without additional reasoning or supporting evidence. Agreement is not independent verification of cybersecurity, communication practices or election results. Download opens the same unchanged 70-page consolidated County packet used by all eight collections.

Official response PDFOfficial report PDF

Response by Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (consolidated County departmental response) · 2026-09-01

4

Addressed

0

Partially addressed

0

Not addressed

0

Unclear

This response addresses findings only; implementation dispositions apply to recommendations.

How to read this audit

Editorial engagement review only. Finding scores measure stated position, disagreement explanation, coverage, reasoning and traceability—not whether the respondent agrees with the jury or its claims are true. Recommendation disposition records the claimed state, including partial or alternative implementation explained in the audit, not verified completion. The packet was adopted September 1, 2026, item 27; its enclosure is dated August 11. Proceedings physical PDF page 22 records five ayes. No filing/receipt date or legal-timeliness judgment is inferred. Missing separate submissions do not establish nonresponse.

No concrete commitments were extracted from this response.

Item-by-item review

Findings and recommendations

Assessments describe whether the response engages each cited item. Finding scores separately describe statutory-elements completeness under California Penal Code § 933.05(a) and public usefulness. They do not independently verify the response or constitute a legal conclusion.

Showing 4 of 4 items

finding · F7.1

F7.1: The CGJ learned the RR/CC makes rigorous efforts to prevent cyber-attacks that otherwise would pose threats to election integrity.

Audit: Addressed

Response says

County agrees with the finding about RR/CC cybersecurity efforts, without elaboration.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement supplies a position and requires no disagreement explanation. The bare agreement adds no substantive discussion of the finding, concrete reasoning or checkable support. Report physical PDF page(s) 317; County response physical PDF page(s) 51. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

4/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
2/2

0/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
0/2
Reason specificity
0/2
Support traceability
0/2

Explicit agreement supplies a position and requires no disagreement explanation. The bare agreement adds no substantive discussion of the finding, concrete reasoning or checkable support.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 317Response page 51
Discuss finding and response

finding · F7.2

F7.2: The CGJ has determined the RR/CC has an expert communications team in place that monitors the Internet for AI disinformation so false information can be corrected in real time.

Audit: Addressed

Response says

County agrees with the finding about monitoring and correcting AI disinformation, without elaboration.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement supplies a position and requires no disagreement explanation. The bare agreement adds no substantive discussion of the finding, concrete reasoning or checkable support. Report physical PDF page(s) 317; County response physical PDF page(s) 51. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

4/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
2/2

0/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
0/2
Reason specificity
0/2
Support traceability
0/2

Explicit agreement supplies a position and requires no disagreement explanation. The bare agreement adds no substantive discussion of the finding, concrete reasoning or checkable support.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 317Response page 51
Discuss finding and response

finding · F7.3

F7.3: We have found that the RR/CC makes election transparency a priority by inviting the public to observe ballot processing at the BPC or live online.

Audit: Addressed

Response says

County agrees with the finding about public observation of ballot processing, without elaboration.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement supplies a position and requires no disagreement explanation. The bare agreement adds no substantive discussion of the finding, concrete reasoning or checkable support. Report physical PDF page(s) 317; County response physical PDF page(s) 51. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

4/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
2/2

0/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
0/2
Reason specificity
0/2
Support traceability
0/2

Explicit agreement supplies a position and requires no disagreement explanation. The bare agreement adds no substantive discussion of the finding, concrete reasoning or checkable support.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 317Response page 51
Discuss finding and response

finding · F7.4

F7.4: The CGJ finds that the goal of the LACO RR/CC is to afford every citizen an opportunity to participate in elections and still certify the election results within the 30 day State allowance.

Audit: Addressed

Response says

County agrees with the finding about participation and certification goals, without elaboration or a new promise.

Audit analysis

Explicit agreement supplies a position and requires no disagreement explanation. The bare agreement adds no substantive discussion of the finding, concrete reasoning or checkable support. Report physical PDF page(s) 317; County response physical PDF page(s) 51. Claims remain attributed; adoption date is not a filing or receipt date.

Finding-response score

Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.

4/10

4/4

Statutory elements

Stated position
2/2
Applicable disagreement elements
2/2

0/6

Public usefulness

Coverage
0/2
Reason specificity
0/2
Support traceability
0/2

Explicit agreement supplies a position and requires no disagreement explanation. The bare agreement adds no substantive discussion of the finding, concrete reasoning or checkable support.

Scoring confidence: high

Report page 317Response page 51
Discuss finding and response