Senate Standing Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments

The Senate Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments will come to order in 60 seconds. The Senate Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments will come to order. Good morning and welcome, everyone. We have 17 measures on file today, so please be mindful of time and keep witness testimony to two minutes. Before we hear presentation on the bills, let's establish a quorum. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

The Secretary notes a quorum has been established. If we can take up our consent calendar. Proposed for consent are six items. File item 4, AB 17, file item 9, AB 1072, file item 10, AB 359, file item 13, AB 953, file item 14, AB 1029, and file item 15, AB 1286. Does any Member want to pull any item from the consent today? Hearing none. Do we have a motion? Motion by Dr. Choi. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

We have our first Member here for our first item on file, which is AB 5. If we could have Assembly Member Berman join us. Thank you, Assembly Member. You could present when you are ready.

Thank you, Chair and Senators. AB 5 is a bill that would create clear and achievable metrics for when the vast majority of ballots must be counted. California has one of the most accessible, secure, and transparent voting systems in the country, but it also involves a counting process that can take some time. There are a number of very good reasons why California takes longer to count our ballots, but it can also frustrate the public and create an opportunity for bad actors to sow doubt about election results.

But I believe that there's an opportunity to establish parameters and set expectations for the counting of ballots that do not require extra attention or processing time while maintaining voting accessibility and security. Therefore, AB 5 seeks to have the vast majority of ballots counted by the 13th day after the election. A note to my friend Senator Umberg. The vast majority of ballots, not all ballots, but the vast majority of ballots counted by the 13th day after the election, which will also allow the public to know the results in almost all races.

If there are unforeseen circumstances or issues that prevent a county from meeting the 13th day deadline, the bill includes a means for an elections official to extend the timeframe by providing a public notice and reason to the Secretary of State. All in all, AB 5 is intended to increase transparency in our vote count process, to give voters and the public even more confidence while maintaining our nation leading voting rights. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Do you have any lead witnesses in supporter?

I think this is a Berman special. Is this a Berman special? Berman special. Yeah.

Wonderful. If there are any other witnesses in the audience who would like to issue their support? We can move on to lead witnesses in opposition. You have two minutes. Please proceed.

Madam Chair and Members. Tim Cromartie on behalf of Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber. With all due respect to the author, the Secretary unfortunately remains opposed to this measure. The recent amendment extending the deadline to 13 days is helpful, there is no question. But it may not be sufficient. Our best judgment is that 15 days would be more prudent.

That said, we have requested an additional amendment citing the fact that, regardless of the deadline, counties must comply with specific statutes requiring signature verification, processing and counting of mail ballots, vote by mail ballots, tabulation by precinct, and counting of write in votes to ensure that no voters are disenfranchised. We urge the Committee to embrace and adopt that amendment. Thank you.

Are there any other witnesses in the audience who would like to take up opposition? Seeing none. If we could bring it back to Members of the Committee for any questions or comments. Dr. Choi.

Thank you, Assembly Member Berman. I would support this bill. The reason is that we know, as you stated, we wait just too long. I think the total election certification date by the Secretary of State is 30 days or 38 days is even after. I've been complaining that many times that even after we have sworn in the Secretary did not certify the election results. So I don't know whether that's constitutionally correct or not.

So one of my bills early I submitted to make it 10 days after election is completed. But yours is 13 days, so it's a very similar bill. Mine unfortunately died in this Committee due to lack of second, which I complained, but there are number of related bills. And to shorten the process, I know Secretary of State may complain we don't have enough time. I don't know how other states can do it so quickly, much faster than California.

I think there are a number of ways we can improve that. Number one of the bills I think I saw today with the same author somebody else is going to present that the ballots, mail ballots upon arriving rather than waiting to close the election itself and then start opening. Why not receive and start opening and be counted?

What's wrong with that? Is there any fraud chance? I think that is even safer way rather than waiting to the last day, so many ballots they need to rush. But when, as they arrive, they can start counting. So that's one of the bills I saw that we will be considering and which I will be supporting. That alone will process the unnecessary time that we've been waiting. So I think this bill can be achieved if this regulation is in place. There's a way we can find. For that reason, I'll be supporting.

Thank you, Senator.

Senator Umberg.

So I'm anticipating you're going to reject my suggested amendment that any race in which I'm a candidate be excluded from this law. So in anticipation of your rejection of that suggested amendment, I'll move the bill. All right.

So I want to just understand, get clarification from the author. You'll be accepting the Committee amendments today?

Yes, yes, yes, yes.

Thank you. I certainly appreciate the work that you've been doing on this matter. And I appreciate the collaboration, of course, between the author and the Secretary of State, along with the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials, in crafting the amendments that you are taking today.

I know that it does not remove all the concerns raised by the Secretary of State, but certainly understand that there will be continued work as it gets voted out of this Committee. And with that, I recommend the Committee pass the bill as amended. And the motion. Do we have a motion? I believe by Senator Umberg. And we'll like to turn it back to you to close.

Thank you for your collaboration on this and your staff's collaboration on this. And I definitely commit to continuing to work with the Secretary of State's office and the Secretary of State and the California Association of Clerks and Elections Officials on any additional tweaks that might happen. We've been trying to work very closely to craft something that's implementable but also adds additional transparency and kind of certainty for the public. And respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Chairperson, can I ask the author if he's willing to add me as a co-author because my bill was sister of your bill?

I would love to add you as a co-author. Thank you very much, Senator.

All right. Well, thank you so much. So that measure has been moved by Senator Umberg. The motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. Secretary, please call the roll.

[roll call]

The bill has 3, 0 and is on call. We will now move to the next item on file, which is AB 827 by Assemblymember Berman.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Cervantes and senators, I'd like to start by thanking committee staff for their work on the bill and accept the committee amendment outlined on page 8 of the analysis.

In our last general election in November 2024, nearly 69% of rejected vote by mail ballots were for either a missing or Non matching signature. AB 827 would provide greater opportunity for voters to cure signature deficiencies and have their vote counted right now.

If there is a missing or non matching signature on the vote by mail ballot envelope, elections officials notify the voter of the problem how to correct it and provide the voter until 5pm two days prior to the certification of the election to complete the necessary but voters may not know when a county plans to certify the election.

In order to ensure that everyone is operating on a level playing field for regularly scheduled statewide elections, AB 827 would provide a date certain the 22nd day after the election as the deadline by which an elections official must accept ballot cures.

The bill correspondingly moves the deadline to notify voters of signature issues in order to ensure sufficient time to fix deficiencies at the recommendation of county elections officials. The bill would not impact special elections that follow a more compressed schedule. Finally, the bill would make several other process improvements.

At the end of the day, AB 827 would provide greater certainty and consistency and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have any lead witnesses in support?

Any other support witnesses today? Do we have any lead witnesses in opposition? See none. Any other folks who wish to share, tweeners? Nothing? Okay, well let me move on here then back to the Committee for Efficiency. Any committee comments for members? Dr. Choi.

Nope.

I think this is the same vein as we can shorten the election canvassing time so I would support that too.

Thank you senator.

I also want to thank the author as we are both working on signature carrying bills and for your just your due diligence on this matter and certainly look forward to getting this through and passing it out of Committee today. Would you like to close?

I appreciate our collaboration on this and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Alright. Do we have a motion on AB 827?

Make a motion.

Dr. Choi, motions today on AB 827. If we can call the roll the motion is due passes amendment to the Committee on Appropriations.

[roll call]

2, 0. That bill is on call.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Thanks everyone.

Our next item will be AB 16 by Assembly Member Alanis. Assembly Member Alanis, when you are ready, please present.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for allowing me to present AB 16 today. Senators, there is no doubt that our county elections officials are faced with immense challenges every election, and while our election officials work hard in fulfilling their role under the law, we as legislators must commit ourselves to ensuring that they are given the tools to do their jobs effectively.

AB 16 aims to clarify and clean up authority already granted to election officials in processing and counting ballots during elections. The bill primarily achieves this by ensuring that they have the explicit authority to begin processing vote-by-mail ballots earlier, thus helping to free up precious resources on the back end when county election officials and their staffs are most impacted during their peak busy time. I appreciate your time again and request an aye vote.

Do you have any lead witnesses in support?

I do not.

Is there anyone wishing to speak in support of this measure? Anyone wishing to speak in opposition? Seeing none, we will bring it back to the committee for comment or questions. Dr. Choi.

Yeah, not a question. This is also another very similar bill that I presented which died in this committee, was that all the election canvassing time, vote counting time, shall be finished by the 11th day after the election. That was really, you know, I think that could have been achieved.

This is similar to that, even though the days are very more generous. So to me, it's not challenging enough. It's too lenient. You know, 29 days is a lot of days, and so, to me, it's--a little progress is better than present conditions, so we can work on that continuously. With that, I'll be supporting.

Thank you, Senator Choi.

Assembly Alanis, would you like to close?

I just, as you can see, we all have, I guess, our ways of trying to fix it and make better tools. As you know, we have someone in our Assembly also who I was able to take good examples from and maybe get some points from, and so she helped me out as well. And I thank you guys for your time and I appreciate your aye vote again.

Yeah. If you can also consider adding me as a co-author, that's a similar idea we can work on for next year for another bill.

Would love to, Senator.

Thank you.

Do we have a motion on AB 16?

I will make a motion.

Thank you. The measure has been moved by Dr. Choi. The motion is do pass. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call].

Two/zero. That bill's on call.

Thank you.

We will move to Item Number Six: AB 287 by Assembly Member Lackey. Assembly Member, please present when you are ready.

All right, well thank you, Madam Chair and members, for allowing me to present AB 287. AB 287 will require vote centers to provide accessible parking to accommodate curbside voting for people with disabilities.

The United States Department of Justice had surveyed polling places in Los Angeles County during the 2016 through 2022 election cycles and found that its voting centers failed to accommodate accessibility for persons with disabilities. In that survey, it was found that many voting locations lacked accessible parking and featured steep ramps, unstable sidewalks, and inaccessible entrances.

The investigation also found that some voting locations face challenges with curbside voting. We must ensure that Californians with disabilities can fully and equally participate in the electoral process; that means making sure that they have accessible parking at polling places and vote centers for curbside voting if they need it.

AB 287 is a simple clarifying bill to help guarantee that everyone has an equal opportunity to vote. With me today is Aaron Navarros, Assistant Register-Recorder/County Clerk with the Los Angeles County Register-Recorder/County Clerk, and Paul Spencer, who is the Senior Attorney for Voting Rights at Disability Rights California.

You have two minutes. Please proceed.

Good morning, Madam Chairperson and members of the committee. I'm Aaron Navarros, Assistant Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk over election operations and logistics with the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk. I also serve on the state's Voting Accessibility Advisory Committee and I'm co-chair of the CACEO's Voters with Specific Needs Committee.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments today as the bill sponsor in support of AB 287, introduced by Assembly Member Tom Lackey. On behalf of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and the County's Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk, we respectfully request support for this bill, which ensures that the public facilities that serve as vote centers and polling places provide election officials with adequate space and parking necessary to conduct elections in an accessible and efficient manner.

The bill seeks to clarify the obligation for public buildings and schools to provide adequate space for voting equipment and the storage of related supplies. Furthermore, the bill also clarifies that free, accessible parking and curbside voting are essential elements of the voting experience and ensures they are considered core components of the voting location.

In LA County, one in four vote centers does not have a ready place to provide curbside or accessible parking for voters. Accessible parking and improved access to curbside voting are requests we often hear from our voters with disabilities and their advocates.

This bill would alleviate the burden of locating curbside voting an excessive distance away from the vote center or polling place. The use of public facilities benefits our voters through not only familiarity with the locations, but also with ADA accessibility, which is required by law and critical for voters with disabilities.

This bill brings important requirements together with the usage of schools and public buildings, and makes it clear that voting includes all of these elements and not just a specific room where voters cast their ballot. Honorable members of the committee, on behalf of Los Angeles County, we urge you to vote in support of AB 287.

This bill would provide election administrators with more efficient operations, but most importantly, it will make polling places and vote centers in California more accessible to voters with disabilities. Thank you for the opportunity to express our support.

Thank you. My name is Paul Spencer. Thank you for having me, Madam Chair, members of the committee. So I'm here on behalf of Disability Rights California. We're the state protection and advocacy system for people with disabilities and we're here in strong support of this bill.

So, you know, this bill really makes sure that county election officials can meet the accessibility requirements that are required in the Election Code and in federal law, but I also just want to talk about sort of the why behind this bill, like why this is important for people with disabilities.

So for a person with a disability that's coming to vote in person, knowing that there's accessible parking there is a key component of whether or not they can come to this voting location. We run a hotline for voters with disabilities. This is something we get a lot of calls about. Is there going to be accessible parking?

Is there going to be enough parking? Another key accessibility thing we have in California now is curbside voting, but making sure there's actually space for curbside voting, that there's enough space that where the curbside voting area in is actually practical, that it's in front of the location that you can actually see it.

Another thing too, even in LA County, they have far more accessible ballot marking devices than they're required to have by law on a location, but those take up space, so having the adequate space to store that equipment really makes elections more accessible because you can have more accessible equipment is the practical impact.

So it's hard to--another thing to think about too is for the curbside spaces is that the election officials are actually, like, creating a curbside voting area. They just need a little bit of space on the street or a couple more parking spots. We're not asking the schools to paint down more blue paint for accessible spots.

They can really just give any parking spot and those can be mitigated on election day to turn into an accessible parking spot. So you know, this is a targeted sort of simple bill, really.

The practical impact is that these vote centers will be more accessible and it does make county election officials' jobs easier so they can focus on other stuff like making the locations even better, making sure the accessible path of travel is there. So you know, this bill, it's a common sense fix, it supports smoother election planning, and expands access to Californians with disabilities. We respectfully urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support? Please approach.

Good morning, chair and member. Obed Franco, here on behalf of the Asian Law Caucus, in support.

Good morning, chair and members. Kristin Connelly, on behalf of the California Association of Clerks and Elections Officials, in support.

Good morning. Emma Jungwirth, on behalf of the California State Association of Counties, in support. Thank you.

We will now move to lead witnesses in opposition.

Morning. Just to be clear, we're a tweener. Sasha Horwitz with Los Angeles Unified School District. We are just seeking some technical changes to this bill to make it possible for us at school districts in Los Angeles and across the state easier to implement.

In essence, LAUSD, like many other school districts, may not be able to meet the requirements as written. About 80% of our schools are currently under-parked and we struggle to provide sufficient parking to our teachers, especially at our older school sites.

But the most significant concern is that we--if we're required to make accessible parking during the ten-day window, it could mean that we're displacing our own teachers and students and employees with disabilities who need those parking spaces.

So we thank the committee staff for including these concerns in the analysis and hope to continue working with the author on clarifying amendments so we can effectively implement the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other opposition witnesses here? Seeing none, we could bring the discussion back to the committee. Dr. Choi.

Yes, I'm the only second person on the dais as the chairperson, I guess. I have more time to ask more questions. Assemblyman Lackey, I appreciate for your big idea, but to me, I questioned, this is very common sense.

Once the voting location has been determined by the Registrar of Voters of the city or county, then all that consideration for enough space for people go in and out, ADA access and the parking should have been considered and then make a request: would you like to use this space for voting?

I don't think I understand your question. Is that a question?

Yeah, I'm stating my, I guess, own question. Already, that kind of consideration should have been made upon request by--request was made by the Registrar of Voters, a specific location.

If there's a school, school site, that location is good enough for people to park, access ADA compliant, everything else, but sounds like this bill is unnecessary because the status, current status is not true. So there must be some difficulty in finding parking space and then also ADA access. Is that true?

Maybe one of my expert witnesses would like to address that issue.

Yes, Senator. Locating facilities with enough accessible parking, or in many cases any accessible parking, is a significant challenge.

Are we not addressing right now specifically for school voting sites? If that's the case, a school should have enough parking for parents to drop off and that should be sufficient to begin with.

I don't know if LA school situation, if within the city there may be no access for parents to park and the street parking you have mentioned, if there's no parking street then when you are talking about for people to park when they arrive, if there's a red zone then on the election day to permit the parking, can you clarify what we are asking right now through this bill?

If the opposition witness would like to come and answer, please?

Thank you, Senator. In some cases we are not in control of the parking spaces that are on the curb, so we wouldn't be able to make those available. In other times we might have parking that's available behind a gate and we're trying to make sure we don't have to have staff there present to unlock the gate after school hours just to make these available for school parking, especially in our older sites; we may not have any parking available because they were built before a time when cars were such a dominant part of our culture.

If this bill passes that--will it have a power to override that the no parking zone can be allowed for parking or can you coordinate with the Police Department on making election day exceptions?

I believe that's outside of my pay grade, but I don't think that bill would necessarily override municipal laws or state laws. You're just asking a question I don't have the ability to answer. I'm sorry.

Assemblyman Lackey, can you address that, how the parking challenge if there's people find no parking space upon arrival and how could that voting site can be allowed or have been chosen to begin with as a voting place?

You know, what this bill does is addresses the problem that exists currently and the current circumstances does not afford people with disabilities this opportunity.

So you're not--this bill is not providing the--

Lat me finish. Let me finish. And what I think what you're asking for is for a carte blanche authority to override other statutes that exist. We believe that there's other options available outside of what you're asking for, and I don't think that that is necessarily what is needed in these circumstances.

We believe that it's a reasonable request. I understand that there may be some burden in some circumstances, but I think it's more the exception than the rule, and I think we can work with those exceptions without that kind of authority.

Okay. Does your bill deal with, dealing with any authority that Registrar of Voters--I understand the voting sites are decided in two categories. Number one is somebody volunteers. I open my garage as a voting site. That's one system. The other one is that they can identify and then ask, will you please open up as a voting site? If that kind of a request is made to school sites particularly, then does the school have to comply with that request or do they have a right to refuse? No, I don't want.

Maybe one of my expert witnesses would be happy to answer that.

So currently, Senator, state law requires schools and public facilities, if asked by the county's election official, to be used. In Los Angeles County, we're a vote center county, so we wouldn't be using garages, things like that, homes. We really rely on public facilities, so public facilities and schools would be required to.

I see. So if there's a public facility, they must open up. That's my understanding, and then assume that those public spaces will have already enough parking temporarily because voting will take place in and out, in and out, you know, not permanent parking for two hours to three hours. So I thought, but--

Senator, if I could just include one point. I think what might put your mind at ease is the county election officials work very closely with all these voting centers or areas where voting is to take place, and I think that every one of those considerations would be taken into account and there would be some reasonable adjustments to be made.

We don't think that this is an unreasonable circumstance. Otherwise we wouldn't have brought it forward and it wouldn't have passed this long. There is a partnership that is expected, and I think our election system depends on accessibility. It just truly does. I don't see the argument against it to be very valid.

I'm not arguing with you about voting accessibility; you are trying to improve through this bill. So I'll be supporting this bill because you are attempting to find some solutions, provide the solutions to that. So if and when this passes, what exactly--what kind of existing problems will this bill improve?

What will it do? It will assure that disabled people have a reasonable accommodation taken in their behalf so that they have a place to park so they can vote. It's pretty simple.

So still at the discretion of the site provider, nothing mandating?

I'm not sure I understand the question certainly.

I'm asking when this bill happens, you are asking, will you please provide enough space as well as as much as possible parking or curbside parking, etcetera? So just making a request to them, but your bill would not make them do it. No authority, no additional mandate?

In the bill, if I may, Dr. Choi, it would be a requirement.

Yes.

Yes. But I will allow the author.

No, I appreciate the comment. No, clearly, that's the reason why we're having the bill is to actually give assurance to--

That's the reason I asked you to clarify how--

I'm sorry, I didn't understand the nature of your question, but to clarify, yes. That's the reason why we have this bill is to clarify that these people will have a place to access and be able to do curbside or any kind of voting at all.

Yeah. Okay. I would simply suggest that--I don't know how this bill would solve the problem coordinating with the Police Department for that temporary exemption of a no parking zone to be available.

We believe there are going to be other options, Senator. We believe there are other options that aren't going to--we don't believe that that particular argument has a whole lot of application.

Okay. If you are not tolling. Thank you.

Thank you.

So I'd like to bring it back here and just thank the author and of course the advocates for your work on this. We need to make sure that we are providing more accessible spaces for everyone, especially those in our disability communities and those with functional needs, access, and so certainly look forward to supporting this measure today and look forward to the continued discussion as it moves along the legislative process. Do we have--would the author like to close?

I just think that the concerns are very workable and we believe that the essence of this bill should have no obstacle. It should be clearly something that we all support. People with disabilities should have the right and the ability to exercise their right as Americans to participate in the electoral process, and we believe that this assures that that can take place and we deserve your support.

Thank you. Do we have a motion on AB 287?

I make a motion.

The measure has been moved by Dr. Choi. The motion is do pass. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call].

2-0. That Bill is on call.

Thank you.

We will now move to file item 7, AB331 by Assembly Member Pellerin. Assembly Member Pellerin, please begin when you are ready.

Two minutes, please proceed.

Good morning. Good morning. So thank you, Madam Chair and Senators. I'm starting with AB331. Through its ongoing elections work and through case studies arising in other states, the California Department of Justice has identified three ways to strengthen and clarify our elections code which together constitute this bill.

Historically, the statutory process of certification has been an uncontroversial post of election formality. However, since November 2020, counties in eight different states have delayed certification of their election results with tight certification deadlines at the local, state and federal levels.

Delays at the local level could cause a state to miss federal deadlines which disrupts an orderly election and could open states to protracted litigation. While none of California's counties have been derelict in their duty to certify, AB331 proactively clarifies the that the duty to certify elections results is a ministerial and non discretionary duty of an elections official.

The second part of this bill addresses misleading ballot return envelopes. In our past election, a voter in Los Angeles received a ballot sized envelope that they could have reasonably confused with an official ballot return envelope. So as you likely know already, displaying fraudulent ballot collection boxes is a crime.

So AB331 as distributing fraudulent ballot return envelopes to this crime. Finally, the Attorney General has received reports that registered voters in county jails are not receiving their voter information guides. This is generally happening because the guides tend to be held together with staples which are not allowed to be in jail facilities.

So AB331 requires that both state and county voter information guides be delivered to jails in a format that is acceptable. This Bill has no opposition and enjoyed bipartisan support in the Assembly. And with me to testify is Deputy Attorney General Tiffany Brokaw and Deputy Attorney General Michael Cohen. They're here for technical questions. Thank you so much.

Do you have any lead witnesses in support?

I have Attorney General Brokaw.

Thank you. Good morning Chair, Members. Tiffany Brokaw, Deputy Attorney General here on behalf of Attorney General Rob Bonta, who is proud to sponsor AB331 by Assembly Member Gil Pellerin. And we thank the Assembly Member for carrying this important piece of legislation. So AB331 is intended to clarify and strengthen our election laws in three important ways.

The first is to ensure that the law is clear that a county's duty to certify and report their election results as ministerial and non discretionary as the Assembly Member mentioned since November 2020, counties in eight states have experienced delayed certification because the officials have refused to certify the vote due to tight certification deadlines at the local, state and federal levels.

It is crucial that California certifies results on time. Clarity in the law as proposed in this Bill would be beneficial to assure that officials are aware of their non discretionary obligation to certify.

The second way that AB331 clarifies and strengthens our election laws is to ensure that registered voters in jails receive the voter information guides that they are required to receive under law.

Our office received reports that registered voters in jails are not receiving these guides because these publications are held together with staples which are often not allowed in jails. And so this Bill would require that they be delivered in a format that the jails can accept.

And lastly, AB331 will ensure that unofficial ballot return envelopes are not used to mislead voters. Our office received a report of a potentially misleading unofficial ballot return envelope being delivered to a voter that could have rerouted this person's ballot and their vote wouldn't have been counted. AB331 would establish consequences to deter this type of conduct.

Our election laws are foundational to a free and fair election and AB331 would clarify and strengthen these laws. And I have here with me Deputy Attorney General Michael Cohen to answer any technical questions that you may have. So for these reasons we requested my vote.

Now let's hear from any other support witnesses today.

Good morning. Savannah Jorgensen with the League of Women Voters of California in support.

Good morning. Sean McMorris with California Common Cause in support.

We will now move to any lead witnesses in opposition. Seeing none. Do we have any comments or questions from Committee? Seeing none at this moment. Assembly Dr. Choi.

I know you are trying to provide more voter information for the jailed population. I always had a question regarding voting rights for the imprisoned people. Are we the only one allowing jailed population to participate in voting or other cities, other states prohibiting? I'm curious if you know.

Well, California State law allows a person who's incarcerated in a county jail to vote. So there are specific requirements of how to get the ballots to them.

And I've actually done personal voter assistance in county jail facilities when I served as an elections official in Santa Cruz County and making sure people are registered, explaining to them their voting rights.

And then when I would bring in their voter guide with their ballot, the voter guide would not have I'd remove the staples from it because those were not allowed in the jail facility. So this will require all counties to do the same thing.

Do you know any other states also allowing the same right to vote for those people?

I'm not 100% positive on that, but happy to do that research and get back to you.

Thank you for the question. Senator. I'm not prepared to answer that question with any great certainty. But I can say that I'm fairly certain that California is not the only state that allows non-felons to cast a ballot when they may be incarcerated. In a county facility.

This is the area. I know the rights everybody has to participate in voting, but when for those who are incarcerated, incarcerated because of their criminal conviction, whether they should be allowed in voting. That was always bothering in my head. That's the reason I was asking. Thank you.

And California law already allows this. This just streamlines it. Makes it safe.

I want to just thank the author for your work on this issue. I will now allow you to close.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much. Do we have a motion on AB331?

I make a motion.

Thank you. The measure has been moved by Dr. Choi. The motion is do passed to the Committee on Public Safety. Secretary, please call the roll.

Roll Call

2-0. That bill's on call.

Thank you. So my next Bill is.

Next file item is AB 502, file item 8.

Thank you again. With today's generative AI technology, malicious disinformation about elections can rapidly deceive voters, call results into question, and generally undermine faith in our elections. You may have heard about the robocall that was disseminated last year of President Biden, which encouraged voters not to participate in the primary election in New Hampshire.

That AI generated robocall was a prime example of nefarious use of generative AI being used to disrupt our elections. Although last year the Governor did sign AB 2839, which prohibited the distribution of digitally altered, materially deceptive campaign advertisements and other election communications close to an election, several entities challenged the law alleging first amendment violations.

And a federal district court in Sacramento issued a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of most of the law. So that's why I'm here today with AB 502. It seeks to strengthen AB 2839 in several small but important ways to better withstand a constitutional challenge.

In particular, this bill clarifies that the requirement to label satire does not apply if the content truly is satire or if a reasonable person would recognize that it is indeed satire. Second, the bill limits who can seek relief to only those depicted in the fraudulent material as well as candidates and committees participating in the election.

Finally, this bill makes the labeling requirements for content consistent with other election information laws. So these changes will make it easier for a court to uphold key provisions of last year's AB 2839 and better protect election integrity in California. So with me to testify in support is Leora Gershenzon with the California Initiative for Technology and Democracy.

You have two minutes. Please proceed.

Thank you, Chair and Member. I'm Leora Gershenzon with CITED, the California Initiative for Technology and Democracy, a project of California Common Cause. We are pleased to sponsor AB 502, which is a cleanup to a bill from last year. Today's advancements in generative AI allow completely authentic looking deepfakes to be created at negligible costs and go viral in a matter of seconds. These deepfakes can upset elections across the globe and here in California.

Just last week the New York Times found that generative AI has defamed candidates around the world and has begun to impact election results. In addition, they wrote that the technology has amplified social and partisan divisions and bolstered anti-government sentiment. Last year's bill was designed to protect our free and fair elections by prohibiting the distribution of maliciously distributed deep fakes close to elections.

This bill, that bill included restrictions on satire and it was immediately challenged in court, and there's a preliminary injunction, as the author stated. This bill is designed to address some of the key issues that the court pointed out in its decision. And it's designed to work with the information we now have from the court to make something that can be upheld and to better protect our elections, the necessary component of free and fair democracy, from malicious deep fates. We ask for your aye vote.

Are there any other support witnesses here? Are there any other... Are there any lead witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. We will now bring it back to discussion for Members. Seeing no questions or comments. Assembly Member Pellerin, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Do we have a motion on AB 502? Moved by Senator Limón. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Rules. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

2-0. That bill's on call.

Thank you so much.

We have Assembly Member Bennett here with us. We will move back to file item five, AB 94.

Thank you very much. Good morning, chair and Members. AB 94 is a simple Bill that makes some technical adjustments to AB 2582 from 2022 that we passed.

As you and some of you may recall, in 2022, this Legislature passed AB 2582, which I authored to ensure that during the recall process for local elections, voters could focus on the merits of the recall and then hold a separate election if the recall is successful.

AB 2582 did not account for instances where a recalled officer is reappointed to the same position. When the Legislature passed SCA 1 by Senator Newman covering state recall elections, the issue of appointments was explicitly addressed.

This Bill would align existing local elections with the proposed changes to state recalls and prohibit a recalled officer from being appointed to the same position.

This issue is simple. If the voters have decided to recall an individual, then they should not then be reappointed to fill that same vacancy. I respectfully ask your aye vote at the appropriate time.

Do you have any lead witnesses in support?

No, no witnesses.

Is there anyone wishing to speak in support of the measure? Seeing none. Do you have any lead- any witnesses in opposition?

I didn't bring any.

Seeing none. Let's bring it back to the Committee. Dr. Choi.

Thank you for bringing up this very common sense measure. I didn't realize that we didn't have that kind of measure already in place. Anyone who was recalled, how can that person be reappointed later by appointing body? The that doesn't make any sense. So I think this is a very common sense Bill, so I'd be happy to support.

Thank you.

Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Wonderful. Do we have a motion?

So moved.

All right. Moved by Senator Limon. This is do pass. Secretary, please call the roll.

[ROLL CALL]

3-0. That bill's on call. We will move to file item 12, AB 930. We have Assemblymember Ward, please present when you are ready.

Now, current law allows for vote by mail ballots to be counted if they arrive within three days of the election, even if they were mailed on time. This condensed disenfranchised voters through no fault of their own. Recount rules are outdated, inconsistent, and can vary widely between counties, causing confusion and eroding trust in elections outcomes.

So AB 930 will strengthen election integrity by allowing vote by mail ballots postmark by election day to be counted if they arrive within seven days, giving voters a more realistic deadline and respecting timely participation.

It will make recount procedures clearer and fairer by allowing the requester to define the order of precincts or counties reviewed, while requiring full recounts to change an election outcome and requiring counties to post recount results online so that the public has easy, timely access to how the process unfolds and strengthening ballot handling and ensuring voter privacy is protected during the recount process.

The Bill has been developed in close partnership with local elections officials and has their strong support. And with us to testify in support of AB 930 is Kristen Connolly, who is a Contra Costa County Clerk, Recorder and Registrar of Voters.

You have two minutes. Please proceed.

Thank you so much. Good morning Chair Cervantes, Dr. Choi, Members of the Committee. My name is Kristin Connelly. I'm the elected Clerk, Recorder, and Registrar of Voters for Contra Costa County.

I'm here today on behalf of the California Association of Clerks and Elections Officials, CACEO and as co-chair of the CA CEO Legislative Committee in strong support of and as a sponsor of Assembly Bill 930 by Assemblymember Ward.

As elections officials, we are committed to ensuring that every eligible California Californian has access to secure, transparent and efficient elections. AB 930 is a timely and practical measure that strengthens our ability to meet that commitment. The Bill does two important things.

Extends the timely ballot receipt deadline for all mailed ballot elections from three days to seven days after election Day, aligning it with existing deadlines for vote by mail ballots under Section 3020 of the Elections Code. And it modernizes and clarifies recount procedures with respect to recounts.

AB 930 would allow voters to request recounts by the order in which ballot batches were scanned, not just by precinct. It would permit manual recounts using official ballot images where available. It would require voters requesting a recount to specify in writing the materials they wish to review before the recount begins.

It would reaffirm that existing protections against unauthorized access to voting systems and misuse of voter information apply during recounts. The Bill would require that any individual tallying ballots as part of a recount be eligible to register to vote in California.

The Bill would update qualifications for special recount board Members and ensuring counties can recover actual costs of recount staffing. And finally, the Bill would establish clearer notice requirements for the start and results of a recount. Despite some recent claims to the contrary, AB 930 does not allow individuals who are not U.S. citizens to participate in vote tallying.

The Bill maintains all existing eligibility requirements for staffing alone elections and upholds constitutional and statutory protections. Any suggestion otherwise is a misrepresentation of both the Bill and current law.

In Contra Costa County, I've made it a priority to build public confidence in our elections. Through our Trust in Elections campaign, we've opened our doors to the public, hosted educational forums, and used every tool available to show how California's elections are secure, transparent and worthy of trust.

AB 930 supports that mission by making our laws clearer and our processes stronger. On behalf of CACEO, I respectfully urge your aye vote on AB 930. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Now let's hear from any other support witnesses here. We can move on to any lead witnesses in opposition. Let's hear from anyone wishing to oppose. Seeing none. We could bring it back to the Committee for discussion. No questions, no comments from Committee. Would the author like to close? Thank you. Dr. Choi.

This is opposite of one of my failed bills that we all try to achieve. Our first Bill was to shorten the canvassing time and one of my bills that died here was that all the mail ballots shall arrive by the election day. Now your Bill is going opposite way from three days to seven days.

I mean that alone is why do we have to allow such a long leniency? If a voter is very interested in making sure their mailed ballots to arrive by ballot day, they can mail it earlier rather than waiting until the election day. Or they can drop it off at the ballot box, they can take it to the voting place.

There are a number of ways they can do it. I think voting is right, but at the same time the voters should have a responsibility to make sure their votes are counted. So for that I don't think I can support this Bill.

Thank you Senator. I appreciate the questions. If I may respond, I think that we do share agreement that we all need to be doing a better job of thinking of ways to be able to process the ballots faster, to be able to achieve results faster.

And I know there are a number of bills, both in policy and also budget support, that we are watching closely to the best that we can to be able to support our elections officials in that goal. We have that shared goal in mind.

And I recognize as well too that this is a different and opposite proposal from the Bill for which you had authored at the beginning of the year. But I would submit that what we are trying to do, and I don't believe what you are also trying to do, is make sure that anybody's vote is disenfranchised.

Now, you know as well as I do a lot of information comes in late to a voter. Sometimes you have information and frankly, a lot of voters aren't paying attention until just that week of the election. Many propositions on the ballot, many much confusing information, and you want to have all that information.

So some people do wait up until that last day to be able to count a vote, but they rely on the mail service because right there on the ballot we say that no postage is required and you can submit this and it will return to the...to it'll be go back to the registrars to vote.

It is not the responsibility of the voter to count that vote. It's the responsibility of our elections officials to count that vote. That means they have to receive it in some timeframe, and that's the time frame that's up for debate here.

Why we are extending that right now is purely because of, unfortunately, continued disinvestment in the U.S. Postal Service. It is a fact that it is taking longer to move mail, and that is a federal disinvestment that we also deplore and we want to see corrected because we want to rely on our U.S. mail system more reliably.

But importantly, this most acutely affects our U.S. service members serving overseas, where of course it takes even longer for that ballot to receive and come back to California.

So as one aspect, I would hope that you also would support our U.S. service members and their right to be able to express their vote, receive all the information they have, and really make sure that they are logging that vote on time before election day through that postmark...

...but then hopefully making sure that that time is sufficient for the US Postal Service to get it back to the Registrar for his or her responsibilities that count the vote. With that when the time is right. I respectfully request your aye vote.

Would you like to use that as your close?

I would.

Thank you. Do we have a motion on AB 930? Moved by Senator Limon. The motion is do passed to the Committee on Appropriations. Secretary, please call the roll.

[ROLL CALL]

2-1. That bill's on call.

Thank you.

We will move to file item 11, AB 775 by Assemblymember Fong. Please present when you are ready.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members Assembly Bill 775 updates the process and deadline for filing behested payment report. In order to modernize and streamline the filing process to improve transparency, behesa payments are made. Those at the request are on behalf of an elected official for a governmental or charitable purpose.

As many of us know, elected officials are required by law to file a behested payment within 30 days after a payment of $5,000 or more from a single source is received in the calendar year. Current law also allows but does not require elected officials to submit their behested payments reports directly to the Fair Political Practices Commission.

Additionally, local elected officials are not required to submit behested payment reports directly to the FPPC, but rather to the local agency who then forwards a copy to the filing officer. AB775 simplifies these processes for both the state and local elected officials to provide sufficient time to file and to increase transparency and public access by doing the following.

It extends the filing deadline to within 30 days after the end of the calendar quarter in which the payment was received. It would also require elected officials to file their reports directly with FPCC through electronic filing.

Local elected officials may also continue to file reports directly to the FPPC or with their agency only if their local agency posts these reports publicly on their website. This would also establish a threshold of $1,000 for reporting additional payments made by the same donor after the initial payment has been submitted.

The intent of these changes is to provide more flexibility and to streamline the reporting to increase our compliance while also improve public access to all behested payment reports. Here to testify in support of AB775, the Chair of the Fair Political Practices Commission and our sponsor, Adam Silver, firstly ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. You have two minutes. Please proceed.

Thank you. Assembly Member Fong. Good morning, Chair Cervantes and Members. My name is Adam Silver. I'm Chair to the California Fair Political Practices Commission, the agency that's charged with interpreting, administering and enforcing the state's behested payment reporting requirements.

Prior to being appointed to that position, I served as Commission Counsel of the FPPC, where I personally advised on these rules and enforced them. Today I'm here to convey the Commission's strong support for AB 775, a thoughtful common sense bill that will modernize and strengthen transparency in the behested payment context.

With the recent increase in behested payments, Californians are asking three questions. They're asking who's making these payments, who are directing them, and who's benefiting from them. Unfortunately, under the current framework, it's often difficult to identify this information. That's exactly what AB775 is attempting to remedy.

By requiring online disclosure and establishing clear universal filing deadlines, AB 775 guarantees that the behested payment data that Californians seek will be timely and easily accessible. Currently, most local jurisdictions do not post these reports online.

That makes it very difficult, in some cases nearly impossible, for the public and sometimes even the press to track when these reports are coming in.

So by requiring online posting and quarterly reporting, we are going to allow for a predictable, easy to navigate framework for the public, for the press, for watchdog groups, for enforcement agencies to monitor this behested payment activity quickly and efficiently.

Finally, this Bill is also going to codify FPPC regulations that require the disclosure of critical information related to behested payments, including whether the source of a behested payment has a proceeding before the behesting official, like a contract, that sort of thing.

So with that, I'd like to thank the Assembly Member and his staff for their leadership on this issue and thank you to the Committee for your time and consideration. More than happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you. We will now seek any other support witnesses today.

Hello, Sean McMorris with California Common Cause. We're currently support if amended on this Bill. We agree with most of what's in the Bill. We have a concern with the proposed incremental reporting threshold that would apply after a donor reaches the initial $5,000 threshold.

We believe behest payments under $1,000 can still raise legitimate concerns, particularly when they occur while official action involving the donor is pending, such as when the donor is sponsoring legislation or seeking an entitlement.

While it's true that most reportable payments, behested payments, are the amounts exceeding $5,000, a review of FPPC filings over the past 14 years reveals well over 600 reportable payments below 1,000 or 20% of all behested payments. Nearly half of those were $500 or more

Thus, to preserve the integrity intent of AB 775, we urge the author to eliminate or Significantly lower the $1,000 secondary threshold, for example to $250. Doing so would maintain consistent transparency and enhance public trust in government.

We appreciate the author's leadership on this important issue and would be pleased to offer full support for AB775 should this amendment be incorporated. Thank you.

Thank you. Now if we can hear from any opposition witness seeing none. Thank you to all of our witnesses today. We could now bring it back to the Members for discussion, comments or questions. Seeing none. Assembly Member, would you like to close?

Thank you so much, Madam Chair, and Assembly Bill 775 strikes a balance between transparency and the ease of implementation and compliance. And so really appreciate the leadership and efforts here to really improve transparency in our behested payment reporting here in California. I respectfully asked for an aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have a motion on AB775 moved by Senator Limon? The motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriation. Secretary, please call the roll.

Roll Call

3-0. That bill's on call.

Thank you.

Thank you so much. Thank you.

We will move to file item 17, AB 1441 by Assembly Member Soria. Please begin when you are ready.

Thank you, chair and members. AB 1441 is a district bill. It establishes an independent Citizens Redistricting Commission in the County of Merced to improve participation and transparency in the redistricting process.

Since the establishment of California Statewide Citizens Redistricting Commission in 2008 by Proposition 11, California has taken numerous steps to put the responsibility for drawing California's electoral districts in the hands of its citizens at every level of government.

What has previously been a closed door process in many parts of the state has been opened up to interested citizens who want to see the unique composition of their communities reflected in the district used in their elections.

Over the last two decades, many have followed the lead set by Prop 11 and sought to the establishment of Citizens Redistricting Commissions for their cities and counties. Legislation has brought benefits of Citizens Redistricting Commission to urban counties like Los Angeles and San Diego and is bringing those benefits to rural counties like Fresno and San Luis Obispo.

It is time for Merced to join these counties. The people of Merced want an opportunity to directly participate in and a more transparent process where they are actually at the table. And so we've seen examples in attempts to try to increase citizen participation. More recently, in the last 20.

In 2020, the City of Merced did have established a citizen committee advisory committee for their redistricting process, which further demonstrates their desire to participate in this redistricting process.

So to ensure the engagement of its diverse citizens, AB 1441 would establish a Citizens Redistricting Commission in the County of Merced in time for the completion of the next census and redrawing of district lines in 2030. Here with me to testify in support of AB 1441 is Savannah Jorgensen from the League of Women Voters of California.

You have two minutes. Please proceed.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair Members. I'm Savannah Jorgensen here on behalf of the League of Women Voters of California in strong support of AB 1441. The league has long championed redistricting processes that are independent, transparent, and fair. Designed to ensure every voter has an equal voice in their local government.

AB 1441 advances that goal by establishing a Citizens Redistricting Commission in Merced County to draw the county supervisorial districts. This legislation is built on the success of California statewide Citizens Redistricting Commission, which is considered the gold standard for independent redistricting and local commissions in places like San Diego, Los Angeles, and Fresno counties.

These models have demonstrated that independent citizen led redistricting fosters greater public trust, improves compliance with the Voting Rights Act, and increases representation for communities that have historically been left out of the process.

Merced County, home to a majority Latino population and many farm worker communities, deserves a process that reflects its diversity and provides meaningful opportunities for public input. AB 1441 provides that by requiring multiple public hearings in every district, translation services, and an open application process for commission membership.

Importantly, the bill includes strong conflict of interest provisions and aligns with the Fair MAPS Act, which the League of Women Voters sponsored to ensure the process is community driven and free from political interference. We urge your I vote to promote fair representation and equitable governance in Merced County. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any others in the room who would like to testify in support?

Good morning. Bryan Miramontes with American Federation of State County Municipal Employees in support.

Madam Chair and members. Sarah Flocks, California Federation of Labor Unions in support.

Sean McMorris with California Common Cause in support.

Now let's hear from opposition witnesses. You have two minutes. Please proceed.

Good morning, Madam Chair Cervantes, Vice Chair Choi and distinguished members of the committee. My name is Josh Pedrozo, Chairman of the Merced County Board of Supervisors. On behalf of the Merced County Board, I am here today to respectfully express our strong opposition to Assembly Bill 1441, which would impose a Citizens Redistricting Commission solely on Merced County.

For far too long, the state has dictated what it believes is best for the Central Valley without meaningfully engaging the people who live and work here. That approach needs to change. California is a vast and diverse state. If this policy is truly sound, it should be applied statewide, not targeted at just a few counties.

If a policy only works when selectively applied, then it doesn't really work. AB 1441 is disconnected from the real and pressing challenges facing Merced County and counties like ours across California. While Sacramento focuses on legislation with no practical impact until 2030.

We're on the front lines dealing with Medicaid erosion, SNAP cuts and threats to essential services for our most vulnerable residents. Our priorities are clear. Affordable housing, support for working families and seniors, and investing in the critical services our communities need. Not political gestures that divert time and resources.

Merced County is home to many highly qualified individuals who would gladly serve on a redistricting commission. Yet this bill disqualifies many of them, ignoring local talent in favor of a rigid one size fits all framework.

That's why we've been actively engaging with our assembly member and state senator to propose changes that better reflect Merced County's unique needs and diversity. We remain committed to a transparent, fair, and community-driven redistricting process. In fact, Merced county submitted an alternative proposal to establish an advisory redistricting commission tailored to our community.

We have a proven record of open, inclusive, and equitable redistricting, something we take pride in. We respectfully ask the author to reconsider and support our local solution. As AB 1441 is currently written, we urge a no vote. This bill is unnecessary, costly, and fails to reflect our county's strong, long standing commitment to fair and transparent redistricting.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Are there any other opposition witnesses?

Madam Chair. Other members. Paul Yoder on behalf of the Boards of Supervisors in Kings, Tulare, and Fresno County. Also in opposition to 441. 1441, excuse me.

Sarah Dukett on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California in opposition.

Thank you to all of our witnesses. We will bring it back to discussion for our members.

Yeah, you know, I mean, in general I'm very supportive of redistricting commissions as opposed to having incumbents draw their own line. So I know there are some downsides. Of course, the devil's in the details as to how these are established. And I'd love to get a bit more of a. I'm sensitive to the legislature.

Just coming in big footing and trying to impose a particular model on a community that may have and I understand there's always going to be reticence to accept this kind of thing. Obviously, the board's always going to want to prefer to write its own, draw its own lines.

Believe me, the legislature fought redistricting commissions both parties and that was forced upon the legislature by the voters. And yet, but it sounds as though there's some concerns here about how you have framed this and the extent to which there's adequate work going on with the locals.

So I'd love to get some thoughts from the proponents and the author as to these concerns that have been raised by the chairman.

Yeah. So just thank you so much, Senator Allen. So one of the things that we've done in the bill, because it is a rural county, we have also lowered the number of commissioners. I know that obviously it's different than the Los Angeles County.

And so we've tried to make sure that we tailor it so it's not as onerous. And I know that the supervisor mentioned in terms of, you know, additional cost and so forth. And so we're hoping this is not going to take into effect until 2030. And that we're hoping.

And I'm committed and I've expressed it to actually all of the counties that I represent, because Fresno is also under a similar model that we would be committed to making sure that they do have the resources so that they can adequately implement this type of independent redistricting commission.

And a lot of it, I will tell you, is coming from the citizens that I represent. And I understand that there is opposition, you know, from the board of supervisors.

But at the end of the day, we represent the citizens and voters in this district that really want more transparent and a more process where they have a seat at the table. I think that the State Redistricting Commission has been a good model in demonstrating that a process can work.

And so if there are tweaks to the current structure that we have set in the bill, we are happy to look at what tweaks we can make. And so.

Well, can I ask the the gentleman, the chairman you alluded to. I'm sorry for not having reviewed this. I'm also an energy committee right now, and we're all, we all run around like headless chickens in this place.

But I wanted to just, you know, what are some of the proposals that you had that you're concerned about trying to, you know, understanding that you don't like this whole idea altogether. But what are some of the particular asks that you want to highlight.

We really look at this as mainly. We want it to be an advisory commission.

You want it to be advisory?

Advisory.

Okay. If it was not to be advisory. Because if you buy the. You are. Obviously the premise here is that we've kind of generally accepted that we don't want to have politicians drawing their own lines.

So if it's advisory, then you're ultimately still putting the final decision in the hands of the board.

Yeah, exactly.

As the City of Merced did as well, that the assembly member alluded to.

Right.

Which barely passed 4 to 3. So what I'm saying is, if you haven't.

And what my recommendation or what my proposal was, was to have the board of supervisors each choose a representative on there, allow this assembly member and the senator two representatives themselves to make it a nine person. But also committed to the transparency of the meetings.

During the last redistricting process, we had a total of six public outreach meetings on both sides of the county. The east side on the west side. It's a very large county. Both in English and in Spanish. We met at night, met during the day. So it was really an engaged process.

And so I would say that that's something that we would like to look at. We also have a consultant that came through and did everything. And by meeting with us, and we. We got 28 maps that we ultimately decided from ourselves.

But. So you feel as though there are inadequate, transparent kind of public meeting requirements in her bill?

No, I think that the the requirements for the people. The. Like the guide. The requirements for the people that are on there are very onerous.

What's onerous?

So you can't have. You can't be related to anybody from, that's run for office. That's been an elective office. That's in elective office. You can't. It's. It's also making it so that they have to display a certain amount of government knowledge. And I think that we have that in Merced County. But it's your.

Then the person has to be chosen and vetted by the ROV. The ROV then has to choose and then submit the names of people. And so I think that that's kind of. That makes it more political.

What's the ROV?

The Register of Voters, sorry

Oh, Register of Voters. It makes it more political.

Because the, the political. The Registrar of Voters. And when I talked to him about this and he's in opposition, he told me that, you know, he's in the business of calling, you know, balls and strikes, not actually playing the game. And so he doesn't want to have to go through. His position.

And so he doesn't want to have to.

I think that's precisely why they want to have it there because he's a balls and strikes guy that people respect and, and you don't want it to get too political.

No, I understand that part, but he doesn't want to because he's going to. If he doesn't choose one group over the another, then what's going to? His job, he's not elected. He's a.

Same thing happened at the state level with the State Auditor playing that role. But the sense was that the auditor is this sort of above reproach position that has a lot of respect and is really respected for the bipartisanship and. Okay, well, I hear you.

I mean, you know, I think this is part of a broad trend of legislators. I used to serve as chair of this committee, you know, legislators coming in with these one off bills to ask for redistricting commissions in their counties. I'd rather, by the way, a statewide model that people can adopt or that would be applied.

But you know, we don't ever seem to do that here. But I think, but this is part. The general philosophy here, which I think you understand, is that we don't want politicians drawing their own lines.

No, and I understand that and I totally agree. And I just think that by forcing this upon us, it's another one of those unfunded state mandates. And even though it's not going to be until 2030 that this is going to come and we're not.

If there's no money involved in it, then how are we going to afford some of the other issues that we have coming up?

And you said that you're working on some funding. What's the funding?

So we're not. We don't have funding proposed tied to the, to the bill. But there is a commitment from my office and I've expressed this to not just Merced County. I know Fresno County is going to be in a similar boat in making sure that before the time comes that they have the adequate funding.

And where does that come from?

We'll have to find it in the budget at a later time.

So the states can be paying for all these different counties to do these commissions?

Correct.

Is that the idea?

Well, we could. That would be a possibility in terms of the funding. I'm not sure how Los Angeles gets funded or any of the other.

I'm pretty sure they do it. They pay for themselves. Yeah, I'm pretty sure because that's also a big challenge. We have 58 counties. If the trend here is to do this in every county and then the state's going to be footing the bill. I mean, I don't know if.

Yeah, that's a whole new cost that I'm not sure. That's a valid concern quite frankly. You know, I guess they're trying to take steps to make sure it's not going to be quite as expensive but.

And I just, you know, when you look at Merced County, a population with 59% of our population on some type of public service, adding this additional cost or adding this burden, when we just saw what happened with the cuts to Medicaid and the SNAP program, whereas Merced County and the state is going to be on the hook for between 47 and $58 million to provide these certain services.

This isn't something that we really want to have to focus on or have to continue to look down the road and with the intent of working on it.

And I appreciate the assembly member's commitment to try and, to try and find us this money, but I just don't see it happening in, in any budgets in the near future.

Yeah. Concerning.

Thank you, Senator Allen. So I will jump in. I was actually one of those members who also proposed a Citizens Redistricting Committee Commission through AB 1307 for Riverside County. And the counties will always be in opposition.

We know that. They do not want us to take away their power, but we do believe we need to put it back into the hands, put it into the hands of citizens. And this has been established almost every, every cycle. We've had another county, another member come to us with their own Citizens Redistricting Commission.

And so we've done it in Sacramento County, Orange County, and many others. I do support the measure today. Some of the requirements that were brought up, Assemblymember Soria is just following precedent. I actually established many of those requirements through my own citizens redistricting bill.

And so you know the question as it relates to budget, that is something that has been brought up before, rightfully so. We were able to get money in the state budget during the time that AB 1307 was proposed. So we were able to offset that concern.

I know that that will be a discussion I'm sure the author will continue to have as it moves forward. But with that I will be supporting the measure today. Are there any other comments or concerns from committee members? Seeing none. Would the author like to close?

Thank you. I appreciate the robust debate, the questions and you know, the comments by Supervisor Pedrozo. We look forward to continuing to dialogue and have conversation as this bill again is going through the process. And today I respectfully ask for an I vote.

Do we have a motion on AB 1441? Moved by Senator Limon. The motion is do passed to the Committee on Local Government. Secretary, please call the roll.

[roll call]

3-1. That bill is on call. We will move to our last item on file, which is file item 16, AB 1392 by Assembly Member Sharp-Collins. Please proceed when you are ready.

Take this off so you can hear me a little better. This a little better? A little bit better. Okay. All right. I'm going to do my best to push through. Good morning, Chair and Members. I am here to present Assembly Bill 1392, a bill that is aimed at safety for elected officials and candidates for office.

So let me begin by accepting the Committee amendments. I want to thank the Chair and the Committee staff that work with my office and stakeholders to strengthen this bill, specifically by expanding the bill to candidates, including candidates for local office, and making the timeline for confidentiality protections earlier.

I look forward to working with the Committee and stakeholders to further refine the bill as it continues to move forward, should it get through Committee today. So again, I'm here to talk to you about Assembly Bill 1392, which is once again a measure aimed to protecting the personal safety of candidates.

Unfortunately, in this current climate, political violence is on the rise, as we all know, including an increase in threats and actual violence against elected officials. Nowhere was this even clearer than in Minnesota, where a state lawmaker was assassinated and another was wounded just a few weeks ago.

In response to the growing threats of violence, I have worked with our Secretary of State to ensure addresses and other confidential information from candidates is kept private. In California, voter roll information is publicly accessible, so a change in state law is truly necessary to protect candidates and their families.

Assembly Bill 1392 simply requires county election officials to make private their residents, the residence, address, telephone numbers, and email address of a candidate for state, local, federal office in California. Those protections will last through the duration of the elected time in office or through the end of the election cycle for the unsuccessful candidate.

This common sense bill will protect public servants and their families. A commitment to elected office should not be accompanied with undue threats, especially against families. And with me today to speak in support is Tim Cromartie, which is the Deputy of Legislative Affairs for Secretary of State Dr. Shirley Weber. Tim, I'll turn it over to you.

You have two minutes. Please proceed.

Morning, Madam Chair and Members. Thank you. In the wake of... Tim Cromartie on behalf of Secretary of State Weber. In the wake of escalating threats to elected officials and those close to them in recent years on a nationwide scale, Secretary of Weber is sponsoring this legislation to place California in a heightened state of vigilance in regard to the personal information of its elected officials.

The escalating trend of violence underscored by the November 2022 attack on Paul Pelosi, husband to California Representative Nancy Pelosi, shortly before the election. The assassination attempt on President Trump on July 13, 2024. The arson of Governor Josh Shapiro's home in Pennsylvania in April 2025. And most tragically, the homicides of State Representative Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark and the attempted homicide of State Senator Mark Hoffman and his wife Yvette in Minnesota this past month. Unfortunately makes this legislation both urgent and necessary.

However, given that the real work on this bill will be done at the county level, the Committee may want to bear in mind that the amendments which have just recently been accepted, represent a significant increase in workload for the counties. The counties have been alerted to this bill, but as of today have not yet voiced objections. They may or may not weigh in when the bill reaches the Appropriations Committee. With that, we respectfully request your support for the measure.

Thank you. Are there any other individuals in the room who wish to provide support? Seeing none, we could move on to opposition witnesses here. Seeing none. We could bring it back to the Committee for discussion, comments, or questions. Dr. Choi.

Thank you, Chair. Assembly Member Sharp-Collins, thank you for introducing this bill. I think, in the wake of so many recent developments, this bill is very timely. Before it was trend of transparency. Everything you need to reveal, including candidates address personal, all information, and that led to the situation that we are facing.

So I think because of abuse of the information available to the public, which was intended very well for them to have easy access to the elected officials, but now it's been abused and making them very vulnerable to bad actors. So I think this is timely bill, and I'll be in support.

Thank you, Dr. Choi. You know, I will also say, you know, issue my gratitude and thank you for reexamining our current practices and how as it relates to just privacy and security and how we can strengthen that for candidates and elected officials. And so thank you for taking the Committee amendment to expand on that. And certainly a much needed issue that we are addressing in an urgent time. Would you like to close?

Sure. With a little bit I got left. No, honestly, thank you so much, Chair and Members, for your time today. This is a hard conversation to have, you know, and it's the reality of our jobs, you know. And this is something that I find it to be extremely unfortunate that we're here with this type of very, very real issue, and we cannot tolerate this for our current state affairs.

And so me being here standing before you is not just for myself, but it's also for my family, it's for the families, it's for you, it's for all of our candidates, all of our elected officials. So that way we know that as we do our job that we do have some protections, some additional protections, not only while we're here, but when our families are at home. So with that, I do respectfully ask for your aye vote on Assembly Bill 1392.

Thank you, Assembly Member. Do we have a motion on AB 1392? Thank you. The measure has been moved by Senator Limón. Secretary, the motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Judiciary. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

That bill's on call.

Thank you.

We will start by lifting the calls.

Roll Call

5-0, that bill is out.

Roll Call

4-0 on call.

Roll Call

Roll Call

4-0, that bill's on call.

4-0, that bill's on call.

Roll Call

4-0, that bill's on call.

Roll Call

4-0, that bill's on call.

Roll Call

3-0, that bill's on call.

Roll Call

4-0, that bill's on call

Roll Call

3-1 that bill's on call.

Roll Call

Roll Call

The consent calendar is adopted.

We are going to relift the call for Senator Umberg.

Roll Call

5-0, that bill's out.

Roll Call

5-0, that bill is out.

Roll Call

5-0, that bill's out.

Roll Call

5-0, that bill's out.

Roll Call

5-0, that bill is out.

Roll Call

4-0, that bill is out.

Roll Call

5-0, that bill's out.

Roll Call

4-1, that bill is out.

Roll Call

5-0, that bill's out.

Roll Call

4-1, that bill is out.

Thank you all for your patience.

Thank you to all individuals who participated today. If you were not able to testify today, please submit your comments to the Senate Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments. This Committee is Adrian.