Existing law specifies the order of precedence of offices on the ballot, beginning with nominees for President and Vice President to be listed under the heading, PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT, and ending with directors or trustees for each district to be listed under the heading, DISTRICT. Measures submitted to the voters appear after district directors or trustees. Existing law authorizes a county elections official to vary the order for certain offices and measures submitted to the voters, in order to allow for the most efficient use of space on the ballot in counties that use a voting system, as defined. Existing law requires that the office of Superintendent of Public Instruction precede any school, county, or city office and that state measures precede local measures.

This bill would require the county elections official for the County of Los Angeles to conduct elections using a specified alternate ballot order for elections conducted for three years after the date the county elections official declares that the Los Angeles County voting system modernization project underway in 2018 is complete and ready for operation. The bill would require the county elections official to prepare a report regarding the effect of using the alternate ballot order, as specified. The bill would require the county elections official, after the three-year period described above, to post the report on the Internet Web site of the county elections official and to submit the report to the Secretary of State and the Legislature. The bill would authorize the county elections official to continue to use the alternate ballot order for elections conducted on or after the three-year period described above. Due to the additional reporting requirements imposed on the County of Los Angeles, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the County of Los Angeles.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law specifies the order of precedence of offices on the ballot, beginning with nominees for President and Vice President to be listed under the heading, PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT, and ending with directors or trustees for each district to be listed under the heading, DISTRICT. Measures submitted to the voters appear after district directors or trustees. Existing law authorizes a county elections official to vary the order for certain offices and measures submitted to the voters, in order to allow for the most efficient use of space on the ballot in counties that use a voting system, as defined. Existing law requires that the office of Superintendent of Public Instruction precede any school, county, or city office and that state measures precede local measures.

This bill would require the county elections official for the County of Los Angeles to conduct elections using a specified alternate ballot order for elections conducted for three years after the date the county elections official declares that the Los Angeles County voting system modernization project underway in 2018 is complete and ready for operation. The bill would require the county elections official to prepare a report regarding the effect of using the alternate ballot order, as specified. The bill would require the county elections official, after the three-year period described above, to post the report on the Internet Web site of the county elections official and to submit the report to the Secretary of State and the Legislature. The bill would authorize the county elections official to continue to use the alternate ballot order for elections conducted on or after the three-year period described above. Due to the additional reporting requirements imposed on the County of Los Angeles, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the County of Los Angeles.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law specifies the order of precedence of offices on the ballot, beginning with nominees for President and Vice President to be listed under the heading, PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT, and ending with directors or trustees for each district to be listed under the heading, DISTRICT. Measures submitted to the voters appear after district directors or trustees. Existing law authorizes a county elections official to vary the order for certain offices and measures submitted to the voters, in order to allow for the most efficient use of space on the ballot in counties that use a voting system, as defined. Existing law requires that the office of Superintendent of Public Instruction precede any school, county, or city office and that state measures precede local measures.

This bill would require the county elections official for the County of Los Angeles to conduct elections using a specified alternate ballot order for elections conducted from January 1, 2020, through December 31, 2022. for three years after the date the county elections official declares that the Los Angeles County voting system modernization project underway in 2018 is complete and ready for operation. The bill would require the county elections official to prepare a report regarding the effect of using the alternate ballot order, as specified. The bill would require the county elections official, on or before December 31, 2022, after the three-year period described above, to post the report on the Internet Web site of the county elections official and to submit the report to the Secretary of State and the Legislature. The bill would authorize the county elections official to continue to use the alternate ballot order for elections conducted on or after January 1, 2023. the three-year period described above. Due to the additional reporting requirements imposed on the County of Los Angeles, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the County of Los Angeles.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law specifies the order of precedence of offices on the ballot, beginning with nominees for President and Vice President to be listed under the heading, PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT, and ending with directors or trustees for each district to be listed under the heading, DISTRICT. Measures submitted to the voters appear after district directors or trustees. Existing law authorizes a county elections official to vary the order for certain offices and measures submitted to the voters, in order to allow for the most efficient use of space on the ballot in counties that use a voting system, as defined. Existing law requires that the office of Superintendent of Public Instruction precede any school, county, or city office and that state measures precede local measures.

Existing law specifies the order of precedence of offices on the ballot, beginning with nominees for President and Vice President to be listed under the heading, PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT, and ending with directors or trustees for each district to be listed under the heading, DISTRICT. Measures submitted to the voters appear after district directors or trustees. Existing law authorizes a county elections official to vary the order for certain offices and measures submitted to the voters, in order to allow for the most efficient use of space on the ballot in counties that use a voting system, as defined. Existing law requires that the office of Superintendent of Public Instruction precede any school, county, or city office and that state measures precede local measures.

This bill would repeal the above provisions and establish a revised order of precedence of offices on the ballot requiring that local offices, candidates or nominees to the State Senate and the State Assembly Assembly, candidates or nominees to the House of Representatives of the United States, and local measures appear first and be listed under the heading, CITY/LOCAL. The bill would require that district offices and measures appear under the heading, DISTRICT, county offices and measures appear under the heading, COUNTY, state offices and measures appear under the heading, STATE, and state judicial offices appear under the heading, STATE JUDICIAL. The bill would require that nominees for federal offices, including President and Vice President, appear last and be listed under the heading, NATIONAL ELECTION.

Existing law specifies the order of precedence of offices on the ballot, beginning with nominees for President and Vice President to be listed under the heading, PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT, and ending with directors or trustees for each district to be listed under the heading, DISTRICT. Measures submitted to the voters appear after district directors or trustees. Existing law authorizes a county elections official to vary the order for certain offices and measures submitted to the voters, in order to allow for the most efficient use of space on the ballot in counties that use a voting system, as defined. Existing law requires that the office of Superintendent of Public Instruction precede any school, county, or city office and that state measures precede local measures.

This bill would repeal the above provisions and establish a revised order of precedence of offices on the ballot requiring that local offices and offices, candidates or nominees to the State Senate and the State Assembly and local measures appear first and be listed under the heading, CITY/LOCAL. The bill would require that district offices and measures appear next under the heading, DISTRICT, county offices and measures appear under the heading, COUNTY, state offices and measures appear under the heading, STATE, and state judicial offices appear under the heading, STATE JUDICIAL. The bill would require that nominees for federal offices, including President and Vice President, appear last and be listed under the heading, NATIONAL ELECTION.

Existing law specifies the order of precedence of offices on the ballot, beginning with nominees for President and Vice President to be listed under the heading, PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT, and ending with directors or trustees for each district to be listed under the heading, DISTRICT. Measures submitted to the voters appear after district directors or trustees. Existing law authorizes a county elections official to vary the order for certain offices and measures submitted to the voters, in order to allow for the most efficient use of space on the ballot in counties that use a voting system, as defined. Existing law requires that the office of Superintendent of Public Instruction precede any school, county, or city office and that state measures precede local measures.

This bill would repeal the above provisions and establish a revised order of precedence of offices on the ballot requiring that local offices and measures appear first and be listed under the heading, CITY/LOCAL. The bill would require that district offices and measures appear next under the heading, DISTRICT, county offices and measures appear next under the heading, COUNTY, state offices and measures appear under the heading, STATE, and state judicial offices under the heading, STATE JUDICIAL. The bill would require that nominees for federal offices, including President and Vice President, appear last and be listed under the heading, NATIONAL ELECTION.

Existing law establishes a system of public elementary and secondary schools operated by local educational agencies throughout the state. Existing law establishes the California Community Colleges, under the administration of the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, as one of the segments of postsecondary education in this state.

This bill would require the Legislative Analyst to conduct an assessment and make recommendations for the complete integration of the states elementary schools, secondary schools, and the California Community Colleges. The bill would require the Legislative Analyst, in preparing this assessment, to take specified actions, including recommending the expansion of concurrent enrollment programs and projects conducted pursuant to the California Academic Partnership Program and consulting with the University of California, the California State University, the Office of the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges, the Department of Education, and the Department of Finance to determine the cost of providing free access to the California Community Colleges and to create a plan for the complete integration of the states elementary schools, secondary schools, and the California Community Colleges. The bill would also require the Legislative Analyst to submit a report of its findings and recommendations to the Legislature.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

ELECTIONS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS

Senator Henry Stern, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular

Bill No: 25 Hearing Date: 8/30/18

Subject:

DIGEST

This bill requires the County of Los Angeles to conduct a pilot project using an alternate election ballot order, as specified, under which local offices generally appear on the ballot before state and federal offices.

ANALYSIS

Existing law:

1. Requires every ballot to contain the following:
   
   1. The title of each office, arranged to conform as nearly as practical in accordance with existing law;
      
   2. The names of all qualified candidates, as specified; and,
      
   3. The titles and summaries of measures submitted to the voters.
      
2. Requires the offices on the ballot to be listed in the order detailed below, beginning in the column to the left:
   
   1. Under the heading, PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT (at a Presidential general election): Nominees of the qualified political parties and independent nominees for President and Vice President.
      
   2. Under the heading, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (at a Presidential primary election): Names of the presidential candidates to whom the delegates are pledged and names of the chairpersons of unpledged delegations.
      
   3. Under the heading STATE:
      
3. Governor;
   
4. Lieutenant Governor;
   
5. Secretary of State;
   
6. Controller;
   
7. Treasurer;
   
8. Attorney General;
   
9. Insurance Commissioner; and,
   
10. Member, State Board of Equalization.
    
11. Under the heading, UNITED STATES SENATOR: Candidates or nominees to the United States Senate.
    
12. Under the heading, UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE: Candidates or nominees to the House of Representatives of the United States.
    
13. Under the heading, STATE SENATOR: Candidates or nominees to the State Senate.
    
14. Under the heading, MEMBER OF THE STATE ASSEMBLY: Candidates or nominees to the Assembly.
    

Under the heading, COUNTY COMMITTEE: Members of the County Central Committee.

Under the heading, JUDICIAL:

1. Chief Justice of California;
   
2. Associate Justice of the Supreme Court;
3. Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal;
   
4. Associate Justice, Court of Appeal;
   
5. Judge of the Superior Court; and,
   
6. Marshal.
   
7. Under the heading, SCHOOL:
   
8. Superintendent of Public Instruction;
   
9. County Superintendent of Schools;
   
10. County Board of Education Members;
    
11. College District Governing Board Members;
    
12. Unified District Governing Board Members;
    
13. High School District Governing Board Members; and,
    
14. Elementary District Governing Board Members.
    
15. Under the heading, COUNTY:
16. County Supervisor; and,
    
17. Other offices in alphabetical order by the title of the office.
    
18. Under the heading, CITY:
19. Mayor;
    
20. Member, City Council; and,
    
21. Other offices in alphabetical order by the title of the office.
    

m) Under the heading, DISTRICT: Directors or trustees for each district in alphabetical order according to the name of the district.

1. Under the heading, MEASURES SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS, ballot measures beginning with state measures.
   
2. Permits county elections officials to vary the order of school, county, city, and district offices and measures in order to allow for the most efficient use of space on the ballot provided that the office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) always precedes any school, county, or city office and state measures always precede local measures.
   
3. Permits an elections official, during a presidential primary election, to list county central committees directly after the nominees for President and Vice President, as specified.
   

This bill:

1. Requires the county elections official for the County of Los Angeles, for a period of three years after the date that the elections official declares that the voting system modernization project that is currently underway in the county is complete and ready for operation, to conduct elections using an alternate ballot order, as specified.
   
2. Requires the order of precedence of contests on the ballot to be listed as follows:
   
   1. Requires local offices and local initiatives and ballot measures to appear first on the ballot, instead of nominees for federal office. Requires the following offices to be listed under the heading CITY/LOCAL:
      
3. City office;
   
4. School and Community College district;
   
5. Other offices in alphabetical order by the title of the office;
   
6. Candidates for State Legislative office;
   
7. Candidates or nominees to the House of Representatives of the United States; and,
   
8. City and school initiatives and ballot measures.
   
9. Requires district offices and district ballot measures to appear second on the ballot and be listed under the heading DISTRICT, as specified.
   
10. Requires county offices and county initiatives and ballot measures to appear third on the ballot and be listed under the heading COUNTY, as specified.
    
11. Requires statewide offices and statewide initiatives and ballot measures to appear fourth on the ballot and be listed under the heading STATE, as specified.
    
12. Requires state judicial offices to appear fifth on the ballot and be listed under the heading, STATE JUDICIAL, as specified.
    
13. Requires nominees for President and Vice President and candidates for the United States Senate, to appear last on the ballot, instead of first, and requires the nominees to be listed under the new heading NATIONAL ELECTION, as specified.
    
14. Permits the county elections official to adjust ballot instructions to the extent necessary to comply with the provisions of this bill.
    
15. Requires the county elections official to prepare a report regarding the effect of using the alternate ballot order for elections, as specified.
    
16. Requires the county elections official, three years after the official declares that the voting system modernization project is complete and ready for operation, to submit the report to the Secretary of State (SOS) and to the Legislature, as specified.  
    
17. Requires the county elections official, immediately after making the declaration that the voting system modernization project is complete and ready for operation, to post the declaration on his or her Internet Web site and send the declaration to the SOS, the Secretary of the Senate, the Chief Clerk of the Assembly, and the Legislative Counsel.
    
18. Allows the county elections official for the County of Los Angeles to use the alternate ballot order pursuant to this bill for elections conducted after the completion of the pilot project, as specified.

BACKGROUND

Ballot Content and Form. Current law requires a ballot to comply with a variety of laws that dictate its form and content. For example, existing law requires a ballot to contain the title of each office, the names of all qualified candidates, as specified, ballot designations, as specified, titles and summaries of measures submitted to voters, and instructions to voters, among other things. In addition, current law requires a ballot to follow certain formatting requirements, such as the order offices must appear on the ballot and font size. While existing law does allow for some flexibility in ballot format, such as allowing a county elections official to make ballot formatting changes to accommodate the limitations of a voting system or vote tabulating device, as specified, most requirements are fairly specific.

This bill makes significant changes to ballot order for a pilot project in Los Angeles County. In general, this bill reorganizes the ballot order and lists the contests in the following descending order:

1. City and local offices (including the Legislature and United States House of Representatives) and ballot measures;
2. District offices and ballot measures;
3. County offices and ballot measures;
4. Statewide offices and ballot measures;
5. State judicial offices; and lastly,
6. Federal offices.

Additionally, this bill makes changes to the list of contests that are required to be placed under the ballot layout headings. For instance, this bill requires candidates for state Senate and state Assembly and the United States House of Representatives to be listed under the CITY/LOCAL heading.

Other States. According to research conducted by the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), the majority of states list federal contests first on the ballot and then list state contests, county contests, and finally local contests and other offices. NCSL's research points out that there are a few variations within this order. For instance, some states list the Governor or other statewide contests after the President. The research did not, however, find any state that lists local offices and local ballot measures before federal and state offices, as proposed by this bill.

Election Dates and Previous Legislation. Last session, the Legislature approved and the Governor signed SB 415 (Hueso), Chapter 235, Statutes of 2016, which requires most off-cycle local elections to be consolidated with established statewide elections, with certain exceptions. Specifically, SB 415 prohibited a local government, beginning in January of this year, from holding an election on any date other than a statewide election date if doing so in the past resulted in turnout that is at least 25% below the average turnout in that jurisdiction in the last four statewide general elections, as specified.

COMMENTS

1. According to the author: Recent law prohibits local cities from having standalone elections, forcing city and school district elections to be consolidated with statewide and national election dates. The law was proposed as an effort to boost turnout in local elections. However, it has caused many city councils and school boards to fear it might result in their elections getting lost in cumbersome ballots filled with statewide and national election races and propositions.
   
   After speaking with many concerned mayors and councilmembers in my district I became convinced that featuring local elections first is the fair thing to do. Clearly, voters will go deep into the ballot books to vote for President or Governor so these high-profile elections won’t be adversely affected in the same manner that local leaders fear local elections will be affected by the new law.
2. Opposition Argument. In a letter opposing SB 25, the California Association of Clerks And Election Officials stated, in part, the following:

Equal protection for the voters of California: By changing the order of the ballot for one of California’s counties the bill would cause a radically different voting experience for a section of the State. Los Angeles County voters would not see the Presidential contest at the top of the ballot like California’s other 57 counties’ voters would, or voters in any other county/parish across the United States, will. By passing this pilot project, the Legislature is indicating that within Los Angeles County, the cities are the most important contests to be voted upon, followed by schools, some state and federal offices, local districts, County, the rest of the state offices and finally the remainder of the federal offices. However, in the other 57 counties the Legislature is indicating something entirely different.

Elections Code 13109(o) currently allows elections officials the flexibility to vary the order of certain contests to allow for the most efficient use of space on the ballot. Under this current provision, many counties move the central committee and county council contests to appear with the presidential contest during a primary election because those are the only two contests that are voted upon by party. Your proposal removes that provision, which could force Los Angeles County to create many more ballot styles thereby increasing election costs.

Our concern with your proposed legislation is not with your attempt to highlight local contests first, or your attempt to mitigate voter fatigue, or your attempt to eliminate the drop off rate on down ticket items. Our concern is that none of your goals will be reached without a robust voter education effort to explain why the order of contests has been changed. Changing the ballot order will cause voter confusion. Voters will call to ask Los Angeles County why they sent ballots without the presidential contest on it because it is “missing.” Los Angeles County will need to increase their outreach budget and efforts to address the change in order. They will also have to increase their staffing to handle the increase in calls relating to the “missing” contests. Counties that touch Los Angeles will most likely experience an increase in voter confusion because of media messaging as other counties utilize radio, television and printed media outlets originating in Los Angeles County.

Voters will still not vote all the contests on the ballot for various reasons. Placing the presidential contest at the end of the ballot will not necessarily cause drop off rates to decrease, voter fatigue to decrease or local contest awareness to increase simply because the “most voted contest” is the last contest.

RELATED/PRIOR LEGISLATION

AB 562 (Holden) of 2015 would have required the office of the SPI to be listed on the ballot under the heading of STATEWIDE EDUCATION, which would have appeared on the ballot immediately after the races for state Assembly. AB 562 was vetoed by Governor Brown who stated in his veto message that, "Just as the Chief Justice is placed with all other judicial candidates -- both local and regional -- on the ballot, it stands to reason that the Superintendent of Public Instruction should be placed with all other educational candidates. The current ballot order has existed with minimal changes for decades, and I don't think there is a good reason to change it now."

PRIOR ACTION

POSITIONS

Sponsor: Glendale City Clerk

Support: California Contract Cities Association

Cerritos Regional Chamber of Commerce

City of Burbank

City of Carson

City of Duarte

City of Glendale City Council

City of La Cañada Flintridge City Council
City of Los Angeles

City of Norwalk

City of Pasadena

City of Signal Hill

City of Thousand Oaks
Emily Gabel-Luddy, Mayor, City of Burbank

League of California Cities

Los Angeles County Division of the League of California Cities

Oppose: California Association of Clerks and Election Officials

-- END --

 UNFINISHED BUSINESS  

Bill No: SB 25

Author:

:

Vote:

PRIOR SENATE VOTES NOT RELEVANT

SENATE ELECTIONS & C.A. COMMITTEE: 4-1, 8/30/18 (Pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10)

AYES: Stern, Allen, Hertzberg, Leyva

NOES: Anderson

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 65-12, 8/29/18 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Elections: alternate ballot order: Los Angeles County pilot program

SOURCE: Glendale City Clerk

DIGEST:

This bill requires the County of Los Angeles to conduct a pilot project using an alternate election ballot order, as specified, under which local offices generally appear on the ballot before state and federal offices.

Assembly Amendments

delete all of the prior language related to nonresident tuition for public postsecondary education and insert all of the current language related to the County of Los Angeles pilot project using an alternate election ballot order.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Requires the offices on the ballot to be listed in the order detailed below, beginning in the column to the left:
   1. Under PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT (at a Presidential general election): candidates for President and Vice President.
      
   2. Under PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (at a Presidential primary election): Names of the presidential candidates, as specified.
      
   3. Under the heading STATE, in the following order, candidates for: Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Controller, Treasurer, Attorney General, Insurance Commissioner, and Member, State Board of Equalization.
      
2. Under UNITED STATES SENATOR: Candidates for United States Senate.
   
3. Under UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE: Candidates for the House of Representatives of the United States.
   
4. Under STATE SENATOR: Candidates for the State Senate.
   
5. Under MEMBER OF THE STATE ASSEMBLY: Candidates for Assembly.
   

Under COUNTY COMMITTEE: Members of County Central Committees.

Under the heading, JUDICIAL, in the following order: Chief Justice of California, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal, Associate Justice, Court of Appeal; Judge of the Superior Court; and Marshal.

1. Under the heading, SCHOOL, in the following order, Superintendent of Public Instruction, County Superintendent of Schools, County Board of Education Members, College District Governing Board Members, Unified District Governing Board Members, High School District Governing Board Members, and Elementary District Governing Board Members.
   
2. Under the heading, COUNTY: County Supervisor and then other offices in alphabetical order by the title of the office.
   
3. Under the heading, CITY, in the following order, Mayor, Member of a City Council, and other offices in alphabetical order by the title of the office.
   

m) Under the heading, DISTRICT: Directors or trustees for each district in alphabetical order according to the name of the district.

1. Under the heading, MEASURES SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS, ballot measures beginning with state measures.
   
2. Permits county elections officials to vary the order of school, county, city, and district offices and measures in order to allow for the most efficient use of space on the ballot provided that the office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) always precedes any school, county, or city office and state measures always precede local measures.
   
3. Permits an elections official, during a presidential primary election, to list county central committees directly after the nominees for President and Vice President, as specified.
   

This bill:

1. Requires the county elections official for the County of Los Angeles, for a period of three years after the date that the elections official declares that the voting system modernization project that is currently underway in the county is complete and ready for operation, to conduct elections using an alternate ballot order, as specified.
   
2. Requires the order of precedence of contests on the ballot to be listed as follows:
   
   1. Requires local offices and local initiatives and ballot measures to appear first on the ballot, instead of nominees for federal office. Requires the following offices to be listed under the heading CITY/LOCAL:
      
      1. City office;
      2. School and Community College district;
      3. Other offices in alphabetical order by the title of the office;
      4. Candidates for State Legislative office;
      5. Candidates or nominees to the House of Representatives of the United States; and,
      6. City and school initiatives and ballot measures.
         
3. Requires district offices and district ballot measures to appear second on the ballot and be listed under the heading DISTRICT, as specified.
   
4. Requires county offices and county initiatives and ballot measures to appear third on the ballot and be listed under the heading COUNTY, as specified.
   
5. Requires statewide offices and statewide initiatives and ballot measures to appear fourth on the ballot and be listed under the heading STATE, as specified.
   
6. Requires state judicial offices to appear fifth on the ballot and be listed under the heading, STATE JUDICIAL, as specified.
   
7. Requires nominees for President and Vice President and candidates for the United States Senate, to appear last on the ballot, instead of first, and requires the nominees to be listed under the new heading NATIONAL ELECTION, as specified.
   
8. Permits the county elections official to adjust ballot instructions to the extent necessary to comply with the provisions of this bill.
   
9. Requires the county elections official to prepare a report regarding the effect of using the alternate ballot order for elections, as specified.
   
10. Requires the county elections official, three years after the official declares that the voting system modernization project is complete and ready for operation, to submit the report to the Secretary of State (SOS) and to the Legislature, as specified.  
    
11. Requires the county elections official, immediately after making the declaration that the voting system modernization project is complete and ready for operation, to post the declaration on his or her Internet Web site and send the declaration to the SOS, the Secretary of the Senate, the Chief Clerk of the Assembly, and the Legislative Counsel.
    
12. Allows the county elections official for the County of Los Angeles to use the alternate ballot order pursuant to this bill for elections conducted after the completion of the pilot project, as specified.

Background

Ballot Content and Form. Current law requires a ballot to comply with a variety of laws that dictate its form and content. For example, existing law requires a ballot to contain the title of each office, the names of all qualified candidates, as specified, ballot designations, as specified, titles and summaries of measures submitted to voters, and instructions to voters, among other things. In addition, current law requires a ballot to follow certain formatting requirements, such as the order offices must appear on the ballot and font size. While existing law does allow for some flexibility in ballot format, such as allowing a county elections official to make ballot formatting changes to accommodate the limitations of a voting system or vote tabulating device, as specified, most requirements are fairly specific.

This bill makes significant changes to ballot order for a pilot project in Los Angeles County. In general, this bill reorganizes the ballot order and lists the contests in the following descending order:

1. City and local offices (including the Legislature and United States House of Representatives) and ballot measures;
2. District offices and ballot measures;
3. County offices and ballot measures;
4. Statewide offices and ballot measures;
5. State judicial offices; and lastly,
6. Federal offices.

Additionally, this bill makes changes to the list of contests that are required to be placed under the ballot layout headings. For instance, this bill requires candidates for state Senate and state Assembly and the United States House of Representatives to be listed under the CITY/LOCAL heading.

Other States. According to research conducted by the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), the majority of states list federal contests first on the ballot and then list state contests, county contests, and finally local contests and other offices. NCSL's research points out that there are a few variations within this order. For instance, some states list the Governor or other statewide contests after the President. The research did not, however, find any state that lists local offices and local ballot measures before federal and state offices, as proposed by this bill.

Election Dates and Previous Legislation. Last session, the Legislature approved and the Governor signed SB 415 (Hueso, Chapter 235, Statutes of 2016), which requires most off-cycle local elections to be consolidated with established statewide elections, with certain exceptions. Specifically, SB 415 prohibited a local government, beginning in January of this year, from holding an election on any date other than a statewide election date if doing so in the past resulted in turnout that is at least 25% below the average turnout in that jurisdiction in the last four statewide general elections, as specified.

Related/Prior Legislation

AB 562 (Holden, 2015) would have required the office of the SPI to be listed on the ballot under the heading of STATEWIDE EDUCATION, which would have appeared on the ballot immediately after the races for state Assembly. AB 562 was vetoed by Governor Brown who stated in his veto message that, "Just as the Chief Justice is placed with all other judicial candidates -- both local and regional -- on the ballot, it stands to reason that the Superintendent of Public Instruction should be placed with all other educational candidates. The current ballot order has existed with minimal changes for decades, and I don't think there is a good reason to change it now."

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, by requiring the County of Los Angeles to deploy and alternative ballot order and report to the SOS, this bill creates a state-mandated local program. To the extent the Commission on State Mandates determines the provisions of this bill create a new program or impose a higher level of service on the local agency, the county could claim reimbursement for those costs (GF). The magnitude of those costs is unknown, but could be significant.

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/29/18)

Glendale City Clerk (source)

California Contract Cities Association

Cerritos Regional Chamber of Commerce

City of Burbank

City of Carson

City of Duarte

City of Glendale City Council

City of La Cañada Flintridge City Council
City of Los Angeles

City of Norwalk

City of Pasadena

City of Signal Hill

City of Thousand Oaks

League of California Cities

League of California Cities, Los Angeles County Division

Mayor Emily Gabel-Luddy, City of Burbank

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/29/18)

California Association of Clerks and Election Officials

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author, “recent law prohibits local cities from having standalone elections, forcing city and school district elections to be consolidated with statewide and national election dates. The law was proposed as an effort to boost turnout in local elections. However, it has caused many city councils and school boards to fear it might result in their elections getting lost in cumbersome ballots filled with statewide and national election races and propositions.

“After speaking with many concerned mayors and councilmembers in my district I became convinced that featuring local elections first is the fair thing to do. Clearly, voters will go deep into the ballot books to vote for President or Governor so these high-profile elections won’t be adversely affected in the same manner that local leaders fear local elections will be affected by the new law.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: In a letter opposing SB 25, the California Association of Clerks And Election Officials stated, in part, the following:

By changing the order of the ballot for one of California’s counties the bill would cause a radically different voting experience for a section of the State. Los Angeles County voters would not see the Presidential contest at the top of the ballot like California’s other 57 counties’ voters would, or voters in any other county/parish across the United States, will. By passing this pilot project, the Legislature is indicating that within Los Angeles County, the cities are the most important contests to be voted upon, followed by schools, some state and federal offices, local districts, County, the rest of the state offices and finally the remainder of the federal offices. However, in the other 57 counties the Legislature is indicating something entirely different.

Elections Code 13109(o) currently allows elections officials the flexibility to vary the order of certain contests to allow for the most efficient use of space on the ballot. Under this current provision, many counties move the central committee and county council contests to appear with the presidential contest during a primary election because those are the only two contests that are voted upon by party. Your proposal removes that provision, which could force Los Angeles County to create many more ballot styles thereby increasing election costs.

Changing the ballot order will cause voter confusion. Voters will call to ask Los Angeles County why they sent ballots without the presidential contest on it because it is “missing.” Los Angeles County will need to increase their outreach budget and efforts to address the change in order. They will also have to increase their staffing to handle the increase in calls relating to the “missing” contests. Counties that touch Los Angeles will most likely experience an increase in voter confusion because of media messaging as other counties utilize radio, television and printed media outlets originating in Los Angeles County.

Voters will still not vote all the contests on the ballot for various reasons. Placing the presidential contest at the end of the ballot will not necessarily cause drop off rates to decrease, voter fatigue to decrease or local contest awareness to increase simply because the “most voted contest” is the last contest.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 65-12, 8/29/18

AYES: Acosta, Aguiar-Curry, Arambula, Berman, Bonta, Brough, Burke, Caballero, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chau, Chávez, Chen, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Daly, Eggman, Frazier, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez Fletcher, Gray, Grayson, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager-Dove, Kiley, Lackey, Levine, Limón, Low, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Reyes, Rivas, Rodriguez, Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Waldron, Weber, Wood, Rendon

NOES: Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Choi, Cunningham, Fong, Harper, Maienschein, Mathis, Melendez, Patterson, Voepel

NO VOTE RECORDED: Bloom, Dahle, Flora

Prepared by:

8/30/18 20:54:34

**** END ****

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 25

Author:(Portantino)

As Amended Ver:August 20 2018

Majority vote

SENATE VOTE: (vote not relevant)

SUMMARY: Requires the county elections official for the County of Los Angeles to conduct elections using an alternate ballot order, as specified, under which local offices generally appear on the ballot before state and federal offices. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires the county elections official for the County of Los Angeles, for a period of three years after the date that the elections official declares that the voting system modernization project that is currently underway in the county is complete and ready for operation, to conduct elections using an alternate ballot order, as specified.
2. Requires the order of precedence of contests on the ballot to be listed as follows:
   1. Requires local offices and local initiatives and ballot measures to appear first on the ballot, instead of nominees for federal office. Requires the following offices to be listed under the heading CITY/LOCAL:
      1. City office;
      2. School and Community College district;
      3. Other offices in alphabetical order by the title of the office;
      4. Candidates for State Legislative office;
      5. Candidates or nominees to the House of Representatives of the United States; and,
      6. City and school initiatives and ballot measures.
   2. Requires district offices and district ballot measures to appear second on the ballot and be listed under the heading DISTRICT, as specified.
   3. Requires county offices and county initiatives and ballot measures to appear third on the ballot and be listed under the heading COUNTY, as specified.
   4. Requires statewide offices and statewide initiatives and ballot measures to appear fourth on the ballot and be listed under the heading STATE, as specified.
   5. Requires state judicial offices to appear fifth on the ballot and be listed under the heading, STATE JUDICIAL, as specified.
   6. Requires nominees for President and Vice President and candidates for the United States Senate, to appear last on the ballot, instead of first, and requires the nominees to be listed under the new heading NATIONAL ELECTION, as specified.
3. Permits the county elections official to adjust ballot instructions to the extent necessary to comply with the provisions of this bill.
4. Requires the county elections official to prepare a report regarding the effect of using the alternate ballot order for elections, as specified.
5. Requires the county elections official, three years after the official declares that the voting system modernization project is complete and ready for operation, to submit the report to the Secretary of State (SOS) and to the Legislature, as specified.  
6. Requires the county elections official, immediately after making the declaration that the voting system modernization project is complete and ready for operation, to post the declaration on his or her Internet Web site and send the declaration to the SOS, the Secretary of the Senate, the Chief Clerk of the Assembly, and the Legislative Counsel.
7. Contains a sunset date and requires the provisions of this bill to remain in effect only until the first January 1 that occurs at least four years after the declaration of the voting system modernization project, as specified.
8. Allows the county elections official for the County of Los Angeles to use the alternate ballot order pursuant to this bill for elections conducted after the completion of the pilot project, as specified.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. By requiring the County of Los Angeles to deploy an alternative ballot order and report to the SOS, this bill creates a state-mandated local program. To the extent the Commission on State Mandates determines the provisions of this bill create a new program or impose a higher level of service on the local agency, the county could claim reimbursement for those costs (General Fund). The magnitude of those costs is unknown, but could be significant.
2. State-mandated local costs to alter the layout are likely absorbable.
3. Unknown, local costs for voter outreach and education associated with the change in the order of contests. The county has budgeted $2 million for outreach for the new [voting] system, but it is unknown if the alternative ballot order will significantly increase the need to fund this effort.
4. Unknown, potentially significant costs to analyze ballot data and report to the SOS.

COMMENTS: According to the author, "Recent law prohibits local cities from having standalone elections, forcing city and school district elections to be consolidated with statewide and national election dates. The law was proposed as an effort to boost turnout in local elections. However, it has caused many city councils and school boards to fear it might result in their elections getting lost in cumbersome ballots filled with statewide and national election races and propositions.

"After speaking with many concerned mayors and councilmembers in my district I became convinced that featuring local elections first is the fair thing to do. Clearly, voters will go deep into the ballot books to vote for President or Governor so these high-profile elections won’t be adversely affected in the same manner that local leaders fear local elections will be affected by the new law."

Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion of this bill.

Analysis Prepared by: Nichole Becker / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094 FN: 0004155

Date of Hearing: August 8, 2018

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 25

Author:(Portantino) – As Amended Ver:July 3, 2018

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: Yes

SUMMARY:

This bill requires the Los Angeles County Elections Official (elections official ) to use a specified alternative ballot order (see comment #2) to conduct elections held from January 1, 2020, through December 31, 2022, and allows the elections official to continue using the alternative ballot order indefinitely. This bill allows the elections official to adjust ballot instructions, as necessary.

This bill requires the elections official to prepare and submit a report to the Secretary of State and the Legislature by December 31, 2022, and post it on the elections official’s internet website. The report must include at the least the following information:

1. Statistics and information on the cost transitioning to the use of the alternative ballot order.
2. Overall voter turnout by jurisdiction, as specified.
3. Information broken out by contest including: a) voter turnout; b) overvotes and undervotes; and c) voter drop-off rates.
4. Legislative recommendations.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. By requiring the County of Los Angeles to deploy and alternative ballot order and report to the SOS, this bill creates a state-mandated local program. To the extent the Commission on State Mandates determines the provisions of this bill create a new program or impose a higher level of service on the local agency, the county could claim reimbursement for those costs (GF). The magnitude of those costs is unknown, but could be significant.
2. The fiscal impact of altering the ballot is impossible to estimate because, according to the County of Los Angeles, there is no dollar amount that would make their system conform by January 1, 2020.

The county is currently designing and manufacturing a new voting system scheduled for use in the March 2020 election, however, that operational date is not guaranteed. Should the author align this bill with deployment of the new voting system, state-mandated local costs to alter the layout would likely be absorbable.

1. Unknown, local costs for voter outreach and education associated with the change in the order of contests. The county has budgeted $2 million for outreach for the new voter system, but it is unknown if the alternative ballot order will significantly increase the need to fund this effort.
2. Unknown, potentially significant costs to analyze ballot data and report to the SOS.

COMMENTS:

1. Rationale. SB 415 (Hueso), Chapter 235, Statutes of 2016, requires off-cycle local elections to be consolidated with established statewide elections, with certain exceptions. Specifically, SB 415 prohibited a local government, beginning in January 2018, from holding an election on any date other than a statewide election date if doing so in the past resulted in turnout 25% or more below the average turnout in that jurisdiction in the last four statewide general elections, as specified.

According to the author, the new law has caused concern that local elections might get lost in ballots filled with statewide and national propositions and races. This bill partially addresses that concern by requiring Los Angeles County to use a ballot order that prioritizes local races for two-years and then analyze and report on the elections’ outcomes. This bill also allows Los Angeles County to continue using this ballot order indefinitely should it choose.

1. Alternative Ballot Order Concerns. For elections held between January 1, 2020, through December 31, 2022, this bill requires the order of contests on the ballot to be listed as follows:
   1. Local offices and local initiatives and ballot measures to appear first on the ballot (instead of nominees for federal office), listed under the heading CITY/LOCAL as follows: city office; school and community college district; other offices in alphabetical order by the title of the office; candidates for state legislative office; candidates or nominees to the House of Representatives of the United States; and, city and school initiatives and ballot measures.
   2. District offices and district ballot measures to appear second on the ballot and be listed under the heading DISTRICT, as specified.
   3. County offices and county initiatives and ballot measures to appear third on the ballot and be listed under the heading COUNTY, as specified. This includes members of the county central committees.
   4. Statewide offices and statewide initiatives and ballot measures to appear fourth on the ballot and be listed under the heading STATE, as specified.
   5. Judicial offices to appear fifth on the ballot and be listed under the heading, STATE JUDICIAL, as specified.
   6. Nominees for president and vice president and candidates for the United States Senate, to appear last on the ballot, listed under the new heading NATIONAL ELECTION, as specified. This includes pledged and unpledged delegates.

The California Association of Clerks and Elections Officials has expressed concerns regarding costs associated with voter education and outreach, the loss of flexibility to move contests around to keep costs down, the loss of ability to move the central committees to the same location as the presidential contest and the notion that voters in one county will not be treated equally as voters in other counties, particularly in contests that overlap counties.

1. Previous Legislation. AB 562 (Holden), of the 2015- 2016 Legislative Session would have required the office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction to be listed on the ballot under the heading of STATEWIDE EDUCATION, which would have appeared on the ballot immediately after the races for state Assembly. AB 562 was vetoed by Governor Brown who stated in his veto message:

Just as the Chief Justice is placed with all other judicial candidates -- both local and regional -- on the ballot, it stands to reason that the Superintendent of Public Instruction should be placed with all other educational candidates. The current ballot order has existed with minimal changes for decades, and I don't think there is a good reason to change it now.

Analysis Prepared by: Jennifer Galehouse / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: June 27, 2018

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING

Marc Berman, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 25

Author:(Portantino) – As Amended Ver:June 18, 2018

SENATE VOTE: (vote not relevant)

SUBJECT: Elections: ballot order.

SUMMARY: Revises the order in which contests appear on the ballot. Specifically, this bill repeals provisions of law that establish the order of precedence of offices on the ballot and instead makes the following changes:

1. Requires local offices and local initiatives and ballot measures to appear first on the ballot, instead of nominees for federal office, and to be listed under the new heading CITY/LOCAL. Requires the following offices to be listed under the heading CITY/LOCAL:
   1. Mayor;
   2. Member, City Council;
   3. Unified School District Board Members;
   4. High School District Board Members;
   5. Elementary School District Board Members;
   6. College District Governing Board Members;
   7. Other offices in alphabetical order by the title of the office;
   8. Candidates or nominees to the State Senate;
   9. Candidates or nominees to the State Assembly;
   10. Candidates or nominees to the House of Representatives of the United States;
   11. City local initiatives and ballot measures; and,
   12. Local school district initiatives and ballot measures.
2. Requires district offices and district initiatives and ballot measures to appear second on the ballot. Requires the following to be listed under the heading DISTRICT:
   1. Directors or trustees for each district in alphabetical order according to the name of the district; and,
   2. District initiatives and ballot measures.
3. Requires county offices and county initiatives and ballot measures to appear third on the ballot and be listed under the heading COUNTY. Requires the following to be listed under the heading COUNTY:
   1. County Supervisor;
   2. Sheriff;
   3. Assessor;
   4. County Superintendent of Schools;
   5. County Board of Education;
   6. Other offices in alphabetical order by the title of the office;
   7. Judge of the Superior Court;
   8. County Marshall;
   9. Members of the County Central Committee; and,
   10. County initiatives and ballot measures.
4. Requires state offices and statewide initiatives and ballot measures to appear fourth on the ballot and be listed under the heading STATE. Requires the following to be listed under the heading STATE:
   1. Governor;
   2. Lieutenant Governor;
   3. Secretary of State;
   4. Controller;
   5. Treasurer;
   6. Attorney General;
   7. Insurance Commissioner;
   8. Member, State Board of Equalization;
   9. Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI); and,
   10. Statewide initiatives and ballot measures.
5. Requires state judicial offices to appear fifth on the ballot and be listed under the heading, STATE JUDICIAL. Requires the following to be listed under the heading STATE JUDICIAL:
   1. Chief Justice of California;
   2. Associate Justice of the Supreme Court;
   3. Presiding Judge, Court of Appeal; and,
   4. Associate Justice, Court of Appeal.
6. Requires the nominees for President and Vice President, to appear last on the ballot, instead of first, and requires the nominees to be listed under the new heading NATIONAL ELECTION, instead of being listed under the heading of PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT. Requires the following to be listed under the heading NATIONAL ELECTION:
   1. Under the subheading, PRESIDENT and VICE PRESIDENT:
      1. Nominees of the qualified political parties and independent nominees for President and Vice President;
      2. Names of the presidential candidates to whom the delegates are pledged; and,
      3. Names of the chairperson of unpledged delegations.
   2. Candidates or nominees to the United States Senate.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires every ballot to contain the following:
   1. The title of each office, arranged to conform as nearly as practical in accordance with existing law;
      
   2. The names of all qualified candidates, as specified; and,
      
   3. The titles and summaries of measures submitted to the voters.
      
2. Requires the offices on the ballot to be listed in the order detailed below, beginning in the column to the left:
   1. Under the heading, PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT (at a Presidential general election): Nominees of the qualified political parties and independent nominees for President and Vice President.
   2. Under the heading, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (at a Presidential primary election): Names of the presidential candidates to whom the delegates are pledged and names of the chairpersons of unpledged delegations.
   3. Under the heading STATE:
      1. Governor;
      2. Lieutenant Governor;
      3. Secretary of State;
      4. Controller;
      5. Treasurer;
      6. Attorney General;
      7. Insurance Commissioner; and,
      8. Member, State Board of Equalization.

(d) Under the heading, UNITED STATES SENATOR: Candidates or nominees to the

United States Senate.

(e) Under the heading, UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE: Candidates or nominees to

the House of Representatives of the United States.

(f) Under the heading, STATE SENATOR: Candidates or nominees to the State Senate.

(g) Under the heading, MEMBER OF THE STATE ASSEMBLY: Candidates or nominees

to the Assembly.

(h) Under the heading, COUNTY COMMITTEE: Members of the County Central

Committee.

(i) Under the heading, JUDICIAL:

(1) Chief Justice of California;

(2) Associate Justice of the Supreme Court;

(3) Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal;

(4) Associate Justice, Court of Appeal;

(5) Judge of the Superior Court; and,

(6) Marshal.

(j) Under the heading, SCHOOL:

(1) SPI;

(2) County Superintendent of Schools;

(3) County Board of Education Members;

(4) College District Governing Board Members;

(5) Unified District Governing Board Members;

(6) High School District Governing Board Members; and,

(7) Elementary District Governing Board Members.

(k) Under the heading, COUNTY:

(1) County Supervisor; and,

(2) Other offices in alphabetical order by the title of the office.

(l) Under the heading, CITY:

(1) Mayor;

(2) Member, City Council; and,

(3) Other offices in alphabetical order by the title of the office.

(m) Under the heading, DISTRICT: Directors or trustees for each district in alphabetical

order according to the name of the district.

(n) Under the heading, MEASURES SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS, ballot measures beginning with state measures.

1. Permits county elections officials to vary the order of school, county, city, and district offices and measures in order to allow for the most efficient use of space on the ballot provided that the office of SPI always precedes any school, county, or city office and state measures always precede local measures.
   
2. Permits an elections official, during a presidential primary election, to list county central committees directly after the nominees for President and Vice President, as specified.
   

FISCAL EFFECT: None. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the Legislative Counsel.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose of the Bill: According to the author:

Recent law prohibits local cities from having standalone elections, forcing city and school district elections to be consolidated with statewide and national election dates. The law was proposed as an effort to boost turnout in local elections. However, it has caused many city councils and school boards to fear it might result in their elections getting lost in cumbersome ballots filled with statewide and national election races and propositions.

After speaking with many concerned mayors and councilmembers in my district I became convinced that featuring local elections first is the fair thing to do. Clearly, voters will go deep into the ballot books to vote for President or Governor so these high-profile elections won’t be adversely affected in the same manner that local leaders fear local elections will be affected by the new law.

1. Ballot Content and Form: Current law requires a ballot to comply with a variety of laws that dictate its form and content. For example, existing law requires a ballot to contain the title of each office, the names of all qualified candidates, as specified, ballot designations, as specified, titles and summaries of measures submitted to voters, and instructions to voters, among other things. In addition, current law requires a ballot to follow certain formatting requirements, such as the order offices must appear on the ballot and font size. While existing law does allow for some flexibility in ballot format, such as allowing a county elections official to make ballot formatting changes to accommodate the limitations of a voting system or vote tabulating device, as specified, most requirements are fairly specific.
   
   This bill makes significant changes to ballot order. In general, this bill reorganizes the ballot order and lists the contests in the following descending order: 1) city and local offices (including the Legislature and United States House of Representatives) and ballot measures; 2) district offices and ballot measures; 3) county offices and ballot measures; 4) statewide offices and ballot measures; 5) state judicial offices; and lastly, federal offices. Additionally, this bill makes changes to the list of contests that are required to be placed under the ballot layout headings. For instance, this bill requires candidates for state Senate and state Assembly and the United States House of Representatives to be listed under the CITY/LOCAL heading.
2. Ballot Formatting Issues: Under the current ballot order, all initiatives and ballot measures (state and local) are listed together on the ballot under the heading of MEASURES SUBMITTED TO VOTERS, as specified, all school offices are listed together on the ballot under the heading SCHOOL, and all judicial offices are listed together on the ballot under heading of JUDICIAL. This bill significantly changes that order and instead separates these contests. For instance, this bill requires municipal initiatives and ballot measures to be listed under the new heading CITY/LOCAL, district initiatives and ballot measures to be listed under the heading DISTRICT, county initiatives and ballot measures to be listed under the heading of COUNTY, and statewide initiatives and ballot measures to be listed under the heading of STATE. This new ballot layout could be confusing to voters as voters will be required to follow different instructions and complete different tasks as the voter moves through the ballot to vote. Theoretically, a voter could first be asked to vote on a local city council race in which a voter is able to vote for more than one candidate. Next on the ballot a voter could be asked to vote on a state legislative office, such as state Senator or state Assemblymember, in which a voter is instructed to vote for one candidate. And then a voter could be asked to vote "yes or no" on an initiative or ballot measure. Requiring a voter to change tasks and follow different instructions could be confusing. Committee members may wish to consider whether separating these contests is prudent as it may be confusing for voters to follow different instructions multiple times throughout the ballot.
   
   Moreover, this bill mixes voter-nominated offices and non-partisan offices on the ballot. Voter-nominated offices are contests in which any voter, regardless of party preference can vote for any candidate and the top two vote-getters, regardless of party preference, advance to the general election. Non-partisan offices have no party preference and the candidate that receives majority of the votes will win outright in the primary. The ballot layout changes in this bill will result in voters going back and forth between races with partisan affiliation on the ballot and offices that do not have partisan affiliation. This again could be confusing for voters. Furthermore, this bill does not make any changes to ballot instructions that correspond to the contests listed on the ballot. Current law requires certain instructions to be printed on the ballot for certain contests. In order for elections officials to be in compliance with the ballot layout requirements in this bill, significant changes will need to be made to ballot instructions. Theoretically, this could result in significantly longer ballots and more confusion for voters.
3. Other States: According to research conducted by the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), the majority of states list federal contests first on the ballot and then list state contests, county contests, and finally local contests and other offices. NCSL's research points out that there are a few variations within this order. For instance, some states list the Governor or other statewide contests after the President. Additionally, the research points out that a handful of states list candidates by political party on the ballot. The research did not, however, find any state that lists local offices and local ballot measures before federal and state offices, as proposed by this bill. Consequently, committee staff is unsure of the effect these changes will have on voter behavior.
4. Voter Fatigue: Many studies discuss the phenomenon of "voter fatigue" or "ballot drop-off" in which the number of votes cast per office drops consistently as a voter moves down the ballot. For instance, the number of votes cast for president is almost always much greater than the number of votes cast for many candidates for lower statewide elected office (such as lieutenant governor, attorney general, secretary of state, etc.) or other local offices (such as city council). Other studies discuss the advantage of ballot placement and contend that there is an advantage to being listed first on the ballot and that offices in the middle and the bottom of the ballot tend to be given less consideration.
   
   Committee staff, however, is unaware of any studies or research that demonstrates moving local contests first on the ballot will result in reduced drop-off for those races. Furthermore, the author's office has not provided the committee with any evidence that the changes proposed in this bill will reduce ballot drop-off for local offices. Given the lack of information about the effect of placing local contests before federal and state offices, committee members may wish to consider amending the bill to make it a pilot program and require a report to the Legislature on the effect the new ballot layout had on voter turnout for local contests and its effect on drop-off rates.
5. Election Dates and Previous Legislation: Last session, the Legislature approved and the Governor signed SB 415 (Hueso), Chapter 235, Statutes of 2016, which requires most off-cycle local elections to be consolidated with established statewide elections, with certain exceptions. Specifically, SB 415 prohibited a local government, beginning in January of this year, from holding an election on any date other than a statewide election date if doing so in the past resulted in turnout that is at least 25% below the average turnout in that jurisdiction in the last four statewide general elections, as specified.
   
6. Arguments in Support: In support, the City Council of the City of Glendale writes:

Due to the adoption of the California Voter Participation Rights Act (CVPRA), cities have been forced to relinquish their right to hold their own elections and to consolidate their elections with statewide primary and/or general statewide elections. Although the intent of this new law is to boost turnout in local elections, it provides a challenge to local candidates to seek the attention of voters in a cycle where they must compete with larger and better-funded campaigns for other offices. Academic studies have shown that voter interest diminishes the further down the ballot a race appears, and many local jurisdictions, such as cities, school, and college districts fear it might result in their elections getting lost in an already heavy ballot.

SB 25 is a practical move to help ensure local races are not adversely affected by the new state mandate by putting local elections on the ballot first instead of last. We believe this bill works in coordination with the CVPRA to engage voters in local elections, while ensuring that local races and measures are not lost in the statewide and national elections.

1. Concerns: The California Association of Clerks and Election Officials outlined the following concerns in their letter:
   

• Flexibility for elections officials: Elections Code 13109(o) currently allows elections officials the flexibility to vary the order of certain contests to allow for the most efficient use of space on the ballot. Under this current provision, many counties move the central committee and county council contests to appear with the presidential contest during a primary election because those are the only two contests that are voted upon by party. Also under this current provision, counties that have multi-card ballots due to language requirements standardize one of their cards that contain county-wide contests (e.g. state propositions, county offices, county measures) so it is common throughout the entire county. Your proposal removes that provision, which could force counties to use multi-card ballots or create many more ballot styles thereby increasing election costs.

• Voting system limitations: Not all of the current voting systems used in California are able to easily change the order of the contests on the ballot. This bill, if passed, would have an effective date of January 1, 2019. This effective date may cause counties to be out of compliance, especially those counties looking to replace their voting equipment or looking to become a Voters’ Choice Act county and who are waiting for systems to be certified by the Secretary of State or waiting for more certainty regarding financial assistance from the state. At our January meeting, your office and guest speakers indicated that the effective date would be 2020, but that fact is not reflected in either the May 19 or June 22 amendments.

• Voter education and outreach: During the January meeting when your office and representatives addressed our committee, we were asked to “promote equality, civic and local political engagement and how civics is taught in schools.” As an organization and as elections officials, we certainly do agree with those tenants and in each of our respective counties, we take those tenants seriously. Our concern with your proposed legislation is not with your attempt to highlight local contests first, or your attempt to mitigate voter fatigue, or your attempt to eliminate the drop off rate on down ticket items. Our concern is that none of your goals will be reached without a robust voter education effort to explain why the order of contests has been changed. Changing the ballot order will cause voter confusion. Voters will call to ask our offices why we sent them ballots without the presidential contest on it because it is “missing.” Voters will still not vote all the contests on the ballot because of their various reasons. Placing the presidential contest at the end of the ballot will not necessarily cause drop off rates to decrease, voter fatigue to decrease or local contest awareness to increase simply because the “most voted contest” is the last contest.

1. Previous Legislation: AB 562 (Holden) of 2015 would have required the office of the SPI to be listed on the ballot under the heading of STATEWIDE EDUCATION, which would have appeared on the ballot immediately after the races for state Assembly. AB 562 was vetoed by Governor Brown who stated in his veto message that, "Just as the Chief Justice is placed with all other judicial candidates -- both local and regional -- on the ballot, it stands to reason that the Superintendent of Public Instruction should be placed with all other educational candidates. The current ballot order has existed with minimal changes for decades, and I don't think there is a good reason to change it now."
   

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Contract Cities Association

Cerritos Regional Chamber of Commerce

City of Cerritos

City of Duarte

City of Glendale City Council

City of La Cañada Flintridge City Council
City of Los Angeles

City of Norwalk

City of Pasadena

City of Signal Hill

City of Thousand Oaks
Emily Gabel-Luddy, Mayor, City of Burbank

League of California Cities

Los Angeles County Division of the League of California Cities

Opposition

None on file.

Analysis Prepared by: Nichole Becker / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094

 CONSENT  

Bill No: SB 25

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 7-0, 4/26/17

AYES: Allen, Wilk, Galgiani, Leyva, Mendoza, Pan, Vidak

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill, an urgency measure, modifies eligibility requirements for the exemption from paying nonresident tuition for students who meet the requirements to qualify for education benefits under either the federal Montgomery GI Bill or Post 9/11 GI Bill program, to align with federal law.

ANALYSIS: Existing law exempts, effective for academic terms beginning after July 1, 2015, specified California nonresidents from paying nonresident tuition at the California State University (CSU), and the California Community Colleges (CCC) if they meet all of the following:

1. Reside in California.
2. Meet the definition of "covered individual," as defined under United States Code Title 38, federal statute.
3. Eligible for education benefits under either the federal Montgomery GI Bill or Post 9/11 GI Bill program.
4. Remain continuously enrolled at a CSU or CCC campus. (Education Code Section 68075.7)

This bill modifies eligibility requirements for the exemption from paying nonresident tuition for students who meet the requirements to qualify for education benefits under either the federal Montgomery GI Bill or Post 9/11 GI Bill program, to align with federal law. Specifically, it:

1. Modifies, commencing July 1, 2017, the meaning of “covered individual,” under federal law, as specified, to align with federal law.
2. Deletes provisions that require a dependent to enroll within three years of the service member’s death.
3. Requires a CCC or CSU student, as an eligibility requirement for the nonresident tuition exemption to be eligible for education benefits under the federal Montgomery GI Bill or Post 9/11 GI Bill program as each read on January 1, 2017, rather than as each read on January 1, 2015.
4. Makes the bill an urgency measure in order to ensure that eligible students and their institutions will not lose federal education funding.

Comments

1. Need for the bill. According to the author, in 2015, SB 81 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Chapter 22, Statutes of 2015) added Education Code Section 68075.7 to comply with the federal Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act (VACA) of 2014. VACA required states to charge instate tuition to all eligible veterans and their dependents. Institutions not in compliance with these provisions are ineligible to receive GI Bill funding, a financial loss to California of approximately $68 million. Recently, Congress modified VACA and as a result of these new changes California is no longer in compliance with federal law, jeopardizing the state’s GI Bill funding. This bill seeks to bring California in compliance with federal law to ensure that U.S. military veterans and their dependents who are enrolled at a CSU or CCC remain eligible to receive federal education benefits.
2. Who is eligible? According the California Department of Veterans Affairs, as of March 2017 the total number of Title 38 beneficiaries, veterans and their dependents, utilizing benefits are as follows: 2,292 at the University of California, 6,120 at the CSU and 40,198 at the CCC. These numbers also represent the number of students that could be impacted, should the California institutions fall out of compliance with new federal mandated requirements.

These veterans have access to education benefit programs (Title 38) through the federal government. Most commonly, the federal GI Bill programs (Montgomery GI Bill and 911/GI Bill) provides active duty veterans who served for 90 days or more on active duty a monthly tax-free benefit to be used for tuition, books, fees, and living expenses while earning an undergraduate or graduate degree, or attending trade school. Eligible dependents of service members (i.e. children and spouses) may also qualify for a scholarship, known as the Marine Gunnery Sergeant John David Fry Scholarship, which provides Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to the children and surviving spouses of service members who died in the line of duty while on active duty after September 10, 2001. It is this universe of individuals who are eligible for the exemption from nonresident tuition at California’s public postsecondary intuitions as mandated by federal law (i.e. VACA) and as codified in state statute.

1. Recent changes to federal VACA. The new changes enacted by congress make several modifications to VACA. For individuals using the Marine Gunnery Sergeant John David Fry Scholarship the changes remove provisions that require a dependent to enroll within three years of the service member’s death and no longer require that as a condition of dependents eligibility, their service member must have served a minimum 90 days of active-duty before death. Additionally, some service members may transfer unused GI Bill benefits to their dependents while on active duty. The changes also incorporate this category of federal education benefit recipients as covered individuals under the new VACA standards. This bill aims to ensure that California remains in compliance with federal law and continues to qualify for Title 38 program funding.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/9/17)

American Legion-Department of California

AMVETS Department of California

California Association of County Veterans Service Officers

California Community College Chancellor’s Office

California State University

Military Officers Association of America California Council of Chapters

Vietnam Veterans of American-California State Council

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/9/17)

None received

Prepared by:

5/9/17 16:41:28

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Senator Benjamin Allen, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular

Bill No: Hearing Date: April 26, 2017

Subject:

SUMMARY

This bill, an urgency measure, modifies eligibility requirements for the exemption from paying nonresident tuition for students who meet the requirements to qualify for education benefits under either the federal Montgomery GI bill or Post 9/11 GI bill program, to align with federal law.

BACKGROUND

Existing law, effective for academic terms beginning after July 1, 2015, exempts specified California nonresidents from paying nonresident tuition at the California State University (CSU), and the California Community Colleges (CCC) if they meet all of the following:

1. Reside in California.
2. Meet the definition of "covered individual," as defined under United States Code Title 38, federal statute.
3. Eligible for education benefits under either the federal Montgomery GI Bill or Post 9/11 GI Bill program.
4. Remains continuously enrolled at a CSU or CCC campus. (Education code section 68075.7)

ANALYSIS

This bill, an urgency measure, modifies eligibility requirements for the exemption from paying nonresident tuition for students who meet the requirements to qualify for education benefits under either the federal Montgomery GI bill or Post 9/11 GI bill program, to align with federal law. Specifically, it:

1. Commencing July 1, 2017, modifies the meaning of “covered individual,” under federal law, as specified, to align with federal law.
2. Delete provisions that require a dependent to enroll within three years of the service member’s death.
3. Requires a California Community College (CCC) or California State University (CSU) student, as an eligibility requirement for the nonresident tuition exemption to be eligible for education benefits under the federal Montgomery GI bill or Post 9/11 GI bill program as each read on January 1, 2017 rather than as each reach read on January 1, 2015.
4. Makes the bill an urgency measure In order to ensure that eligible students and their institutions will not lose federal education funding.

STAFF COMMENTS

1. Need for the bill. According to the author, in 2015, SB 81 (Chapter 22, statutes of 2015), added education code section 68075.7 to comply with the federal Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act (VACA) of 2014. VACA required states to charge instate tuition to all eligible veterans and their dependents. Institutions not in compliance with these provisions are ineligible to receive GI bill funding, a financial loss to California of approximately $68 million. Recently, Congress modified VACA and as a result of these new changes California is no longer in compliance with federal law, jeopardizing the state’s GI bill funding. This bill seeks to bring California in compliance with federal law to ensure that U.S. military veterans and their dependents who are enrolled at a CSU or CCC remain eligible to receive federal education benefits.
2. Who is eligible? According the California Department of Veterans Affairs, as of March 2017 the total number of Title 38 beneficiaries, veterans and their dependents, utilizing benefits are as follows, 2,292 at the University of California, 6,120 at the CSU and 40,198 at the CCC. These numbers also represent the number of students that could be impacted, should the California institutions fall out of compliance with new federal mandated requirements.

These veterans have access to education benefit programs (Title 38) through the federal government. Most commonly, the federal GI Bill programs (Montgomery GI Bill and 911/GI Bill) provides active duty veterans who served for 90 days or more on active duty a monthly tax-free benefit to be used for tuition, books, fees, and living expenses while earning an undergraduate or graduate degree, or attending trade school. Eligible dependents of service members (i.e. children and spouses) may also qualify for a scholarship, known as the Marine Gunnery Sergeant John David Fry Scholarship, which provides Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to the children and surviving spouses of service members who died in the line of duty while on active duty after September 10, 2001. It is this universe of individuals who are eligible for the exemption from nonresident tuition at California’s public postsecondary intuitions as mandated by federal law (i.e VACA) and as codified in state statute.

1. Recent changes to federal VACA. The new changes enacted by congress make several modifications to VACA. For individuals using the Marine Gunnery Sergeant John David Fry Scholarship the changes remove provisions that require a dependent to enroll within three years of the service member’s death and no longer require that as a condition of dependents eligibility, their service member must have served a minimum 90 days of active-duty before death. Additionally, some service members may transfer unused GI Bill benefits to their dependents while on active duty. The changes also incorporate this category of federal education benefit recipients as covered individuals under the new VACA standards. This bill aims to ensure that California remains in compliance with federal law and continues to qualify for Title 38 program funding.

SUPPORT

American Legion-Department of California

AMVETS Department of California

California Association of County Veterans Service Officers

California Community College Chancellor’s Office (CCCCO)

California Council of Chapters

California State University

Military Officers Association of America

Vietnam Veterans of American-California State Council

OPPOSITION

None received

-- END --