Although results from California’s primary election began rolling in on Tuesday, June 2, it could take days or even weeks before the final counts are certified. 

“This is normal … We have a process that by law ensures both voting rights and the integrity of elections, so I would call on all Californians to be patient,” Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber said in a June 2 news release.

The Golden State’s lengthy vote-counting process has “become a national narrative about California elections,” according to Thad Kousser, a professor of political science at the University of California, San Diego.

“In California, it takes a long time to certify votes, to verify the signatures, to then count the ballots; all of that process takes a while,” Kousser said in an interview last week. “It may take a while for us to learn who the top candidates who emerge are.”

Here are some factors behind California’s lengthy vote-counting process. 

Mail-in ballots come with added verification step 

With each mail-in ballot cast, elections officials must compare the signature on a returned vote-by-mail envelope to the voter’s signature on their voter registration card. Various factors go into determining whether the signatures match, including the slant of the signature, whether it is printed or written in cursive, and the size, proportions, or scale. 

Vote-by-mail ballots were Californians’ preferred voting method in both the 2024 primary and general elections, with drop-off locations — such as ballot drop boxes and voting centers — the most popular way to return mail-in ballots. 

Colorado’s governor vetoed a bill on Tuesday that would have banned companies from using surveillance pricing to set workers’ wages and prices for consumer goods.

The measure would have been the strongest in the nation against algorithmic pricing. While Maryland became the first state to approve a law banning surveillance pricing in grocery stores in April, Colorado’s proposed measure was more expansive.

Governor Jared Polis wrote in a public letter explaining his veto that he found the legislation to be overly broad, and said it would “inadvertently capture innocuous uses of technology that in no way harms – and indeed benefits – consumers and workers”, echoing business owners’ major concern with the bill, which was supported by progressive groups. He said the bill would “punish differentially lower prices, not just higher prices”.

Consumer advocates are unhappy with the veto. “Governor Polis had an opportunity to stand with working Coloradans, but instead chose to side with the dominant corporations using invasive surveillance data to pick their pockets,” said Pat Garofalo, director of state and local policy at the American Economic Liberties Project.

Colorado’s bill proposed banning companies from using algorithms, powered by artificial intelligence or other data-processing techniques, to set custom prices or wages based on the collection of an individual’s information. This data could include everything from where an individual lives and what they have bought in the past, to their financial status, travel habits and affiliations.

Critics of surveillance pricing say that companies exploit this data to charge buyers the most that they are willing to pay, and give workers the lowest amount they are willing to accept. Colorado’s measure also included exemptions for certain discounts tied to loyalty programs and transparent markdowns for students and senior citizens.

This is the second time in 12 months that Polis has blocked a bill focused on surveillance pricing; in 2025, he vetoed a measure that would have banned landlords from using rent-setting algorithms.

Surveillance pricing bans grow in popularity across US

Many states, including Illinois, California, Massachusetts and New Jersey, are also considering bills that would regulate surveillance pricing. Connecticut’s legislature approved a sweeping consumer privacy bill that included new rules for surveillance pricing in May. The measure bans companies setting individualized prices for their goods based on consumer data.

In New York, the state attorney general is rallying support for a ban on surveillance pricing, and a bill that would do so has passed the state senate, but not the assembly; last year, New York enacted a transparency-focused law that forces companies to disclose when they use personal data to set individualized prices determined by an algorithm.

Maryland became the first state to ban surveillance pricing in April, though that measure was limited to prices for grocery store items and was criticized by many consumer advocates for being riddled with industry carveouts.

Colorado’s surveillance pricing bill was larger in scope, as it applied to all sorts of companies across industries, and covered wages, too. It would have prevented ride-share firms such as Uber and Lyft from setting individualized wages for drivers based on data they collect about them, as documented in a 2023 study.

Colorado’s measure had also won over many critics of Maryland’s law, who feared that latter’s legislation was watered down by lobbying efforts.

Maryland’s measure, unlike Colorado’s proposal, did not crack down on other ways companies may try to achieve the same effect as surveillance pricing, says McBrien, with the Electronic Privacy Information Center (Epic). Under Maryland’s law, a company could raise its prices for everyone, and then offer individualized discounts – but Colorado’s law addressed this loophole, McBrien says.

Critics of Colorado’s bill agreed with the governor in characterizing the rules as overly broad; they argued it would disrupt competitive markets and open the door to unnecessary litigation. The Travel Technology Association, which represents online travel agencies and short-term rental platforms, called for a narrower definition of “surveillance data” and testified through written comment that the measure would “prohibit pricing practices that are transparent, pro-competitive, and beneficial to consumers – while exposing travel platforms to litigation exposure that bears no relationship to the harms the bill identifies”.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has documented examples of surveillance pricing in stores selling clothing, beauty products, home goods and hardware. Under the Biden administration, the FTC released an initial study that indicates companies use a wide range of personal data when setting individualized prices for consumers.

But it’s unlikely the current administration will crack down on surveillance pricing, given that the current FTC chair, Andrew Ferguson, characterized the previous administration’s report as a rush job. Consumer advocates say the federal government’s inaction adds to the urgency of states needing to regulate surveillance pricing.

On 18 May, a bipartisan group of 16 state attorneys general wrote to the FTC about online food delivery fees, asking the agency to “address unfair and deceptive pricing practices across the economy”, including surveillance pricing.

HONOLULU (HawaiiNewsNow) – Concrete fell from the exterior of an Ala Moana Center parking structure Monday afternoon near the Kapiolani Boulevard exit, damaging a vehicle.

No injuries were reported.

Security blocked an exit lane as debris scattered across the roadway. Ala Moana Center said they are grateful no one was hurt, and the lane will remain closed while structural engineers and construction professionals assess the damage and make repairs.