Under existing law, a candidate for the United States House of Representatives or local elective office may purchase space in the county voter information guide to make a candidate statement. A candidate for United States Senate may purchase space for a candidate statement in the state voter information guide. A candidate for state elective office may also purchase space to make a candidate statement in the state voter information guide, but only if the candidate accepts certain voluntary campaign expenditure limits. Existing law prohibits these candidate statements from making any reference to the candidates opponents.

This bill would limit a candidate statement to a recitation of the candidates own education, professional experience, public service, community involvement, and qualifications. The bill would prohibit a candidate statement from including, in addition to references to other candidates, a link or other reference to external content other than the candidates campaign website; content that is vulgar or profane, or that threatens or incites violence; false statements or misleading claims; or any other content that is unrelated to the candidates qualifications. The candidate would be required to submit a declaration with the candidate statement that attests that the statement is true and correct. Because a person who willfully makes a false statement in that declaration would be guilty of the crime of perjury, this bill expands the scope of that crime and thereby creates a state-mandated local program.

The bill would require the Secretary of State and county elections officials to omit from the voter information guide any portion of a candidate statement that does not comply with the bill, except false statements and misleading claims, and it would require them to print the remainder of the statement if it can stand independently and does not mislead voters. The bill would make a fee paid by a candidate for the printing or inclusion of a candidate statement nonrefundable if any part of the statement is printed in the voter information guide, but the fee would be refunded if the statement is omitted. By increasing the duties of county elections officials, this bill would create a state-mandated local program.

Existing law provides for the public examination of state and county voter information guides. During the 20-day examination period for the state guide, an elector may seek a writ of mandate or an injunction requiring any or all of the materials to be amended or deleted. During the 10-day examination period for the county guide, a voter of the relevant jurisdiction in which an election is being held, or the relevant local elections official themselves, may seek a writ of mandate or an injunction requiring any or all of the materials to be amended or deleted. A court will issue such a writ of mandate or injunction only upon clear and convincing proof that the material in question is false, misleading, or inconsistent with law, and that issuance of the writ or injunction will not substantially interfere with the printing or distribution of official election materials as provided by law.

This bill would similarly allow any registered voter to seek a writ of mandate or an injunction requiring any or all of the material in a candidate statement in the state or a county voter information guide to be amended or deleted, as specified. This bill would require that, as in current law, the writ of mandate or an injunction only be issued upon clear and convincing proof that the material in question is false, misleading, or inconsistent with the requirements of the bill, and that issuance of the writ or injunction will not substantially interfere with the printing or distribution of official election materials as provided by law. This bill would additionally allow a county elections official to bring such an action for a writ or injunction challenging a candidate statement in the county voter information guide over which they have jurisdiction.

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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

With regard to any other mandates, 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.

Under existing law, a candidate for the United States House of Representatives or local elective office may purchase space in the county voter information guide to make a candidate statement. A candidate for United States Senate may purchase space for a candidate statement in the state voter information guide. A candidate for state elective office may also purchase space to make a candidate statement in the state voter information guide, but only if the candidate accepts certain voluntary campaign expenditure limits. Existing law prohibits these candidate statements from making any reference to the candidates opponents.

This bill would limit a candidate statement to a recitation of the candidates own education, professional experience, public service, community involvement, and qualifications. The bill would prohibit a candidate statement from including, in addition to references to other candidates, a link or other reference to external content other than the candidates campaign website; content that is vulgar or profane, or that threatens or incites violence; false statements or misleading claims; or any other content that is unrelated to the candidates qualifications. The candidate would be required to submit a declaration with the candidate statement that attests that the statement is true and correct. Because a person who willfully makes a false statement in that declaration would be guilty of the crime of perjury, this bill expands the scope of that crime and thereby creates a state-mandated local program.

The bill would require the Secretary of State and county elections officials to omit from the voter information guide any portion of a candidate statement that does not comply with the bill, except false statements and misleading claims, and it would require them to print the remainder of the statement if it can stand independently and does not mislead voters. The bill would make a fee paid by a candidate for the printing or inclusion of a candidate statement nonrefundable if any part of the statement is printed in the voter information guide, but the fee would be refunded if the statement is omitted. By increasing the duties of county elections officials, this bill would create a state-mandated local program.

Existing law provides for the public examination of state and county voter information guides. During the 20-day examination period for the state guide, an elector may seek a writ of mandate or an injunction requiring any or all of the materials to be amended or deleted. During the 10-day examination period for the county guide, a voter of the relevant jurisdiction in which an election is being held, or the relevant local elections official themselves, may seek a writ of mandate or an injunction requiring any or all of the materials to be amended or deleted. A court will issue such a writ of mandate or injunction only upon clear and convincing proof that the material in question is false, misleading, or inconsistent with law, and that issuance of the writ or injunction will not substantially interfere with the printing or distribution of official election materials as provided by law.

This bill would similarly allow any registered voter to seek a writ of mandate or an injunction requiring any or all of the material in a candidate statement in the state or a county voter information guide to be amended or deleted, as specified. This bill would require that, as in current law, the writ of mandate or an injunction only be issued upon clear and convincing proof that the material in question is false, misleading, or inconsistent with the requirements of the bill, and that issuance of the writ or injunction will not substantially interfere with the printing or distribution of official election materials as provided by law. This bill would additionally allow a county elections official to bring such an action for a writ or injunction challenging a candidate statement in the county voter information guide over which they have jurisdiction.

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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

With regard to any other mandates, 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.

Under existing law, a candidate for the United States House of Representatives or local elective office may purchase space in the county voter information guide to make a candidate statement. A candidate for United States Senate may purchase space for a candidate statement in the state voter information guide. A candidate for state elective office may also purchase space to make a candidate statement in the state voter information guide, but only if the candidate accepts certain voluntary campaign expenditure limits. Existing law prohibits these candidate statements from making any reference to the candidates opponents.

This bill would limit a candidate statement to a recitation of the candidates own education, professional experience, public service, community involvement, and qualifications. The bill would prohibit a candidate statement from including, in addition to references to other candidates, a link or other reference to external content; content other than the candidates campaign website; content that is vulgar or profane, or that threatens or incites violence; false statements or misleading claims; or any other content that is unrelated to the candidates qualifications. The candidate would be required to submit a declaration with the candidate statement that attests that the statement is true and correct. Because a person who willfully makes a false statement in that declaration would be guilty of the crime of perjury, this bill expands the scope of that crime and thereby creates a state-mandated local program.

The bill would require the Secretary of State and county elections officials to omit from the voter information guide any portion of a candidate statement that does not comply with the bill, except false statements and misleading claims, and it would require them to print the remainder of the statement if it can stand independently and does not mislead voters. The bill would make a fee paid by a candidate for the printing or inclusion of a candidate statement nonrefundable if any part of the statement is printed in the voter information guide, but the fee would be refunded if the statement is omitted. By increasing the duties of county elections officials, this bill would create a state-mandated local program.

Existing law provides for the public examination of state and county voter information guides. During the 20-day examination period for the state guide, an elector may seek a writ of mandate or an injunction requiring any or all of the materials to be amended or deleted. During the 10-day examination period for the county guide, a voter of the relevant jurisdiction in which an election is being held, or the relevant local elections official themselves, may seek a writ of mandate or an injunction requiring any or all of the materials to be amended or deleted. A court will issue such a writ of mandate or injunction only upon clear and convincing proof that the material in question is false, misleading, or inconsistent with law, and that issuance of the writ or injunction will not substantially interfere with the printing or distribution of official election materials as provided by law.

This bill would similarly allow any registered voter to seek a writ of mandate or an injunction requiring any or all of the material in a candidate statement in the state or a county voter information guide to be amended or deleted, as specified. This bill would require that, as in current law, the writ of mandate or an injunction only be issued upon clear and convincing proof that the material in question is false, misleading, or inconsistent with the requirements of the bill, and that issuance of the writ or injunction will not substantially interfere with the printing or distribution of official election materials as provided by law. This bill would additionally allow a county elections official to bring such an action for a writ or injunction challenging a candidate statement in the county voter information guide over which they have jurisdiction.

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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

With regard to any other mandates, 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.

Under existing law, a candidate for the United States House of Representatives or local elective office may purchase space in the county voter information guide to make a candidate statement. A candidate for United States Senate may purchase space for a candidate statement in the state voter information guide. A candidate for state elective office may also purchase space to make a candidate statement in the state voter information guide, but only if the candidate accepts certain voluntary campaign expenditure limits. Existing law prohibits these candidate statements from making any reference to the candidates opponents.

This bill would limit a candidate statement to a recitation of the candidates own education, professional experience, public service, community involvement, and qualifications. The bill would prohibit a candidate statement from including, in addition to references to other candidates, a link or other reference to external content; content that is vulgar or profane, or that threatens or incites violence; false statements or misleading claims; or any other content that is unrelated to the candidates qualifications. The candidate would be required to submit a declaration with the candidate statement that attests that the statement is true and correct. Because a person who willfully makes a false statement in that declaration would be guilty of the crime of perjury, this bill expands the scope of that crime and thereby creates a state-mandated local program.

The bill would require the Secretary of State and county elections officials to omit from the voter information guide any portion of a candidate statement that does not comply with the bill, except false statements and misleading claims, and it would require them to print the remainder of the statement if it can stand independently and does not mislead voters. The bill would make a fee paid by a candidate for the printing or inclusion of a candidate statement nonrefundable if any part of the statement is printed in the voter information guide, but the fee would be refunded if the statement is omitted. By increasing the duties of county elections officials, this bill would create a state-mandated local program.

Existing law provides for the public examination of state and county voter information guides. During the 20-day examination period for the state guide, an elector may seek a writ of mandate or an injunction requiring any or all of the materials to be amended or deleted. During the 10-day examination period for the county guide, a voter of the relevant jurisdiction in which an election is being held, or the relevant local elections official themselves, may seek a writ of mandate or an injunction requiring any or all of the materials to be amended or deleted. A court will issue such a writ of mandate or injunction only upon clear and convincing proof that the material in question is false, misleading, or inconsistent with law, and that issuance of the writ or injunction will not substantially interfere with the printing or distribution of official election materials as provided by law.

This bill would similarly allow any registered voter to seek a writ of mandate or an injunction requiring any or all of the material in a candidate statement in the state or a county voter information guide to be amended or deleted, as specified. This bill would require that, as in current law, the writ of mandate or an injunction only be issued upon clear and convincing proof that the material in question is false, misleading, or inconsistent with the requirements of the bill, and that issuance of the writ or injunction will not substantially interfere with the printing or distribution of official election materials as provided by law. This bill would additionally allow a county elections official to bring such an action for a writ or injunction challenging a candidate statement in the county voter information guide over which they have jurisdiction.

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 With regard to any other mandates, 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.

Under existing law, a candidate for the United States House of Representatives or local elective office may purchase space in the county voter information guide to make a candidate statement. A candidate for United States Senate may purchase space for a candidate statement in the state voter information guide. A candidate for state elective office may also purchase space to make a candidate statement in the state voter information guide, but only if the candidate accepts certain voluntary campaign expenditure limits. Existing law prohibits these candidate statements from making any reference to the candidates opponents.

This bill would limit a candidate statement to a recitation of the candidates own education, professional experience, public service, community involvement, and qualifications. The bill would prohibit a candidate statement from including, in addition to references to other candidates, characterizations of other individuals or groups; a link or other reference to external content; content that is vulgar or profane, or that threatens or incites violence; false statements or misleading claims; or any other content that is unrelated to the candidates qualifications.

The bill would require the Secretary of State and county elections officials to omit from the voter information guide any portion of a candidate statement that does not comply with the bill, except false statements and misleading claims, and it would require them to print the remainder of the statement if it can stand independently and does not mislead voters. The bill would make a fee paid by a candidate for the printing or inclusion of a candidate statement nonrefundable if any part of the statement is printed in the voter information guide, but the fee would be refunded if the statement is omitted. Any registered voter could seek appropriate judicial relief to enforce these requirements. By increasing the duties of county elections officials, this bill would create a state-mandated local program.

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.

This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Under existing law, a candidate for the United States House of Representatives or local elective office may purchase space in the county voter information guide to make a candidate statement. A candidate for United States Senate may purchase space for a candidate statement in the state voter information guide. A candidate for state elective office may also purchase space to make a candidate statement in the state voter information guide, but only if the candidate accepts certain voluntary campaign expenditure limits. Existing law prohibits these candidate statements from making any reference to the candidates opponents.

This bill would limit a candidate statement to a recitation of the candidates own education, professional experience, public service, community involvement, and qualifications. The bill would prohibit a candidate statement from including, in addition to references to other candidates, attacks, accusations, or characterizations of other individuals or groups; a link or other reference to external content; content that is obscene vulgar or profane, or that threatens or incites hatred, violence, or discrimination; demonstrably violence; false statements or materially misleading claims; or any other content that is unrelated to the candidates qualifications.

The bill would require the Secretary of State and county elections officials to omit from the voter information guide any portion of a candidate statement that does not comply with the bill, and it would require them to print the remainder of the statement if it can stand independently and does not mislead voters. The bill would make a fee paid by a candidate for the printing or inclusion of a candidate statement nonrefundable. The Secretary of State would be authorized to adopt regulations to implement the bill, and any nonrefundable if any part of the statement is printed in the voter information guide, but the fee would be refunded if the statement is omitted. Any registered voter could seek appropriate judicial relief to enforce its these requirements. By increasing the duties of county elections officials, this bill would create a state-mandated local program.

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.

This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Existing law requires the Legislative Analyst to prepare an impartial analysis of a statewide measure that includes a fiscal analysis. If it is estimated that the measure will result in increased cost to the state, the Legislative Analyst must provide an analysis of the measures estimated impact on the state. For a referendum measure, existing law requires the ballot label to consist of a condensed title in the form of a question and a condensed summary of the chief purposes and points of the law, and limits the combined condensed title and summary to 75 words.

This bill would clarify that the condensed summary that appears on the ballot label includes the fiscal impact statement.

Existing law requires the state voter information guide to contain a section near the front of the guide that provides a concise summary of the general meaning and effect of yes and no votes on each state measure.

This bill would clarify that for a statewide referendum measure, the concise summary must provide the general meaning and effect of a vote to keep the law and overturn the law.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA2 Bill Id:AB 1853

Author:(Pellerin and Berman)

As Amended Ver:August 21, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Original Committee of Reference: ELECTIONS

Establishes uniform content rules for what may be included in a candidate statement in a state or local voter information guide (VIG) and establishes how a noncompliant statement may be kept out of a VIG.

Senate Amendments

Current Committee Recommendation: Concur

The Senate Amendments delete the Assembly-approved version of this bill, and instead:

1. Require a candidate statement included in either the state VIG or county VIG to be limited to a recitation of the candidate's own:
   1. Education.
   2. Professional experience.
   3. Public service.
   4. Community involvement.
   5. Qualifications for the office sought.
2. Prohibit a candidate statement from including any of the following:
   1. References to other candidates for the same or any other office.
   2. With the exception of the candidate's campaign website, a link or Uniform Resource Locator (URL) to an internet website, a quick response (QR) code, or any other reference directing voters to external content.
   3. Content that is profane or vulgar, or that threatens or incites violence.
   4. Content unrelated to the candidate's qualifications for office.
3. False statements or misleading claims.

Require an elections official to omit the noncompliant portion of a candidate statement from the VIG if the official determines, after the candidate statement filing deadline, that the statement contains any of the content described in a) through d) in 2) above. Require the remainder of the candidate statement to be printed in the VIG if it can stand independently and does not mislead voters when the noncompliant portion is removed.

1. Require an elections official to omit the entire candidate statement from the VIG if the official determines that candidate statement cannot reasonably be printed without the noncompliant portion.
2. Require any fee paid by a candidate for the printing or inclusion of a candidate statement in the state or county VIG to be nonrefundable if the statement or a portion of the statement appears in the VIG. Require the fee paid by the candidate to be refunded if a candidate statement is omitted from the VIG.
3. Provide that the submission of payment constitutes acknowledgment and acceptance of the requirements of this bill, including the finality of the candidate statement after the filing deadline and the possibility that noncompliant content will be omitted. Provide that a candidate shall not be entitled to a refund, credit, or reimbursement under any circumstances arising from enforcement of the requirements of this bill.
4. Require an elections official to make reasonable attempts to notify a candidate of the omission of content, and allow a candidate, if notified, to revise the statement so that it does not violate the provisions of this bill. Prohibit the notification process from delaying the printing or distribution of the VIG.
5. Permit a candidate to submit a revised statement prior to the filing deadline. Provide that a candidate statement is deemed final upon the close of the applicable filing period and prohibit a candidate from revising, supplementing, or otherwise modifying a candidate statement after the filing deadline. Allow a candidate to withdraw the candidate statement until 5 p.m. on the next working day after the submission deadline.
6. Require a candidate statement to be accompanied by a declaration, attested to and signed by the candidate, stating the statement submitted is true and correct.
7. Permit any registered voter to seek appropriate judicial relief to enforce the requirements of this bill, as follows:
   1. For the state VIG, during the 20-day public examination period, a voter may seek a writ of mandate or an injunction requiring that some or all of the material in the candidate statement be amended or deleted. Provide the writ or injunction shall be issued only upon clear and convincing proof that the material in question is false, misleading, or inconsistent with this bill and that issuance of the writ or injunction will not substantially interfere with the printing and distribution of official election materials.
   2. For a local VIG, during the 10-day public examination period, the elections official or any voter in the jurisdiction where the election will be held may seek a writ of mandate or an injunction requiring any or all of the material in the candidate statement to be amended or deleted. Provide that the writ or injunction shall be issued only upon clear and convincing proof that the material in question is false, misleading, or inconsistent with this bill and that issuance of the writ or injunction will not substantially interfere with the printing and distribution of official election materials.
8. Require a court to give priority to actions brought to enforce the requirements of this bill due to the time-sensitive nature of the preparation and distribution of election materials.
9. Provide that the Secretary of State (SOS) or a county elections official shall not be liable for taking or failing to take the actions described in this bill.
10. Add a severability clause.

COMMENTS

As approved by the Assembly, this bill would have made clarifying changes to the content of the condensed ballot title and summary for a state referendum measure and updated the summaries of the meanings of a "yes" and a "no" vote on a statewide referendum that are printed in the state VIG. Subsequent to the Assembly's approval, this bill was amended in the Senate to delete the Assembly-approved provisions and to add the current provisions. In light of the substantive Senate amendments, this bill was re-referred to the Assembly Elections Committee for further consideration pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.2. On August 28, 2026, the Assembly Elections Committee recommended, by a 6-0 vote, that the Senate amendments be concurred in.

Candidate statements are limited to a recitation of the candidate's own personal background and qualifications, and are prohibited from making reference to any other candidates for office or to another candidate's qualifications, character, or activities. According to the author, despite state law the state VIG for the June statewide primary election included a gubernatorial candidate statement that did not describe the candidate's background or qualifications, but instead consisted of inflammatory, conspiratorial, controversial, and vitriolic content and links to external websites unrelated to the candidate. The author contends that the inclusion of such content in an official government publication relied upon by millions of Californians to make informed voting decisions undermines voter trust and the integrity of the electoral process.

The process for handling a noncompliant candidate statement is inconsistent. For instance, current law explicitly restricts a candidate statement for local office to the candidate's own personal background and qualifications and prohibits referring to other candidates for the same office. However, a statewide, federal, and State Senate and Assembly candidate statement is only expressly prohibited from referring to any opponent of the candidate. In addition, a county elections official is expressly authorized to reject a noncompliant statement submitted for a local office without approval from the courts. However, for other statements appearing in a VIG, a voter must seek a writ of mandate from the courts to prohibit publication of a noncompliant statement.

To ensure consistent application, this bill establishes a uniform set of guidelines and standards that apply to all state and local candidate statements. In addition, this bill explicitly authorizes the SOS and local election officials to reject any or all of a candidate statement that does not comply with the requirements of this bill, permits a candidate to correct problems with a submitted statement, and clarifies that any voter may seek judicial relief to enforce the requirements of this bill.

According to the Author

"AB 1853 comes in response to a candidate statement that appeared in the June 2026 official state voter information guide that contained no information about the candidate's education and qualifications; instead, it used the voter guide as a platform to share hateful and antisemitic rhetoric and links to external inappropriate content. AB 1853 strengthens standards governing candidate statements that appear in official state and county voter guides by establishing clear, enforceable standards requiring that candidate statements remain factual, relevant, and appropriate for an official state publication while respecting constitutional free speech protections."

Arguments in Support

In support of a prior version of this bill, a coalition of organizations, wrote, "Earlier this year, California's Official Voter Information Guide for the June 2026 Primary was mailed to 23 million registered voters. Tucked inside that state-issued document was a candidate statement containing antisemitic conspiracy theories, white nationalist rhetoric, and links to websites filled with racist, homophobic, and other hateful content…

"The candidate statement in question made no distinction: it targeted Jewish people, people of color, LGBTQ+ Californians, and others in a single document…When content of this kind is distributed under the authority of the State of California to 23 million households, it carries with it an implicit imprimatur of the state itself. That is dangerous. It lends legitimacy to hateful ideas and risks amplifying their reach in ways that have real consequences for real communities.

"AB 1853 responds directly to this problem. The bill limits candidate statements in official state and county voter guides to information about a candidate's own education, professional experience, public service, community involvement, and qualifications for office. It bars…links to external content, false or misleading claims… and it gives the Secretary of State and county elections officials clear authority to reject noncompliant statements. Any registered voter may seek judicial enforcement of these standards."

Arguments in Opposition

With an oppose unless amended position to a prior version of this bill, the Peace and Freedom Party of California, wrote, "Candidates running on slates or with the support of their party should be able to include links to the websites of the slates on which they are running and of their parties (when not running for nonpartisan office). Any restriction on including links must allow such links, in addition to the candidates' campaign websites included as contact information…

"Most candidate statements include some of the candidates positions on political issues, especially those relevant to the office for which they are running, and their plans for what they would do if elected. Though this is arguably related to the candidates' qualifications for the office sought, it is not clearly so and may be excluded as 'unrelated' if election officials are narrowing what is allowed in statements. The language should be clarified to clearly allow such positions and plans, perhaps just qualifying 'qualifications' using the phrase based on a court decision, 'including viewpoints, ideas, or ideology', so long as they don't violate other restrictions, in candidate statements."

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

1. This bill would not result in a fiscal impact to the SOS.
2. By imposing specified duties on local elections officials, this bill creates a state-mandated local program. To the extent the Commission on State Mandates determines that the provisions of this bill create a new program or impose a higher level of service on local agencies, local agencies could claim reimbursement of those costs. The magnitude is unknown, but could exceed $50,000 per year (General Fund).
3. This bill could result in potentially significant cost pressures to the courts; the magnitude is unknown (Trial Court Trust Fund (TCTF)). The specific number of new actions that could be filed under the bill also is unknown; however, it generally costs about $10,500 per day to operate a courtroom. Courts are not funded on the basis of workload, and increased pressure on TCTF may create a need for increased funding for courts from the General Fund. The enacted 2026-27 budget includes $70 million in ongoing support from the General Fund to continue to backfill TCTF for revenue declines

VOTES

ASM ELECTIONS: 8-0-0

YES: Pellerin, Gallagher, Addis, Berman, Elhawary, Johnson, Solache, Stefani

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 64-0-16

YES: Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Bains, Berman, Boerner, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Fong, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Mark González, Hadwick, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Johnson, Krell, Lackey, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Rivas

ABS, ABST OR NV: Addis, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Bonta, Bryan, Flora, Gallagher, Jeff Gonzalez, Haney, Kalra, Ortega, Celeste Rodriguez, Schultz, Zbur

SENATE FLOOR: 32-0-8

YES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Cortese, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Hurtado, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Padilla, Pérez, Reyes, Richardson, Rubio, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Strickland, Umberg, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

ABS, ABST OR NV: Choi, Dahle, Grove, Jones, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Seyarto, Valladares

ASM ELECTIONS: 6-0-2

YES: Pellerin, Bennett, Berman, Elhawary, Solache, Stefani

ABS, ABST OR NV: Johnson, Ellis

UPDATED

VERSION: August 21, 2026

CONSULTANT: Nichole Becker / ELECTIONS / (916) 319-2094 FN: 0004447

Date of Hearing: August 28, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS

Gail Pellerin, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1853 (

Author:Pellerin) – As Amended Ver:August 21, 2026

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

SUBJECT: Voter information guide: candidate statements.

SUMMARY: Establishes uniform content rules for what may be included in a candidate statement in a state or local voter information guide (VIG) and establishes how a noncompliant statement may be kept out of a VIG.

The Senate amendments delete the Assembly-approved version of the bill, and instead:

1. Require a candidate statement included in either the state VIG or county VIG to be limited to a recitation of the candidate’s own:
   1. Education.
   2. Professional experience.
   3. Public service.
   4. Community involvement.
   5. Qualifications for the office sought.
      
2. Prohibit a candidate statement from including any of the following:
   1. References to other candidates for the same or any other office.
   2. With the exception of the candidate’s campaign website, a link or Uniform Resource Locator (URL) to an internet website, a quick response (QR) code, or any other reference directing voters to external content.
   3. Content that is profane or vulgar, or that threatens or incites violence.
   4. Content unrelated to the candidate’s qualifications for office.
   5. False statements or misleading claims.
      
3. Require an elections official to omit the noncompliant portion of a candidate statement from the VIG if the official determines, after the candidate statement filing deadline, that the statement contains any of the content described in a) through d) in 2) above. Require the remainder of the candidate statement to be printed in the VIG if it can stand independently and does not mislead voters when the noncompliant portion is removed.
   
4. Require an elections official to omit the entire candidate statement from the VIG if the official determines that the candidate statement cannot reasonably be printed without the noncompliant portion.
   
5. Require any fee paid by a candidate for the printing or inclusion of a candidate statement in the state or county VIG to be nonrefundable if the statement or a portion of the statement appears in the VIG. Require the fee paid by the candidate to be refunded if a candidate statement is omitted from the VIG.
   
6. Provide that the submission of payment constitutes acknowledgment and acceptance of the requirements of this bill, including the finality of the candidate statement after the filing deadline and the possibility that noncompliant content will be omitted. Provide that a candidate shall not be entitled to a refund, credit, or reimbursement under any circumstances arising from enforcement of the requirements of this bill.
7. Require an elections official to make reasonable attempts to notify a candidate of the omission of content, and allow a candidate, if notified, to revise the statement so that it does not violate the provisions of this bill. Prohibit the notification process from delaying the printing or distribution of the VIG.
8. Permit a candidate to submit a revised statement prior to the filing deadline. Provide that a candidate statement is deemed final upon the close of the applicable filing period and prohibit a candidate from revising, supplementing, or otherwise modifying a candidate statement after the filing deadline. Allow a candidate to withdraw the candidate statement until 5 p.m. on the next working day after the submission deadline.
9. Require a candidate statement to be accompanied by a declaration, attested to and signed by the candidate, stating the statement submitted is true and correct.
10. Permit any registered voter to seek appropriate judicial relief to enforce the requirements of this bill, as follows:
    1. For the state VIG, during the 20-day public examination period, a voter may seek a writ of mandate or an injunction requiring that some or all of the material in the candidate statement be amended or deleted. Provide the writ or injunction shall be issued only upon clear and convincing proof that the material in question is false, misleading, or inconsistent with this bill and that issuance of the writ or injunction will not substantially interfere with the printing and distribution of official election materials.
    2. For a local VIG, during the 10-day public examination period, the elections official or any voter in the jurisdiction where the election will be held may seek a writ of mandate or an injunction requiring any or all of the material in the candidate statement to be amended or deleted. Provide that the writ or injunction shall be issued only upon clear and convincing proof that the material in question is false, misleading, or inconsistent with this bill and that issuance of the writ or injunction will not substantially interfere with the printing and distribution of official election materials.
11. Require a court to give priority to actions brought to enforce the requirements of this bill due to the time-sensitive nature of the preparation and distribution of election materials.
12. Provide that the Secretary of State (SOS) or a county elections official shall not be liable for taking or failing to take the actions described in this bill.
13. Add a severability clause.
    

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires the SOS to prepare a state VIG for each statewide election, as specified. (Elections Code §9084)
2. Permits a candidate for statewide elective office (Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Insurance Commissioner, Controller, SOS, Treasurer, Superintendent of Public Instruction, and Board of Equalization) who accepts the voluntary expenditure limits, and a candidate for United States (US) Senate, to purchase the space to place a statement in the state VIG that does not exceed 250 words. Prohibits the statement from making any reference to any opponent of the candidate. Requires the statement to be submitted in accordance with timeframes and procedures set forth by the SOS for the preparation of the state VIG. (Government Code §§85601, 88001)
   
3. Requires the SOS, at least 20 days prior to submitting the state VIG to the printer, to make the state VIG available for public examination. Permits any person eligible to vote to seek a writ of mandate or an injunction requiring any or all of the material in the candidate statement to be amended or deleted. Provides a writ or injunction shall be issued only upon clear and convincing proof that the material in question is false, misleading, or inconsistent with the requirements of state law and that issuance of the writ or injunction will not substantially interfere with the printing and distributing of official election materials. (Elections Code §9092, Government Code §88006)
   
4. Requires a county elections official to prepare a county VIG in connection with each election, as specified. (Elections Code §13303)
5. Permits a candidate for nonpartisan elective office in any local agency to prepare a candidate’s statement to appear in the county VIG. Permits the statement to be no more than 200 words, unless the governing body of the local agency authorizes an increase of the word limit to 400 words. Permits the statement to include the name, age, and occupation of the candidate and a brief description of the candidate’s education and qualifications expressed by the candidate themself. Prohibits the statement from including the party affiliation of the candidate, or membership or activity in partisan political organizations. (Elections Code §13307)
6. Requires any statement submitted pursuant to 5), in addition to the requirements in 5), to be limited to a recitation of the candidate’s own personal background and qualifications, and shall not in any way refer to other candidates for that office or to another candidate’s qualifications, character, or activities. Prohibits a county elections official from printing, posting online, or circulating any statement that the elections official determines violates these provisions. (Elections Code §13308)
7. Permits a candidate for the US House of Representatives, State Senate, or Assembly to purchase the space to place a statement in a county VIG that does not exceed 250 words. Prohibits the statement from making any reference to any opponent of the candidate. Requires the statement to be submitted in accordance with the timeframes and procedures set forth in the Elections Code for the preparation of the county VIG. (Government Code §85601(c), Elections Code §13307.5)
   
8. Requires an elections official to make candidate statements available for public examination in the elections official’s office for a period of 10 calendar days immediately following the filing deadline for the submission of those documents. (Elections Code §13313(a))
   
9. Permits any voter of the jurisdiction in which the election is being held, or the elections official, to seek a writ of mandate or an injunction requiring any or all of the material in the candidate’s statement to be amended or deleted during the 10-calendar-day public examination period. Provides that a peremptory writ of mandate or an injunction shall be issued only upon clear and convincing proof that the material in question is false, misleading, or inconsistent with the requirements of existing law, and that issuance of the writ or injunction will not substantially interfere with the printing or distribution of official election materials. (Elections Code §13313(b))
10. Makes it a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000, for a candidate in an election or an incumbent in a recall election to knowingly make a false statement of material fact in a candidate’s statement with intent to mislead the voters in connection with their campaign. (Elections Code §18351)
    

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• This bill would not result in a fiscal impact to the SOS.
• By imposing specified duties on local elections officials, this bill creates a state-mandated local program. To the extent the Commission on State Mandates determines that the provisions of this bill create a new program or impose a higher level of service on local agencies, local agencies could claim reimbursement of those costs. The magnitude is unknown, but could exceed $50,000 per year (General Fund).
• This bill could result in potentially significant cost pressures to the courts; the magnitude is unknown (Trial Court Trust Fund (TCTF)). The specific number of new actions that could be filed under the bill also is unknown; however, it generally costs about $10,500 per day to operate a courtroom. Courts are not funded on the basis of workload, and increased pressure on TCTF may create a need for increased funding for courts from the General Fund. The enacted 2026-27 budget includes $70 million in ongoing support from the General Fund to continue to backfill TCTF for revenue declines.

COMMENTS:

1. Prior Assembly Consideration of this Bill: As approved by the Assembly, this bill would have made clarifying changes to the content of the condensed ballot title and summary for a state referendum measure and updated the summaries of the meanings of a “yes” and a “no” vote on a statewide referendum that are printed in the state VIG. Subsequent to the Assembly’s approval, this bill was amended in the Senate to delete the Assembly-approved provisions and to add the current provisions, which was approved by the Senate by a vote of 32-0 on August 25, 2026. Accordingly, this bill has been re-referred to this committee for further consideration pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.2.
2. Purpose of the Bill: According to the author:

AB 1853 comes in response to a candidate statement that appeared in the June 2026 official state voter information guide that contained no information about the candidate’s education and qualifications; instead, it used the voter guide as a platform to share hateful and antisemitic rhetoric and links to external inappropriate content. AB 1853 strengthens standards governing candidate statements that appear in official state and county voter guides by establishing clear, enforceable standards requiring that candidate statements remain factual, relevant, and appropriate for an official state publication while respecting constitutional free speech protections.

1. Candidate Statements and 2026 Statewide Primary Election State VIG: Candidate statements are optional statements provided by candidates that appear in VIGs and provide voters with a brief description of the candidate’s education and qualifications for office. Current law allows a candidate running for a federal, state, or local office to have a candidate statement included in the VIG. For instance, a candidate running for the US House of Representatives may purchase space for a 250-word statement in the county VIG for the county or counties in their jurisdiction. Candidates running for statewide office, the State Senate, and the State Assembly who choose to accept voluntary spending limits are able to purchase space for a 250-word candidate statement in either the state or county VIG, depending on the office.

Candidate statements are limited to a recitation of the candidate’s own personal background and qualifications, and are prohibited from making reference to any other candidates for office or to another candidate’s qualifications, character, or activities. According to the author, despite state law the state VIG for the June statewide primary election included a gubernatorial candidate statement that did not describe the candidate’s background or qualifications, but instead consisted of inflammatory, conspiratorial, controversial, and vitriolic content and links to external websites unrelated to the candidate. The author contends that the inclusion of such content in an official government publication relied upon by millions of Californians to make informed voting decisions undermines voter trust and the integrity of the electoral process.

1. Previous VIG Candidate Statements: According to the Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee’s analysis of this bill, this was not the first time that this candidate used the VIG to blast out hateful rhetoric unrelated to the contest for office. Over half a dozen similar candidate statements from the same individual were printed in state VIGs dating back to 2010; none of which provided information about the candidate’s qualifications, they contained links to external websites unrelated to the candidate, and included profanity and misleading content. When similar statements appeared in the 2024 and 2026 state VIGs, the SOS included a disclaimer that the views expressed are the candidate’s and not those of the SOS.
   
2. Uniform Standards: The process for handling a noncompliant candidate statement is inconsistent. For instance, current law explicitly restricts a candidate statement for local office to the candidate’s own personal background and qualifications and prohibits referring to other candidates for the same office. However, a statewide, federal, and State Senate and Assembly candidate statement is only expressly prohibited from referring to any opponent of the candidate. In addition, a county elections official is expressly authorized to reject a noncompliant statement submitted for a local office without approval from the courts. However, for other statements appearing in a VIG, a voter must seek a writ of mandate from the courts to prohibit publication of a noncompliant statement.

To ensure consistent application, this bill establishes a uniform set of guidelines and standards that apply to all state and local candidate statements. In addition, this bill explicitly authorizes the SOS and local election officials to reject any or all of a candidate statement that does not comply with the requirements of this bill, permits a candidate to correct problems with a submitted statement, and clarifies that any voter may seek judicial relief to enforce the requirements of this bill.

1. Voter Information Guides: Under existing law, a county elections official and the SOS provide VIGs to registered voters that contain information about federal, state, and local candidates, and state and local ballot measures, among other important election information.
   Voter guides are required to be made available for public examination. Specifically, a state VIG is subject to a 20-day public examination period and a county VIG is required to be made available for public examination for 10-calendar-days. During these public review periods, any person eligible to vote may seek a writ of mandate or an injunction requiring any or all of the material in a candidate statement be amended or deleted upon clear and convincing proof that the statement is false, misleading, or inconsistent with the requirements of state law.
   
   According to the SOS, during the 20-day public examination period for the June 2026 statewide primary election state VIG, no challenge was made to the gubernatorial statement in question.
2. Arguments in Support: In support of a prior version of this bill, a coalition of organizations, wrote:

Earlier this year, California’s Official Voter Information Guide for the June 2026 Primary was mailed to 23 million registered voters. Tucked inside that state-issued document was a candidate statement containing antisemitic conspiracy theories, white nationalist rhetoric, and links to websites filled with racist, homophobic, and other hateful content…

The candidate statement in question made no distinction: it targeted Jewish people, people of color, LGBTQ+ Californians, and others in a single document…When content of this kind is distributed under the authority of the State of California to 23 million households, it carries with it an implicit imprimatur of the state itself. That is dangerous. It lends legitimacy to hateful ideas and risks amplifying their reach in ways that have real consequences for real communities.

AB 1853 responds directly to this problem. The bill limits candidate statements in official state and county voter guides to information about a candidate’s own education, professional experience, public service, community involvement, and qualifications for office. It bars…links to external content, false or misleading claims… and it gives the Secretary of State and county elections officials clear authority to reject noncompliant statements. Any registered voter may seek judicial enforcement of these standards.

1. Arguments in Opposition: With an oppose unless amended position to a prior version of this bill, the Peace and Freedom Party of California, wrote:

Candidates running on slates or with the support of their party should be able to include links to the websites of the slates on which they are running and of their parties (when not running for nonpartisan office). Any restriction on including links must allow such links, in addition to the candidates' campaign websites included as contact information…

Most candidate statements include some of the candidates positions on political issues, especially those relevant to the office for which they are running, and their plans for what they would do if elected. Though this is arguably related to the candidates' qualifications for the office sought, it is not clearly so and may be excluded as "unrelated' if election officials are narrowing what is allowed in statements. The language should be clarified to clearly allow such positions and plans, perhaps just qualifying "qualifications" using the phrase based on a court decision, "including viewpoints, ideas, or ideology", so long as they don't violate other restrictions, in candidate statements.

1. Previous Legislation: SB 251 (Newman) of 2024 would have increased the maximum fine for knowingly making a false statement of a material fact in a candidate's statement from $1,000 to $5,000. SB 251 was placed on the Assembly inactive file.
   
   SB 409 (Newman) of 2023 would have required the SOS to establish a pilot program that allows a candidate for elective state office to include in their candidate statement a QR code link to a video statement, as specified. SB 409 was held on the Assembly Committee on Appropriations’ suspense file.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

30 Years After

Adat Shalom – West Los Angeles

ADL

Agudath Israel of California

AJC - Los Angeles

AJC - San Diego

AJC Northern California

Bay Area Jewish Coalition Education and Advocacy

Beverly Hills Synagogue

Board of Rabbis of Southern California

California Jewish Democrats

California Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism

Contra Costa Jewish Democrats

Democrats for Israel – Los Angeles

JCC-Federation of San Luis Obispo

JCRC Bay Area

JCRC, Jewish Long Beach

JCRC Santa Barbara County

Jewish California (formerly JPAC)

Jewish Center for Justice

Jewish Community Action Network

Jewish Community Relations Council of Sacramento

Jewish Family and Children’s Center of San Francisco, the Peninsula, Marin and Sonoma

Counties

Jewish Family Service LA

Jewish Family Services of Silicon Valley

Jewish Federation Bay Area

Jewish Federation of Greater Santa Barbara

Jewish Federation of Orange County

Jewish Federation of Palm Springs & the Desert

Jewish Federation of San Diego

Jewish Federation of the Greater San Gabriel and Pomona Valleys

Jewish Federation of the Sacramento Region

Jewish Federation of Ventura County

Jewish Free Loan Association

Jewish Partisan Educational Foundation

Jewish Silicon Valley

Jewish War Veterans of the USA, Department of California

JFCS East Bay

JFCS Long Beach and Orange County

Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office

Mosaic Law Congregation

Northern California Council of Jewish Democratic Clubs

Northern California Jewish Labor Committee

Oakland Jewish Alliance

Simon Wiesenthal Center, INC.

StandWithUs

Tam Union Together

Valley Beth Shalom

Young Israel of Century City

Opposition

Peace and Freedom Party (unless amended)

Analysis Prepared by: Nichole Becker / ELECTIONS / (916) 319-2094

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 1853

Author:(Pellerin and Berman)

As Amended Ver:August 21, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Establishes uniform content rules for what may be included in a candidate statement in a state or local voter information guide (VIG) and establishes how a noncompliant statement may be kept out of a VIG.

Senate Amendments

Delete the Assembly-approved version of the bill, and instead:

1. Require a candidate statement included in either the state VIG or county VIG to be limited to a recitation of the candidate's own:
   1. Education.
   2. Professional experience.
   3. Public service.
   4. Community involvement.
   5. Qualifications for the office sought.
2. Prohibit a candidate statement from including any of the following:
   1. References to other candidates for the same or any other office.
   2. With the exception of the candidate's campaign website, a link or Uniform Resource Locator (URL) to an internet website, a quick response (QR) code, or any other reference directing voters to external content.
   3. Content that is profane or vulgar, or that threatens or incites violence.
   4. Content unrelated to the candidate's qualifications for office.
   5. False statements or misleading claims.
3. Require an elections official to omit the noncompliant portion of a candidate statement from the VIG if the official determines, after the candidate statement filing deadline, that the statement contains any of the content described in a) through d) in 2) above. Require the remainder of the candidate statement to be printed in the VIG if it can stand independently and does not mislead voters when the noncompliant portion is removed.
4. Require an elections official to omit the entire candidate statement from the VIG if the official determines that candidate statement cannot reasonably be printed without the noncompliant portion.
5. Require any fee paid by a candidate for the printing or inclusion of a candidate statement in the state or county VIG to be nonrefundable if the statement or a portion of the statement appears in the VIG. Require the fee paid by the candidate to be refunded if a candidate statement is omitted from the VIG.
6. Provide that the submission of payment constitutes acknowledgment and acceptance of the requirements of this bill, including the finality of the candidate statement after the filing deadline and the possibility that noncompliant content will be omitted. Provide that a candidate shall not be entitled to a refund, credit, or reimbursement under any circumstances arising from enforcement of the requirements of this bill.
7. Require an elections official to make reasonable attempts to notify a candidate of the omission of content, and allow a candidate, if notified, to revise the statement so that it does not violate the provisions of this bill. Prohibit the notification process from delaying the printing or distribution of the VIG.
8. Permit a candidate to submit a revised statement prior to the filing deadline. Provide that a candidate statement is deemed final upon the close of the applicable filing period and prohibit a candidate from revising, supplementing, or otherwise modifying a candidate statement after the filing deadline. Allow a candidate to withdraw the candidate statement until 5 p.m. on the next working day after the submission deadline.
9. Require a candidate statement to be accompanied by a declaration, attested to and signed by the candidate, stating the statement submitted is true and correct.
10. Permit any registered voter to seek appropriate judicial relief to enforce the requirements of this bill, as follows:
    1. For the state VIG, during the 20-day public examination period, a voter may seek a writ of mandate or an injunction requiring that some or all of the material in the candidate statement be amended or deleted. Provide the writ or injunction shall be issued only upon clear and convincing proof that the material in question is false, misleading, or inconsistent with this bill and that issuance of the writ or injunction will not substantially interfere with the printing and distribution of official election materials.
    2. For a local VIG, during the 10-day public examination period, the elections official or any voter in the jurisdiction where the election will be held may seek a writ of mandate or an injunction requiring any or all of the material in the candidate statement to be amended or deleted. Provide that the writ or injunction shall be issued only upon clear and convincing proof that the material in question is false, misleading, or inconsistent with this bill and that issuance of the writ or injunction will not substantially interfere with the printing and distribution of official election materials.
11. Require a court to give priority to actions brought to enforce the requirements of this bill due to the time-sensitive nature of the preparation and distribution of election materials.
12. Provide that the Secretary of State (SOS) or a county elections official shall not be liable for taking or failing to take the actions described in this bill.
13. Add a severability clause.

COMMENTS

As approved by the Assembly, this bill would have made clarifying changes to the content of the condensed ballot title and summary for a state referendum measure and update the summaries of the meanings of a "yes" and a "no" vote on a statewide referendum that are printed in the state VIG. Subsequent to the Assembly's approval, this bill was amended in the Senate to delete the Assembly-approved provisions and to add the current provisions. The provisions added in the Senate have not been heard in a policy committee in the Assembly during this legislative session.

According to the Author

"AB 1853 comes in response to a candidate statement that appeared in the June 2026 official state voter information guide that contained no information about the candidate's education and qualifications; instead, it used the voter guide as a platform to share hateful and antisemitic rhetoric and links to external inappropriate content. AB 1853 strengthens standards governing candidate statements that appear in official state and county voter guides by establishing clear, enforceable standards requiring that candidate statements remain factual, relevant, and appropriate for an official state publication while respecting constitutional free speech protections."

Arguments in Support

In support of a prior version of this bill, a coalition of organizations, wrote, "Earlier this year, California's Official Voter Information Guide for the June 2026 Primary was mailed to 23 million registered voters. Tucked inside that state-issued document was a candidate statement containing antisemitic conspiracy theories, white nationalist rhetoric, and links to websites filled with racist, homophobic, and other hateful content. It appeared under the seal of the State of California, indistinguishable in presentation from every legitimate statement that surrounded it.

"This occurred at a moment when hate targeting vulnerable communities is surging across California and the country…The candidate statement in question made no distinction: it targeted Jewish people, people of color, LGBTQ+ Californians, and others in a single document. It is, in that sense, a vivid illustration of how hate operates – it does not confine itself to a single target, and it spreads when left unchecked. When content of this kind is distributed under the authority of the State of California to 23 million households, it carries with it an implicit imprimatur of the state itself. That is dangerous. It lends legitimacy to hateful ideas and risks amplifying their reach in ways that have real consequences for real communities.

"AB 1853 responds directly to this problem. The bill limits candidate statements in official state and county voter guides to information about a candidate's own education, professional experience, public service, community involvement, and qualifications for office. It bars attacks on individuals or groups, links to external content, false or misleading claims, and hateful or discriminatory content – and it gives the Secretary of State and county elections officials clear authority to reject noncompliant statements. Any registered voter may seek judicial enforcement of these standards."

Arguments in Opposition

With an oppose unless amended position to a prior version of this bill, the Peace and Freedom Party of California, wrote, "The bill in its June 22nd version appears to ban two types of content that many candidates include in their statements that are clearly not profane, violent, untrue or misleading. One is all links to websites, and the other is candidates positions on political issues of the day and plans for what they would do if elected.

"Candidates running on slates or with the support of their party should be able to include links to the websites of the slates on which they are running and of their parties (when not running for nonpartisan office). Any restriction on including links must allow such links, in addition to the candidates' campaign websites included as contact information. Alternatively, all voter information guides should be required to provide contact with candidate statements, and that contact information should be allowed to include links to slate websites, party websites (other than for non-partisan offices), and official campaign websites.

"Most candidate statements include some of the candidates positions on political issues, especially those relevant to the office for which they are running, and their plans for what they would do if elected. Though this is arguably related to the candidates' qualifications for the office sought, it is not clearly so and may be excluded as 'unrelated' if election officials are narrowing what is allowed in statements. The language should be clarified to clearly allow such positions and plans, perhaps just qualifying 'qualifications' using the phrase based on a court decision, 'including viewpoints, ideas, or ideology,' so long as they don't violate other restrictions, in candidate statements."

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

1. This bill would not result in a fiscal impact to the SOS.
2. By imposing specified duties on local elections officials, this bill creates a state-mandated local program. To the extent the Commission on State Mandates determines that the provisions of this bill create a new program or impose a higher level of service on local agencies, local agencies could claim reimbursement of those costs. The magnitude is unknown, but could exceed $50,000 per year (General Fund).
3. This bill could result in potentially significant cost pressures to the courts; the magnitude is unknown (Trial Court Trust Fund (TCTF)). The specific number of new actions that could be filed under the bill also is unknown; however, it generally costs about $10,500 per day to operate a courtroom. Courts are not funded on the basis of workload, and increased pressure on TCTF may create a need for increased funding for courts from the General Fund. The enacted 2026-27 budget includes $70 million in ongoing support from the General Fund to continue to backfill TCTF for revenue declines.

VOTES:

ASM ELECTIONS: 8-0-0

YES: Pellerin, Gallagher, Addis, Berman, Elhawary, Johnson, Solache, Stefani

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 64-0-16

YES: Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Bains, Berman, Boerner, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Fong, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Mark González, Hadwick, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Johnson, Krell, Lackey, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Rivas

ABS, ABST OR NV: Addis, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Bonta, Bryan, Flora, Gallagher, Jeff Gonzalez, Haney, Kalra, Ortega, Celeste Rodriguez, Schultz, Zbur

UPDATED

VERSION: August 21, 2026

CONSULTANT: Nichole Becker / ELECTIONS / (916) 319-2094 FN: 0004180

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 1853

Author: Pellerin (D) and Berman (D), et al.

Amended: 8/20/26 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE ELECTIONS & C.A. COMMITTEE: 3-1, 6/16/26

AYES: Wiener, Allen, Cervantes

NOES: Choi

NO VOTE RECORDED: Umberg

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 11-0, 6/30/26

AYES: Umberg, Allen, Ashby, Caballero, Durazo, Laird, Reyes, Stern, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NO VOTE RECORDED: Niello, Valladares

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-0, 8/13/26

AYES: Cervantes, Cabaldon, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab

NO VOTE RECORDED: Seyarto, Dahle

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 64-0, 4/9/26 (Consent) - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Voter information guide: candidate statements

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill limits what a candidate can include in their statement in the voter information guide.

Senate Floor Amendments of 8/20/26 allow a candidate statement to include a link to the candidate’s campaign website published in the voter information guide (VIG).

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Requires the Secretary of State (SOS) to mail a state VIG to all households in which voters are registered prior to each statewide election, except as specified. The guide must contain information including, among other items, candidate statements.
2. Allows any candidate for statewide elective office, the State Senate, or the State Assembly, who accepts voluntary campaign expenditure limits, to purchase space to place a candidate statement in the VIG that does not exceed 250 words. The statement may not refer to an opponent of the candidate. Statewide candidates’ statements are published in the state VIG and those of legislative candidates in the relevant county VIGs.
3. Requires the SOS, at least 20 days prior to submitting the state VIG to the printer, to make the state VIG available for public examination. Any person eligible to vote may seek a writ of mandate or an injunction requiring any or all of the material in the candidate statement to be amended or deleted. The writ or injunction issues only upon clear and convincing proof that the material in question is false, misleading, or inconsistent with the requirements of state law and that issuance of the writ or injunction will not substantially interfere with the printing and distributing of official election materials.
4. Requires a county elections official to mail a county VIG to each voter in the jurisdiction prior to each election, except as specified. The county VIG must contain, among other things, candidate statements.
5. Allows candidates for local nonpartisan elective offices to submit a candidate’s statement to appear in the county VIG guide provided. The statement:
   1. May include the candidate’s name, age, and occupation, along with a brief description of 200 words (or up to 400 words if the local agency raises the cap) of their education and qualifications;
   2. May not include the party affiliation of the candidate, or membership or activity in any partisan political organizations; and
   3. May not in any way refer to other candidates for that office or any other candidate’s qualifications, character, or activities. A county elections official may refuse to print a candidate statement that refers to another candidate.
6. Requires the local elections official to make each candidate statement available for public review for 10 days during which time the elections official or any voter in the jurisdiction where the election will be held may seek a writ of mandate or an injunction requiring any or all of the material in the candidate statement to be amended or deleted. The writ or injunction shall issue only upon clear and convincing proof that the material in question is false, misleading or inconsistent with 5) above and that issuance of the writ or injunction will not substantially interfere with the printing and distributing official election materials.

This bill:

1. States the intent of the Legislature to establish clear, enforceable standards to ensure that the candidate statements in a VIG remain factual, relevant, and appropriate for an official state publication, while respecting the constitutional right to free speech.
2. Specifies that a candidate statement included in either the state VIG or a county VIG must be limited to a recitation of the candidate’s own:
   1. Education;
   2. Professional experience;
   3. Public service;
   4. Community Involvement; and
   5. Qualifications for the office sought.
3. Prohibits a candidate statement from including:
   1. References to other candidates;
   2. Any reference directing voters to external content, such as a link to an internet website with the exception of the candidate’s campaign website;
   3. Content that is profane or vulgar, or that incites violence;
   4. Content unrelated to the candidate’s qualifications for office; and
   5. False statements or misleading claims.
4. Directs the SOS and county election officials, after the filing deadline, to omit from the VIG any portion of a candidate statement the SOS or elections official deems to not comply with a) through d), but not e), of 3) of this bill. The remainder of the candidate statement must be included if it can stand alone and does not mislead voters. If that is not possible, the entire candidate statement may be omitted from the VIG.
5. Makes any fee paid by a candidate for the printing or inclusion of the candidate’s statement in a VIG nonrefundable, if any portion of the statement is printed in the VIG, and deems payment of the fee as acknowledgement and acceptance of the requirements of this bill. If a candidate statement is entirely omitted from the VIG, then the SOS or elections official shall refund the fee.
6. Requires the SOS or local elections official to make reasonable efforts to notify a candidate of the omission of content and to allow a candidate, once notified, to revise the statement to comply with the requirements of this bill. The candidate may make revisions up until the filing deadline at which time the candidate statement will be deemed final. A candidate may, however, withdraw their statement until 5 PM on the next working day after the submission deadline.
7. Precludes the notification of candidates in 6) of this bill from delaying the printing or distribution of the VIG.
8. Requires a declaration that the candidate statement is true and correct, attested to and signed by the candidate, to accompany a submitted candidate statement.
9. Allows any registered voter to seek judicial relief to enforce the bill’s provisions, as follows:
   1. For the state VIG, during the 20-day public examination period, a voter may seek a writ of mandate or an injunction requiring that some or all of the material in the candidate statement be amended or deleted. The writ or injunction shall issue only upon clear and convincing proof that the material in question is false, misleading or inconsistent with this bill and that issuance of the writ or injunction will not substantially interfere with the printing and distributing official election materials.
   2. For a local VIG, during the 10-day public examination period, the elections official or any voter in the jurisdiction where the election will be held may seek a writ of mandate or an injunction requiring any or all of the material in the candidate statement to be amended or deleted. The writ or injunction shall issue only upon clear and convincing proof that the material in question is false, misleading or inconsistent with this bill and that issuance of the writ or injunction will not substantially interfere with the printing and distributing official election materials.
   3. A court must give priority to actions brought to enforce the bill’s provisions due to the time-sensitive nature of the preparation and distribution of the VIG.
10. Absolves the SOS and local election officials from liability for taking or failing to take the actions described in this bill.
11. Makes its provisions severable.

Background

Voter Information Guides. Proposition 9, which appeared on the June 1974 ballot, created the California Political Reform Act (PRA) and established California’s campaign finance and disclosure laws for state and local campaigns, candidates, officeholders, and ballot measures. Proposition 9 created the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) to implement, administer, and enforce the PRA.

Proposition 9 included provisions similar to existing law at that time requiring the preparation of a state ballot pamphlet, now called the state VIG. It also included a public examination process for the state ballot pamphlet similar to the one in existing law today for the VIG.

State law provides for election officials to prepare VIGs and to distribute them prior to an election to each household with registered voters. VIGs are mailed, unless a voter opts to receive it electronically. For statewide elections, the SOS prepares and distributes the state VIG. County election officials prepare and distribute each county’s VIG, which are tailored to each voter based on the contests that will appear on the voter’s ballot.

Comments

Author’s Statement. This bill comes in response to a candidate statement that appeared in the June 2026 Official State Voter Information Guide that contained no information about the candidate’s education and qualifications; instead, it used the voter guide as a platform to share hateful and antisemitic rhetoric and links to external inappropriate content. This bill strengthens standards governing candidate statements that appear in official state and county voter guides by establishing clear, enforceable standards requiring that candidate statements remain factual, relevant, and appropriate for an official state publication while respecting constitutional free speech protections.

History of One Candidate’s VIG Submissions. The candidate the author references in comment 1) has had candidate statements in half a dozen California state VIGs dating back to the 2010 statewide primary election. None of which have provided information about this candidate’s qualifications, have often provided links to websites, and certainly violate the provisions of this bill in terms of profane and misleading content. The past two times the candidate has appeared in the VIG, 2024 and 2026, the SOS included a disclaimer that the views expressed are the candidate’s and not those of the SOS.

All VIGs containing the candidate’s statements have been subject to the 20-day public examination period during which any person eligible to vote may ask a court to amend or delete a candidate statement upon clear and convincing proof that the statement is false, misleading, or inconsistent with the requirements of state law. The SOS reports that during the 20-day public examination period this year no challenge to the statement occurred.

Other candidates’ statements in the state VIGs over the years have violated the requirements of this bill in many ways. These include comments extraneous to the person’s qualifications, links to websites, and profanity.

One Set of Rules. Existing law restricts what candidates for local office may include in their candidate statements for candidates for local office, while the only limit it places on statewide, federal, and State Senate and Assembly candidate statements is that they not refer to any opposing candidate. Local election officials have express authority to reject a noncompliant statement submitted for a local office, but the only avenue for the rejection of other candidates’ statements is to seek injunctive relief from a court. This bill creates a uniform set of guidelines and restrictions for candidates’ statements for all state and local offices, provides the SOS and local election officials with the same authority to reject some or all of a statement that violates its provisions, and prescribes the same judicial process to challenge a candidate statement whether it appears in the state VIG or a local VIG.

Related/Prior Legislation

SB 409 (Newman) of 2023 would have created an SOS county pilot program that would allow a candidate to include in the VIG a QR code link to a video statement. The bill also would have required, subject to the Americans with Disabilities Act, a candidate who is submitting a statement for a VIG to physically write the statement without reference to any outside materials at specified locations. The bill died on the Assembly Committee on Appropriations’ suspense file.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

According to the Senate Committee on Appropriations:

• This bill would not result in a fiscal impact to the SOS.
• By imposing specified duties on local elections officials, this bill creates a state-mandated local program. To the extent the Commission on State Mandates determines that the provisions of this bill create a new program or impose a higher level of service on local agencies, local agencies could claim reimbursement of those costs. The magnitude is unknown, but could exceed $50,000 per year (General Fund).
• This bill could result in potentially significant cost pressures to the courts; the magnitude is unknown (Trial Court Trust Fund (TCTF)). The specific number of new actions that could be filed under the bill also is unknown; however, it generally costs about $10,500 per day to operate a courtroom. Courts are not funded on the basis of workload, and increased pressure on TCTF may create a need for increased funding for courts from the General Fund. The enacted 2026-27 budget includes $70 million in ongoing support from the General Fund to continue to backfill TCTF for revenue declines.

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/20/26)

30 Years After
Adat Shalom – West Los Angeles
ADL
Agudath Israel of California
AJC - Los Angeles
AJC - San Diego
AJC Northern California
Bay Area Jewish Coalition Education and Advocacy
Beverly Hills Synagogue
Board of Rabbis of Southern California
California Jewish Democrats
California Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism
Contra Costa Jewish Democrats
Democrats for Israel – Los Angeles
JCC-Federation of San Luis Obispo
JCRC Bay Area
JCRC, Jewish Long Beach

JCRC Santa Barbara County
Jewish California (formerly JPAC)
Jewish Center for Justice
Jewish Community Action Network
Jewish Community Relations Council of Sacramento

Jewish Family and Children’s Center of San Francisco, the Peninsula, Marin and Sonoma Counties

Jewish Family Service LA
Jewish Family Services of Silicon Valley
Jewish Federation Bay Area
Jewish Federation of Greater Santa Barbara
Jewish Federation of Orange County
Jewish Federation of Palm Springs & the Desert
Jewish Federation of San Diego
Jewish Federation of the Greater San Gabriel and Pomona Valleys
Jewish Federation of the Sacramento Region
Jewish Federation of Ventura County
Jewish Free Loan Association
Jewish Partisan Educational Foundation
Jewish Silicon Valley
Jewish War Veterans of the USA, Department of California
JFCS East Bay
JFCS Long Beach and Orange County
Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office

Mosaic Law Congregation
Northern California Council of Jewish Democratic Clubs
Northern California Jewish Labor Committee
Oakland Jewish Alliance
Simon Wiesenthal Center, INC.
StandWithUs
Tam Union Together
Valley Beth Shalom
Young Israel of Century City

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/20/26)

Peace and Freedom Party of California

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: A large coalition of Jewish organizations write in support of the bill because it ensures that hate speech, antisemitism, and targeted attacks against any community have no place in California’s official VIGs. They specifically note that, in this time when hate targeting vulnerable communities is surging, that content distributed under the authority of the State of California to 23 million households should not spread hateful ideas or amplify their reach in ways that have real consequences for real communities. These organizations support this bill because “the official publications California sends into millions of homes [should] inform voters and strengthen democracy rather than undermine it.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The Peace and Freedom Party, which opposes this bill unless it is amended, submitted a letter stating the bill appears to ban two types of content many candidates include in their statements that are clearly not profane, hateful, untrue or misleading. One is all links to websites; the other is candidates’ positions on political issues of the day and plans for what they would do if elected. The Peace and Freedom Party notes specifically that candidates who are running on a slate or with party support should be allowed to include links to those slate or party websites. Further, the party notes most candidate statements include some of the candidates’ positions on political issues and how the candidate proposes to address those if elected. While this content is arguably related to the candidates' qualifications, it is not clearly so and may be excluded as “unrelated” if election officials are narrowing what is allowed in statements. The party states, “The language should be clarified to clearly allow such positions and plans, so long as they don't violate other restrictions, in candidate statements.”

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 64-0, 4/9/26

AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Bains, Berman, Boerner, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Fong, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Mark González, Hadwick, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Johnson, Krell, Lackey, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Addis, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Bonta, Bryan, Flora, Gallagher, Jeff Gonzalez, Haney, Kalra, Ortega, Celeste Rodriguez, Schultz, Zbur

Prepared by: Carrie Cornwell / E. & C.A. / (916) 651-4106

8/24/26 11:56:39

**** END ****

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 1853

Author: Pellerin (D) and Berman (D), et al.

Amended: 8/13/26 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE ELECTIONS & C.A. COMMITTEE: 3-1, 6/16/26

AYES: Wiener, Allen, Cervantes

NOES: Choi

NO VOTE RECORDED: Umberg

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 11-0, 6/30/26

AYES: Umberg, Allen, Ashby, Caballero, Durazo, Laird, Reyes, Stern, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NO VOTE RECORDED: Niello, Valladares

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-0, 8/13/26

AYES: Cervantes, Cabaldon, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab

NO VOTE RECORDED: Seyarto, Dahle

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 64-0, 4/9/26 (Consent) - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Voter information guide: candidate statements

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill limits what a candidate can include in their statement in the voter information guide (VIG).

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Requires the Secretary of State (SOS) to mail a state VIG to all households in which voters are registered prior to each statewide election, except as specified. The guide must contain information including, among other items, candidate statements.
2. Allows any candidate for statewide elective office, the State Senate, or the State Assembly, who accepts voluntary campaign expenditure limits, to purchase space to place a candidate statement in the VIG that does not exceed 250 words. The statement may not refer to an opponent of the candidate. Statewide candidates’ statements are published in the state VIG and those of legislative candidates in the relevant county VIGs.
3. Requires the SOS, at least 20 days prior to submitting the state VIG to the printer, to make the state VIG available for public examination. Any person eligible to vote may seek a writ of mandate or an injunction requiring any or all of the material in the candidate statement to be amended or deleted. The writ or injunction issues only upon clear and convincing proof that the material in question is false, misleading, or inconsistent with the requirements of state law and that issuance of the writ or injunction will not substantially interfere with the printing and distributing of official election materials.
4. Requires a county elections official to mail a county VIG to each voter in the jurisdiction prior to each election, except as specified. The county VIG must contain, among other things, candidate statements.
5. Allows candidates for local nonpartisan elective offices to submit a candidate’s statement to appear in the county VIG guide provided. The statement:
   1. May include the candidate’s name, age, and occupation, along with a brief description of 200 words (or up to 400 words if the local agency raises the cap) of their education and qualifications;
   2. May not include the party affiliation of the candidate, or membership or activity in any partisan political organizations; and
   3. May not in any way refer to other candidates for that office or any other candidate’s qualifications, character, or activities. A county elections official may refuse to print a candidate statement that refers to another candidate.
6. Requires the local elections official to make each candidate statement available for public review for 10 days during which time the elections official or any voter in the jurisdiction where the election will be held may seek a writ of mandate or an injunction requiring any or all of the material in the candidate statement to be amended or deleted. The writ or injunction shall issue only upon clear and convincing proof that the material in question is false, misleading or inconsistent with 5) above and that issuance of the writ or injunction will not substantially interfere with the printing and distributing official election materials.

This bill:

1. States the intent of the Legislature to establish clear, enforceable standards to ensure that the candidate statements in a VIG remain factual, relevant, and appropriate for an official state publication, while respecting the constitutional right to free speech.
2. Specifies that a candidate statement included in either the state VIG or a county VIG must be limited to a recitation of the candidate’s own:
   1. Education;
   2. Professional experience;
   3. Public service;
   4. Community Involvement; and
   5. Qualifications for the office sought.
3. Prohibits a candidate statement from including:
   1. References to other candidates;
   2. Any reference, such as a link to an internet website, directing voters to external content;
   3. Content that is profane or vulgar, or that incites violence;
   4. Content unrelated to the candidate’s qualifications for office; and
   5. False statements or misleading claims.
4. Directs the SOS and county election officials, after the filing deadline, to omit from the VIG any portion of a candidate statement the SOS or elections official deems to not comply with a) through d), but not e), of 3) of this bill. The remainder of the candidate statement must be included if it can stand alone and does not mislead voters. If that is not possible, the entire candidate statement may be omitted from the VIG.
5. Makes any fee paid by a candidate for the printing or inclusion of the candidate’s statement in a VIG nonrefundable, if any portion of the statement is printed in the VIG, and deems payment of the fee as acknowledgement and acceptance of the requirements of this bill. If a candidate statement is entirely omitted from the VIG, then the SOS or elections official shall refund the fee.
6. Requires the SOS or local elections official to make reasonable efforts to notify a candidate of the omission of content and to allow a candidate, once notified, to revise the statement to comply with the requirements of this bill. The candidate may make revisions up until the filing deadline at which time the candidate statement will be deemed final. A candidate may, however, withdraw their statement until 5 PM on the next working day after the submission deadline.
7. Precludes the notification of candidates in 6) of this bill from delaying the printing or distribution of the VIG.
8. Requires a declaration that the candidate statement is true and correct, attested to and signed by the candidate, to accompany a submitted candidate statement.
9. Allows any registered voter to seek judicial relief to enforce the bill’s provisions, as follows:
   1. For the state VIG, during the 20-day public examination period, a voter may seek a writ of mandate or an injunction requiring that some or all of the material in the candidate statement be amended or deleted. The writ or injunction shall issue only upon clear and convincing proof that the material in question is false, misleading or inconsistent with this bill and that issuance of the writ or injunction will not substantially interfere with the printing and distributing official election materials.
   2. For a local VIG, during the 10-day public examination period, the elections official or any voter in the jurisdiction where the election will be held may seek a writ of mandate or an injunction requiring any or all of the material in the candidate statement to be amended or deleted. The writ or injunction shall issue only upon clear and convincing proof that the material in question is false, misleading or inconsistent with this bill and that issuance of the writ or injunction will not substantially interfere with the printing and distributing official election materials.
   3. A court must give priority to actions brought to enforce the bill’s provisions due to the time-sensitive nature of the preparation and distribution of the VIG.
10. Absolves the SOS and local election officials from liability for taking or failing to take the actions described in this bill.
11. Makes its provisions severable.

Background

Voter Information Guides. Proposition 9, which appeared on the June 1974 ballot, created the California Political Reform Act (PRA) and established California’s campaign finance and disclosure laws for state and local campaigns, candidates, officeholders, and ballot measures. Proposition 9 created the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) to implement, administer, and enforce the PRA.

Proposition 9 included provisions similar to existing law at that time requiring the preparation of a state ballot pamphlet, now called the state VIG. It also included a public examination process for the state ballot pamphlet similar to the one in existing law today for the VIG.

State law provides for election officials to prepare VIGs and to distribute them prior to an election to each household with registered voters. VIGs are mailed, unless a voter opts to receive it electronically. For statewide elections, the SOS prepares and distributes the state VIG. County election officials prepare and distribute each county’s VIG, which are tailored to each voter based on the contests that will appear on the voter’s ballot.

Comments

1. Author’s Statement. This bill comes in response to a candidate statement that appeared in the June 2026 Official State Voter Information Guide that contained no information about the candidate’s education and qualifications; instead, it used the voter guide as a platform to share hateful and antisemitic rhetoric and links to external inappropriate content. This bill strengthens standards governing candidate statements that appear in official state and county voter guides by establishing clear, enforceable standards requiring that candidate statements remain factual, relevant, and appropriate for an official state publication while respecting constitutional free speech protections.
2. History of One Candidate’s VIG Submissions. The candidate the author references in comment 1) has had candidate statements in half a dozen California state VIGs dating back to the 2010 statewide primary election. None of which have provided information about this candidate’s qualifications, have often provided links to websites, and certainly violate the provisions of this bill in terms of profane and misleading content. The past two times the candidate has appeared in the VIG, 2024 and 2026, the SOS included a disclaimer that the views expressed are the candidate’s and not those of the SOS.

All VIGs containing the candidate’s statements have been subject to the 20-day public examination period during which any person eligible to vote may ask a court to amend or delete a candidate statement upon clear and convincing proof that the statement is false, misleading, or inconsistent with the requirements of state law. The SOS reports that during the 20-day public examination period this year no challenge to the statement occurred.

Other candidates’ statements in the state VIGs over the years have violated the requirements of this bill in many ways. These include comments extraneous to the person’s qualifications, links to websites, and profanity.

1. One Set of Rules. Existing law restricts what candidates for local office may include in their candidate statements for candidates for local office, while the only limit it places on statewide, federal, and State Senate and Assembly candidate statements is that they not refer to any opposing candidate. Local election officials have express authority to reject a noncompliant statement submitted for a local office, but the only avenue for the rejection of other candidates’ statements is to seek injunctive relief from a court. This bill creates a uniform set of guidelines and restrictions for candidates’ statements for all state and local offices, provides the SOS and local election officials with the same authority to reject some or all of a statement that violates its provisions, and prescribes the same judicial process to challenge a candidate statement whether it appears in the state VIG or a local VIG.

Related/Prior Legislation

SB 409 (Newman) of 2023 would have created an SOS county pilot program that would allow a candidate to include in the VIG a QR code link to a video statement. The bill also would have required, subject to the Americans with Disabilities Act, a candidate who is submitting a statement for a VIG to physically write the statement without reference to any outside materials at specified locations. SB 409 bill died on the Assembly Committee on Appropriations’ suspense file.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

According to the Senate Committee on Appropriations:

• This bill would not result in a fiscal impact to the SOS.
• By imposing specified duties on local elections officials, this bill creates a state-mandated local program. To the extent the Commission on State Mandates determines that the provisions of this bill create a new program or impose a higher level of service on local agencies, local agencies could claim reimbursement of those costs. The magnitude is unknown, but could exceed $50,000 per year (General Fund).
• This bill could result in potentially significant cost pressures to the courts; the magnitude is unknown (Trial Court Trust Fund (TCTF)). The specific number of new actions that could be filed under the bill also is unknown; however, it generally costs about $10,500 per day to operate a courtroom. Courts are not funded on the basis of workload, and increased pressure on TCTF may create a need for increased funding for courts from the General Fund. The enacted 2026-27 budget includes $70 million in ongoing support from the General Fund to continue to backfill TCTF for revenue declines.

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/13/26)

30 Years After
Adat Shalom – West Los Angeles
ADL
Agudath Israel of California
AJC - Los Angeles
AJC - San Diego
AJC Northern California
Bay Area Jewish Coalition Education and Advocacy
Beverly Hills Synagogue
Board of Rabbis of Southern California
California Jewish Democrats
California Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism
Contra Costa Jewish Democrats
Democrats for Israel – Los Angeles
JCC-Federation of San Luis Obispo
JCRC Bay Area
JCRC, Jewish Long Beach

JCRC Santa Barbara County
Jewish California (formerly JPAC)
Jewish Center for Justice
Jewish Community Action Network
Jewish Community Relations Council of Sacramento

Jewish Family and Children’s Center of San Francisco, the Peninsula, Marin and Sonoma Counties

Jewish Family Service LA
Jewish Family Services of Silicon Valley
Jewish Federation Bay Area
Jewish Federation of Greater Santa Barbara
Jewish Federation of Orange County
Jewish Federation of Palm Springs & the Desert
Jewish Federation of San Diego
Jewish Federation of the Greater San Gabriel and Pomona Valleys
Jewish Federation of the Sacramento Region
Jewish Federation of Ventura County
Jewish Free Loan Association
Jewish Partisan Educational Foundation
Jewish Silicon Valley
Jewish War Veterans of the USA, Department of California
JFCS East Bay
JFCS Long Beach and Orange County
Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office

Mosaic Law Congregation
Northern California Council of Jewish Democratic Clubs
Northern California Jewish Labor Committee
Oakland Jewish Alliance
Simon Wiesenthal Center, INC.
StandWithUs
Tam Union Together
Valley Beth Shalom
Young Israel of Century City

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/13/26)

Peace and Freedom Party of California

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:

A large coalition of Jewish organizations write in support of the bill because it ensures that hate speech, antisemitism, and targeted attacks against any community have no place in California’s official VIGs. They specifically note that, in this time when hate targeting vulnerable communities is surging, that content distributed under the authority of the State of California to 23 million households should not spread hateful ideas or amplify their reach in ways that have real consequences for real communities. These organizations support this bill because “the official publications California sends into millions of homes [should] inform voters and strengthen democracy rather than undermine it.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION:

The Peace and Freedom Party, which opposes this bill unless it is amended, submitted a letter stating the bill appears to ban two types of content many candidates include in their statements that are clearly not profane, hateful, untrue or misleading. One is all links to websites; the other is candidates’ positions on political issues of the day and plans for what they would do if elected.

The Peace and Freedom Party notes specifically that candidates who are running on a slate or with party support should be allowed to include links to those slate or party websites. Further, the party notes most candidate statements include some of the candidates’ positions on political issues and how the candidate proposes to address those if elected. While this content is arguably related to the candidates' qualifications, it is not clearly so and may be excluded as “unrelated” if election officials are narrowing what is allowed in statements. The party states, “The language should be clarified to clearly allow such positions and plans, so long as they don't violate other restrictions, in candidate statements.”

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 64-0, 4/9/26

AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Bains, Berman, Boerner, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Fong, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Mark González, Hadwick, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Johnson, Krell, Lackey, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Addis, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Bonta, Bryan, Flora, Gallagher, Jeff Gonzalez, Haney, Kalra, Ortega, Celeste Rodriguez, Schultz, Zbur

Prepared by: Carrie Cornwell / E. & C.A. / (916) 651-4106

8/17/26 10:42:56

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Sabrina Cervantes, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

AB 1853 (Pellerin) - Voter information guide: candidate statements

Bill Summary:

AB 1853 would (1) establish uniform content rules for what may be included in a candidate statement in a statewide or local voter information guide (VIG), and (2) establish how a noncompliant statement may be kept out of a VIG.

*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********

The following information is revised to reflect amendments

adopted by the committee on August 13, 2026

Fiscal Impact:

• This bill would not result in a fiscal impact to the Secretary of State (SOS).
• By imposing specified duties on local elections officials, this bill creates a state-mandated local program. To the extent the Commission on State Mandates determines that the provisions of this bill create a new program or impose a higher level of service on local agencies, local agencies could claim reimbursement of those costs. The magnitude is unknown, but could exceed $50,000 per year (General Fund).
• This bill could result in potentially significant cost pressures to the courts; the magnitude is unknown (Trial Court Trust Fund (TCTF)). The specific number of new actions that could be filed under the bill also is unknown; however, it generally costs about $10,500 per day to operate a courtroom. Courts are not funded on the basis of workload, and increased pressure on TCTF may create a need for increased funding for courts from the General Fund. The enacted 2026-27 budget includes $70 million in ongoing support from the General Fund to continue to backfill TCTF for revenue declines.

Author Amendments:

Remove the urgency clause, make clarifying changes and require a candidate to submit a declaration with the candidate statement that attests that the statement is true and correct.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Sabrina Cervantes, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

AB 1853 (Pellerin) - Voter information guide: candidate statements

Bill Summary:

AB 1853 would (1) establish uniform content rules for what may be included in a candidate statement in a statewide or local voter information guide (VIG), and (2) establish how a noncompliant statement may be kept out of a VIG.

Fiscal Impact:

• This bill would not result in a fiscal impact to the Secretary of State (SOS).
• By imposing specified duties on local elections officials, this bill creates a state-mandated local program. To the extent the Commission on State Mandates determines that the provisions of this bill create a new program or impose a higher level of service on local agencies, local agencies could claim reimbursement of those costs. The magnitude is unknown, but could exceed $50,000 per year (General Fund).
• This bill could result in potentially significant cost pressures to the courts; the magnitude is unknown (Trial Court Trust Fund (TCTF)). The specific number of new actions that could be filed under the bill also is unknown; however, it generally costs about $10,500 per day to operate a courtroom. Courts are not funded on the basis of workload, and increased pressure on TCTF may create a need for increased funding for courts from the General Fund. The enacted 2026-27 budget includes $70 million in ongoing support from the General Fund to continue to backfill TCTF for revenue declines.

Background:

Current law requires SOS and local elections officials to prepare VIGs for each election that include specified election information, ballot measures and contests, and candidate statements where authorized. While candidate statements for local offices are subject to detailed statutory content restrictions and may be rejected administratively if they do not comply with those requirements, candidate statements for statewide, federal, and legislative offices are subject to few statutory limitations. As a result, elections officials generally lack explicit authority to reject noncompliant statewide candidate statements absent court intervention.

This issue was highlighted during the June 2, 2026, statewide primary election, when a gubernatorial candidate used the official candidate statement to publish inflammatory and antisemitic content, including references to conspiracy websites. According to reports, SOS concluded that existing law did not provide clear authority to reject the statement prior to publication.

Proposed Law:

This bill, among other things, would do the following:

• Limit a candidate statement to a recitation of the candidate’s own education, professional experience, public service, community involvement, and qualifications.
• Prohibit a candidate statement from including, (1) a link or other reference to external content, (2) content that is vulgar or profane, or that threatens or incites violence, (3) false statements or misleading claims, or (4) any other content that is unrelated to the candidate’s qualifications.
• Require SOS and county elections officials to omit from the VIG any portion of a candidate statement that does not comply with the bill, except false statements and misleading claims, and it would require them to print the remainder of the statement if it can stand independently and does not mislead voters.
• Make a fee paid by a candidate for the printing or inclusion of a candidate statement nonrefundable if any part of the statement is printed in the VIG, but the fee would be refunded if the statement is omitted.
• Allow any registered voter to seek a writ of mandate or an injunction requiring any or all of the material in a candidate statement in the state or a county voter information guide to be amended or deleted, as specified. This bill would require that, as in current law, the writ of mandate or an injunction only be issued upon clear and convincing proof that the material in question is false, misleading, or inconsistent with the requirements of the bill, and that issuance of the writ or injunction will not substantially interfere with the printing or distribution of official election materials as provided by law. This bill would additionally allow a county elections official to bring such an action for a writ or injunction challenging a candidate statement in the county voter information guide over which they have jurisdiction.

Related Legislation:

SB 409 (Newman, 2023) would have created an SOS-county pilot program that would allow a candidate to include in the VIG a QR code link to a video statement. This bill also would have required, subject to the Americans with Disabilities Act, a candidate who is submitting a statement for a VIG to physically write the statement without reference to any outside materials at specified locations. The bill was held under submission on the Suspense File of the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

-- END --

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Thomas Umberg, Chair

2025-2026 Regular Session

Bill No: AB 1853 (Author:Pellerin)

Version: June 22, 2026

Hearing Date: June 30, 2026

Fiscal: Yes

Urgency: Yes

Consultant: AWM

SUBJECT

Voter information guide: candidate statements

DIGEST

This bill establishes uniform content rules for what may be included in a candidate statement in a statewide or local voter information guide and establishes how a noncompliant statement may be kept out of a voter information guide.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Current law requires the Secretary of State and local elections officials to prepare voter information guides in advance of every election in the jurisdiction. Voter information guides must contain specified information, including what contests and measures are on the ballot and the dates and times that polls are open; additionally, candidates may purchase space in the voter information guide to place a candidate statement relating to their qualifications for office. Current law places a number of restrictions on candidate statements for candidates for local office, while the only limit on statewide, federal, and State Senate and Assembly candidate statements is that they not refer to any opposing candidate. Local elections officials have express authority to reject a noncompliant statement submitted for a local office, but the only avenue for the rejection of other candidates’ statements is to seek injunctive relief from a court.

In the statewide voter guide for the June 2, 2026, primary election, one gubernatorial candidate used his “candidate statement” space for a stream-of-consciousness antisemitic rant that included several links to conspiracy theorist websites. Reports indicate that the Secretary of State’s office did not believe it had the authority to reject the statement for publication.

This bill is intended to prevent the candidate statement system from being hijacked by bad faith actors who want to use the space to broadcast bigoted tirades. To do so, the bill implements uniform guidelines for what may, and may not, be included in a candidate statement, and permits the Secretary of State or a local elections official to refuse to publish parts, or all, of a candidate statement that they deem to be noncompliant. The bill also clarifies that the existing mechanism for challenging local elections candidate statements is available for candidate statements in all voter guides. The bill includes an urgency clause, so it could take effect before the November 2026 general election. The author has agreed to a number of amendments to avoid potential First Amendment conflicts and to clarify the process through which voters can challenge a candidate statement before it appears in a voter information guide.

This bill is sponsored by the author and is supported by over 50 organizations. The Committee has not received timely opposition to this bill. The Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee passed this bill with a vote of 3-1.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAW

Existing constitutional law:

1. Provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. (U.S. Const., 1st amend. (the First Amendment) & 14th amend.; see Gitlow v. People of State of New York (1925) 268 U.S. 652, 666 (First Amendment guarantees apply to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment).)
2. Provides that every person may freely speak, write, and publish their sentiments on all subjects, and that a law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 2.)

Existing state law:

1. Requires the Secretary of State to prepare a state voter information guide in connection with each statewide election. (Elec. Code, § 9082.)
2. Requires the Secretary of State, if the ballot contains an election for specified offices, to include in the voter information guide candidate statements from candidates for statewide elective office who accept voluntary campaign expenditure limits, or for United States Senate, subject to the following:
   1. The statement may not exceed 250 words.
   2. The statement may not make any reference to any opponent of the candidate. (Elec. Code, §§ 9082, 85601, 88001.)
3. Requires the Secretary of State, not fewer than 20 days before submitting the copy for the state voter information guide to the State Printer, to make the copy available for public examination.
   1. Any person eligible to vote may seek a writ of mandate requiring the copy to be amended or deleted from the voter information guide.
   2. A peremptory writ of mandate shall issue only upon clear and convincing proof that the copy in question is false, misleading, or inconsistent with other requirements in the Elections Code, and that issuance of the writ will not substantially interfere with the printing and distribution of the state voter information guide as required by law.
   3. Provides that the venue for such a writ proceeding shall be exclusively in Sacramento County, and that the Secretary of State shall be named as the respondent and the State Printer and the person or official who authored the copy in question shall be named as real parties in interest; if the proceeding is initiated by the Secretary of State, the State Printer shall be named as the respondent. (Elec. Code, § 9092.)
4. Requires a county elections official to prepare a county voter information guide in connection with each election. (Elec. Code, §§ 13303, 13307.)
5. Provides that each candidate for nonpartisan elective office in any local agency may prepare a candidate’s statement for inclusion in a county voter information guide, as follows:
   1. The statement may be no more than 200 words, unless the governing body of the local agency authorizes an increase on the word limit to 400 words.
   2. The statement may include the name, age, and occupation of the candidate and a brief description of the candidate’s own education and qualifications expressed by the candidate, but may not include the candidate’s party affiliation or activity in partisan political organizations.
   3. The statement may be withdrawn, but not changed, during the period for filing nomination papers and until 5:00 pm of the next working day after the close of the nomination period. (Elec. Code, § 13307.)
6. Provides that any statement submitted pursuant to 5), in addition to the requirements in 5), shall be limited to a recitation of the candidate’s own personal background and qualifications, and shall not in any way refer to other candidates for that office or to another candidate’s qualifications, character, or activities. (Elec. Code, § 13308.)
7. Provides that a county elections official shall not cause to be printed, posted online, or circulated any statement that the elections official determines violates 6). (Elec. Code, § 13308.)
8. Permits a candidate for the United States House of Representatives to purchase the space to place a statement in a county voter information guide that does not exceed 250 words and does not refer to any opponent of the candidate. (Elec. Code, § 13307.5.)
9. Permits a candidate for the State Senate or Assembly who accepts voluntary campaign expenditure limits to purchase space to place a statement in the county voter information guide, provided that the statement does not exceed 250 words and does not refer to any opponent of the candidate. (Elec. Code, § 85601.)
10. Requires an elections official to make a copy of the statements in 5) available for public examination in the elections official’s office for a period of 10 calendar days immediately following the filing deadline for the submission of those documents.
    1. Any voter of the jurisdiction in which the election is being held, or the elections official themselves, may seek a writ of mandate or injunction requiring any or all of the material in the candidate statements to be amended or deleted.
    2. The request shall be filed no later than the end of the 10-day period.
    3. A writ shall issue only upon clear and convincing proof that the material in question is false, misleading, or inconsistent with specified laws, and that issuance of the writ or injunction will not substantially interfere with the printing or distribution of official election materials as provided by law.
    4. The elections official shall be named as the respondent and the candidate who authored the statement in question shall be named as the real party in interest; if the elections official brings the action, the board of supervisors for the county shall be named as the respondent and the candidate who authored the material shall be named as the real party in interest. (Elec. Code, § 13313.)
11. Provides that it is a misdemeanor for a candidate in an election or an incumbent in a recall election to knowingly make a false statement of material fact in a candidate’s statement with intent to mislead the voters in connection with their campaign, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000. (Elec. Code, § 18351.)

This bill:

1. Finds and declares the following:
   1. The voter information guide is an official government publication relied upon by millions of Californians to make informed voting decisions.
   2. Candidate statements of qualifications are intended to provide voters with a concise and accurate description of a candidate’s background, education, experience, and qualifications for office.
   3. The inclusion of misleading, inflammatory, irrelevant, or harmful content in candidate statements undermines voter trust and the integrity of the electoral process.
   4. It is the intent of the Legislature to establish clear, enforceable standards to ensure that candidate statements remain factual, relevant, and appropriate for official state publication, while respecting constitutional protections of free speech.
2. Provides that a candidate’s statement of qualifications included in either the state voter information guide or county voter information guide shall be limited to a recitation of the candidate’s own:
   1. Education.
   2. Professional experience.
   3. Public service.
   4. Community involvement.
   5. Qualifications for office.
3. Prohibits a candidate statement from including any of the following:
   1. References to other candidates for the same office.
   2. Characterizations of other individuals or groups.
   3. A link, URL, QR code, or other reference directing voters to external content.
   4. Content that is profane, vulgar, or that threatens or incites violence.
   5. False statements or misleading claims.
   6. Content unrelated to the candidate’s qualifications for office.
4. Provides that a candidate statement shall be deemed final upon the close of the applicable period, and that a candidate shall not revise, supplement, or otherwise modify a candidate statement after the filing deadline.
5. Provides that if, after the candidate statement filing deadline, it is determined that any portion of a candidate statement does not comply with 2) and 3), the noncompliant portion of the candidate statement shall be omitted from the voter information guide.
   1. The remainder of the candidate statement shall be printed in the voter information guide if it can stand independently and does not mislead voters when the noncompliant portion is removed.
   2. If the candidate statement cannot reasonably be printed without the noncompliant portion, the entire candidate may be omitted from the voter information guide.
6. Provides that any fee paid by a candidate for the printing or inclusion of a candidate statement of qualifications in the state or county voter information guide shall be nonrefundable if the statement or a portion of the statement appears in the voter information guide; but if the statement is wholly omitted, the fee paid by the candidate shall be refunded.
7. Provides that the submission of payment for a candidate statement constitutes acknowledgement and acceptance of the requirements enacted by this measure, including the finality of the candidate statement after the filing deadline and the possibility that noncompliant content will be omitted.
8. Except as provided in 6), a candidate shall not be entitled to a refund, credit, or reimbursement under any circumstances arising from enforcement of the requirements of this section.
9. Requires the elections official to make reasonable attempts to notify a candidate of the omission of content, and allow a candidate, if notified, to revise the statement so that it does not violate the provisions of this measure, provided that the notification process does not delay the printing or distribution of the voter information guide.
10. Provides that the Secretary of State or a county elections official may refuse to print any candidate statement that does not comply with this measure.
11. Permits any registered voter to seek appropriate judicial relief to enforce the requirements of this measure through the existing process for challenging nonpartisan statements in local voter information guides in the 10-day period following the submission deadline for candidate statements.
12. Requires a court to give priority to actions brought to enforce the requirements of this measure due to the time-sensitive nature of the preparation and distribution of election materials.
13. Provides that the Secretary of State or a county elections official shall not be liable for taking or failing to take the actions described in this measure.
14. Includes a severability clause and an urgency clause.

COMMENTS

1. Author’s comment

According to the author:

AB 1853 comes in response to a candidate statement that appeared in the June 2026 Official State Voter Information Guide that contained no information about the candidate’s education and qualifications; instead, it used the voter guide as a platform to share hateful and antisemitic rhetoric and links to external inappropriate content. AB 1853 strengthens standards that appear in official state and county voter guides by establishing clear, enforceable standards requiring that candidate statements remain factual, relevant, and appropriate for an official state publication while respecting constitutional free speech protections.

2. Background on candidate statements in state and county voter information guides

As explained by the Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee’s analysis of this bill:

Proposition 9, which appeared on the June 1974 ballot, created the California Political Reform Act (PRA) and established California’s campaign finance and disclosure laws for state and local campaigns, candidates, officeholders, and ballot measures. Proposition 9 created the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) to implement, administer, and enforce the PRA.

Proposition 9 included provisions similar to existing law at that time requiring the preparation of a state ballot pamphlet, now called the state [voter information guide (VIG)]. It also included a public examination process for the state ballot pamphlet similar to the one in existing law today.

State law provides for election officials to prepare VIGs and to distribute them prior to an election to each household with registered voters. VIGs are mailed, unless a voter opts to receive it electronically. For statewide elections, the SOS prepares and distributes the state VIG. County election officials prepare and distribute each county’s VIG, which are tailored to each voter based on the contests that will appear on the voter’s ballot.

The process for handling a noncompliant candidate statement, somewhat confusingly, varies by statement type. A local elections official is authorized to reject a noncompliant candidate statement for candidates running for nonpartisan offices without approval from the courts.^[1] For other statements appearing in the local voter information guide, the local elections official must publish the proposed statements after the submission window is closed, and voters have 10 days in which to seek a writ of mandate from the courts prohibiting the publication of a statement.^[2] For candidate statements in the statewide voter guide, voters have 20 days in which to seek a writ to stop publication of a noncompliant statement.^[3] In both proceeding types, a petition may be granted only if the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, both (1) that the material in question is false, misleading, or inconsistent with the statutory limitations on what may be included in a candidate statement, and (2) that issuance of the writ or injunction will not substantially interfere with the printing or distribution of official election materials as provided by law.^[4]

3. The existing constitutional framework for candidate statements in a state or local voter guide

The federal and state Constitutions prohibit the government from infringing on the right to speak freely.^[5] In practice, however, that right is not absolute—a number of exceptions and limitations have been recognized by the courts. One such limitation exists when the speech takes place in certain types of government-controlled spaces.

Generally speaking, the United States Supreme Court “recognize[s] three types of government-controlled spaces: traditional public forums, designated public forums, and nonpublic forums.”^[6] “In a traditional public forum—parks, streets, sidewalks, and the like—the government may impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on private speech, but restrictions based on content must satisfy strict scrutiny, and those based on viewpoint are prohibited.”^[7] A designated forum is one which, despite not being traditionally open for speech, the government has elected to open up as a public forum; restrictions on speech are therefore reviewed under the same standards as a public forum.^[8] But, as explained by the Court:

In a nonpublic forum, on the other hand—a space that “is not by tradition or designation a forum for public communication”—the government has much more flexibility to craft rules limiting speech. The government may reserve such a forum “for its intended purposes, communicative or otherwise, as long as the regulation on speech is reasonable and not an effort to suppress expression merely because public officials oppose the speaker’s view.”^[9]

The California Supreme Court has held that candidate statements in a voter information guide published by an elections official is a nonpublic forum.^[10] In that case, a candidate for judicial office challenged the statute requiring a judicial candidate’s statement to be limited to “the candidate’s name, age, occupation, and a brief description of the candidate’s own background and qualifications,” and prohibiting the statement from “refer[ring] to those of the other candidates for the office.”^[11] Despite these statutory limitations, the candidate’s proffered statement made a number of references to his opponent and the opponent’s supposedly problematic decisions.^[12] Rather than reject the statement, the Monterey County Registrar of Voters sought a declaration from the superior court to determine whether the statement violated the statute.^[13] The candidate filed a cross-claim, arguing that the statutory limitations on what may be included in a judicial candidate’s statement violated his right to free speech.^[14]

The Court held that “the Legislature, by creating the statutory ‘candidate’s statement,’ ” had not “intentionally opened a public forum that candidates for judicial office may use for the purpose of attacking their opponents.”^[15] To the contrary, the express statutory restrictions on what may be included in the statement made it clear “that the Legislature did not intend the statutory candidate’s statement to contain any other material.”^[16] Thus, because the Legislature straightforwardly created a forum that was limited as to speakers (the candidates) and topic (the candidates’ own qualifications), the Court analyzed the statute through the nonpublic forum framework, which permits a state to “reserve the forum for its intended purposes, communicative or otherwise, as long as the regulation on speech is reasonable and not an effort to suppress expression merely because public officials oppose the speaker’s view.”^[17]

4. This bill modifies the requirements for a candidate statement in a state or local voter information guide and the process for rejecting or challenging such statements

This bill makes changes to the candidate statement process in response to a wildly antisemitic “candidate statement” that appeared in the June 2, 2026, statewide voter guide. As the author’s comment in Comment 1 of this analysis notes, the statement didn’t even come close to addressing the candidate’s qualifications or background—it was a just long string of barely coherent vitriol and links to websites unrelated to the candidate. According to the Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee’s analysis of this bill, this was not the first time that this candidate used the voter information guide to blast out hateful rhetoric unrelated to the contest for office.

To ensure that candidate statements serve their actual purpose—informing the voters about a candidate’s fitness for office—this bill: (1) establishes uniform criteria for what may, or may not be, included in a candidate statement in a statewide or local voter information guide; (2) authorizes the Secretary of State or a local elections official to decline to publish part or all of a noncompliant candidate statement; and (3) authorizes any voter within the jurisdiction to challenge a noncompliant statement within 10 days following its publication under the existing writ procedure for local candidate statements. The bill includes an urgency clause, so its provisions would take effect this year.

Under the bill, a candidate’s statement may include a recitation of the candidate’s own education; professional experience; public service; community involvement; and qualifications for the office sought. A candidate’s statement may not include references to other candidates for the same or any other office; characterizations of individuals or other groups; links, URLs, QR codes, or other references to external content; content that is profane, vulgar, or that threatens or incites violence; false statements or misleading claims; and content unrelated to the candidate’s qualifications for office.

Once the period for submitting candidate statements closes, a submitted statement cannot be offered. If part of a statement appears noncompliant, the elections official must excise the noncompliant portion and print the compliant portion if the complaint portion can stand alone. If the noncompliant portion cannot be excised, or the whole statement is noncompliant, the entire candidate statement may be omitted from the voter information guide. The bill also requires the elections official to make “reasonable attempts” to notify a candidate of an omission and give them an opportunity to revise the statement, provided that it does not delay the printing or distribution of the voter information guide.

5. Constitutional questions

a. Are the restrictions on the content that may be addressed in the candidate statement facially reasonable?

As set forth in Comment 3, a “candidate’s statement is not a designated public forum within the meaning of current Supreme Court jurisprudence,” but is instead a limited or nonpublic forum.^[18] The restrictions on candidates’ speech in this bill, therefore, are permissible “as long as the regulation on speech is reasonable and not an effort to suppress expression merely because public officials oppose the speaker’s view.”^[19] The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s test for determining whether a limitation on speech in a limited or nonpublic forum is:

(1) whether the policy standard is reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum; (2) whether the standard is sufficiently definite and objective to prevent arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement by the government officials; (3) and whether an independent review of the record supports the agency’s conclusion that the [content] is prohibited by the agency’s policy.^[20]

The third question—the as-applied element—is discussed below in part (b) of this comment; this portion addresses elements (1) and (2).

On the first point, the overall policy of imposing limitations on what a candidate may discuss in their candidate statements appears reasonable in light of the purpose of the candidate statements, i.e., to give voters information about the candidates. As discussed below, however, some of the items on the list of prohibited topics may run afoul of the requirement that the standard be sufficiently definite and objective to prevent arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement.

Current law does not provide guidelines for the content of statewide, State Senate, or Assembly candidate statements, but it does establish guidelines for statements filed with local elections officials.^[21] This bill’s list of topics that may be covered in a candidate statement—education, professional experience, public service, community involvement, and qualifications for the office sought—appear reasonable for purposes of providing voters with relevant information about each candidate. To the extent that the question has been raised over whether this bill allows a candidate to discuss their policy positions, the California Court of Appeal has interpreted “qualifications” in the local voter information guide context to include a discussion of the candidate’s “viewpoints, ideas, or ideology.”^[22]

Some of the items on the bill’s list of topics or types of speech that may not be included in a candidate’s statement are also unproblematic. All of the existing candidate statement laws prohibit referring to any opposing candidate, so the bill’s exclusion of “references to other candidates for the same or any other office” does not appear to meaningfully change the scope of what’s prohibited. The prohibition on links, URLs, or QR codes to outside sources seems reasonable to the extent it prohibits a candidate from sending voters to sources unrelated to their campaign; this provision is intended to address only links contained within the candidate’s statement, and not the “contact information” that can be provided separately from the statement, so this will not prevent candidates from directing voters to their official campaign websites.

Restrictions on “content that is profane or vulgar, or that threatens or incites violence,” “content unrelated to the candidate’s qualifications,” and “false statements or misleading claims” may seem reasonable, but—with the exception of material that threatens or incites violence—give rise to vagueness and disparate application concerns, discussed below.

Finally, the bill’s prohibition on “characterizations of other individuals or groups” seems unlikely to meet First Amendment muster, even under the generous nonpublic forum standard. Taken literally, this would refer to literally any description of any other person or group (e.g., “my three great kids,” or “hold these extremists accountable”). This provision is, therefore, likely unconstitutionally vague^[23] and therefore unlikely to withstand a reasonableness challenge. The author has agreed to remove this provision.

b. As-applied concerns

This bill gives elections officials substantial discretion over content-based decisions. While the lists of what may and may not be included are mostly reasonable on a line-item basis, there is room for interpretation, which in turn leaves open the possibility of an uneven application of the law that results in a First Amendment violation.^[24] In particular, the provisions allowing an elections official to reject a statement because it is “profane or vulgar,” “false … or misleading,” or “unrelated to the candidate’s qualifications for office” appear to leave open the possibility of an elections official censoring speech with which they disagree.^[25] To address some of these concerns, the author has agreed to amend the bill to prohibit an elections official from rejecting a statement on the basis that it contains false statements or misleading claims; under this amendment, only a court may determine that a statement is so misleading that it cannot be shown to the voters.

6. Amendments

As discussed above, the author has agreed to amendments to remove provisions that may run afoul of the First Amendment, and to clarify the judicial review procedures available to voters. The amendments are set forth below, subject to any nonsubstantive changes the Office of Legislative Counsel may make.

Amendment 1

At page 3, strike lines 29 and 30.

Amendment 2

On page 4, modify subdivision (d) as follows:

(d) (1) After the candidate statement filing deadline, if it the elections official determines is determined that any portion of a candidate statement does not comply with the standards described in this section, the elections official shall omit the noncompliant portion of the candidate statement shall be omitted from the voter information guide. The remainder of the candidate statement shall be printed in the voter information guide if it can stand independently and does not mislead voters when the noncompliant portion is removed.

(2) If the elections official determines that the candidate statement cannot reasonably be printed without the noncompliant portion, the elections official shall omit the entire candidate statement may be omitted from the voter information guide.

(3) This subdivision does not apply to noncompliance on the basis of paragraph (5) of subdivision (b).

Amendment 3

On page 5, delete lines 4-9 and insert:

(g) Any registered voter may seek appropriate judicial relief to enforce the requirements of this section as set forth in this subdivision.

(1) (A) For a candidate statement in the state voter information guide, during the 20-calendar-day period provided by Section 9092, any registered voter may seek a writ of mandate or an injunction requiring any or all of the material in a candidate statement to be amended or deleted. The writ of mandate or injunction request shall be filed no later than the end of the 20-calendar-day public examination period.

(B) A peremptory writ of mandate or an injunction shall issue only upon clear and convincing proof that the material in question is false, misleading, or inconsistent with the requirements of this section, and that issuance of the writ or injunction will not substantially interfere with the printing or distribution of official election materials as provided by law.

(C) The Secretary of State shall be named as respondent and the candidate who authored the material in question shall be named as the real party in interest.

(2) (A) For a candidate statement in a county voter information guide, during the 10-calendar-day period provided by Section 13313, any voter of the jurisdiction in which the election is being held, or the county elections official, may seek a writ of mandate or an injunction requiring any or all of the material in a candidate statement to be amended or deleted. The writ of mandate or injunction request shall be filed no later than the end of the 10-calendar-day public examination period.

(B) A peremptory writ of mandate or an injunction shall issue only upon clear and convincing proof that the material in question is false, misleading, or inconsistent with the requirements of this chapter, and that issuance of the writ or injunction will not substantially interfere with the printing or distribution of official election materials as provided by law.

(C) The elections official shall be named as respondent and the candidate who authored the material in question shall be named as the real party in interest. In the case of the elections official bringing the mandamus or injunctive action pursuant to this subdivision, the board of supervisors of the county shall be named as the respondent and the candidate who authored the material in question shall be named as the real party in interest.

7. Arguments in support

According to a coalition of the bill’s supporters:

Earlier this year, California’s Official Voter Information Guide for the June 2026 Primary was mailed to 23 million registered voters. Tucked inside that state-issued document was a candidate statement containing antisemitic conspiracy theories, white nationalist rhetoric, and links to websites filled with racist, homophobic, and other hateful content. It appeared under the seal of the State of California, indistinguishable in presentation from every legitimate statement that surrounded it.

This occurred at a moment when hate targeting vulnerable communities is surging across California and the country. The Jewish community has not been spared – according to the California Attorney General, Jews are now the second most targeted group in California despite comprising just 3% of the state’s population. But hate targeting any community harms all communities. The candidate statement in question made no distinction: it targeted Jewish people, people of color, LGBTQ+ Californians, and others in a single document. It is, in that sense, a vivid illustration of how hate operates – it does not confine itself to a single target, and it spreads when left unchecked. When content of this kind is distributed under the authority of the State of California to 23 million households, it carries with it an implicit imprimatur of the state itself. That is dangerous. It lends legitimacy to hateful ideas and risks amplifying their reach in ways that have real consequences for real communities.

AB 1853 responds directly to this problem. The bill limits candidate statements in official state and county voter guides to information about a candidate’s own education, professional experience, public service, community involvement, and qualifications for office. It bars attacks on individuals or groups, links to external content, false or misleading claims, and hateful or discriminatory content – and it gives the Secretary of State and county elections officials clear authority to reject noncompliant statements. Any registered voter may seek judicial enforcement of these standards.

SUPPORT

30 Years After

ADL

Adat Shalom – West Los Angeles

Agudath Israel of California

AJC Los Angeles

AJC Northern California

AJC San Diego

Bay Area Center to Counter Antisemitism

Bay Area Jewish Coalition Education & Advocacy

Beverly Hills Synagogue

Board of Rabbis of Southern California

California Jewish Democrats

California Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism

Contra Costa Jewish Democrats

Democrats for Israel – Los Angeles

Hadassah Central Pacific Coast

Hadassah Southern California

Israeli-American Council

JCC-Federation of San Luis Obispo

JCRC Bay Area

JCRC, Jewish Long Beach

Jewish California

Jewish Center for Justice

Jewish Community Center Action Network

Jewish Community Relations Council, Sacramento

Jewish Democrats of the Greater Sacramento Area

Jewish Family and Children’s Services of San Francisco, the Peninsula, Marin, and Sonoma Counties

Jewish Family Service LA

Jewish Family Service Silicon Valley

Jewish Federation Bay Area

Jewish Federation of Greater Santa Barbara

Jewish Federation of Orange County

Jewish Federation of Palm Springs & the Desert

Jewish Federation of San Diego

Jewish Federation of the Greater San Gabriel and Pomona Valleys

Jewish Federation of the Sacramento Region

Jewish Federation of Ventura County

Jewish Free Loan Association

Jewish Partisan Educational Foundation

Jewish Silicon Valley

Jewish War Veterans of the USA, Department of California

JFCS East Bay

JFCS Long Beach and Orange County

LA Voice

Mosaic Law Congregation

Northern California Council of Jewish Democratic Clubs

Northern California Jewish Labor Committee

Oakland Jewish Alliance

Santa Barbara JCRC

Simon Wiesenthal Center

Tam Union Together

Valley Beth Shalom

Young Israel of Century City

OPPOSITION

None received

RELATED LEGISLATION

Pending legislation: None known.

Prior legislation: None known.

PRIOR VOTES

Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee (Ayes 3, Noes 1)^[26]

**************

1. Elec. Code, § 13308. ↑

2. Elec. Code, § 13313. ↑

3. Id., § 88006. ↑

4. Id., §§ 13313, 88006 ↑

5. U.S. Const., 1st amend; Cal. Const., art. I, § 2. ↑

6. Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky (2018) 585 U.S. 1, 11. ↑

7. Ibid. ↑

8. Ibid. ↑

9. Id.at pp. 11-12 (cleaned up). Other caselaw refers to the “limited public forum,” which refers to a forum that the government has opened up to “a restricted class of users” or a “restricted class of subject matter.” (E.g., Kaplan v. County of Los Angeles (9th Cir. 1990) 894 F.2d 1076, 1080.) It appears that the “Court has collapsed nonpublic forums into the same category as limited public forums since the test would be the same: Government regulation is allowed if it is reasonable and viewpoint neutral.” (Chemerinsky, Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies (7th ed. 2023) p. 1235.) ↑

10. Clark v. Burleigh (1992) 4 Cal.4th 474, 488-489; see also Kaplan, supra, 894 F2d at p. 1081 (California voter pamphlet is a limited public forum). ↑

11. Clark, supra, at p. 478. ↑

12. Id. at p. 480. ↑

13. Ibid. ↑

14. Ibid. ↑

15. Id.at p. 488. ↑

16. Id. at p. 489. ↑

17. Id. at p. 491. ↑

18. Clark, supra¸ at p. 489. ↑

19. Id. at p. 491. ↑

20. Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1015 v. Spokane Transit Authority (9th Cir. 2019) 929 F.3d 643, 651 (cleaned up). ↑

21. Elec. Code, §§ 13307, 13308. ↑

22. Hammond v. Agran (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 1181, 1189. ↑

23. E.g., Connally v. General Constr. Co. (1926) 269 U.S. 385, 391 (a law is unconstitutionally vague when “people of uncommon intelligence must guess at its meaning”). ↑

24. Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1015, supra, 929 F.3d at p. 654 (“ ‘Absent objective standards, government officials may use their discretion to interpret the policy as a pretext for censorship’ ”). ↑

25. See, e.g., Loza v. Panish (1980) 102 Cal.App.3d 821, 824-285. ↑

26. This bill was substantially gutted and amended on June 8, 2026, so the prior votes are not relevant to the version of this bill under consideration by the Committee. ↑

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

ELECTIONS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS

Senator Scott Wiener, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: Hearing Date: 6/16/26

Subject:

DIGEST

This bill limits what a candidate can include in their statement in the voter information guide (VIG).

ANALYSIS

Existing law:

1. Requires the Secretary of State (SOS) to mail a state VIG to all households in which voters are registered prior to each statewide election, except as specified. The guide must contain information including, among other items, candidate statements.
2. Allows any candidate for statewide elective office, the State Senate, or the State Assembly, who accepts voluntary campaign expenditure limits, to purchase space to place a candidate statement in the VIG that does not exceed 250 words. The statement may not refer to an opponent of the candidate. Statewide candidates’ statements are published in the state VIG and those of legislative candidates in the relevant county VIGs.
3. Requires the SOS, at least 20 days prior to submitting the state VIG to the printer, to make the state VIG available for public examination. Any person eligible to vote may seek a writ of mandate or an injunction requiring any or all of the material in the candidate statement to be amended or deleted. The writ or injunction must issue upon clear and convincing proof that the material in question is false, misleading, or inconsistent with the requirements of state law and that issuance of the writ or injunction will not substantially interfere with the printing and distributing of official election materials.
4. Requires a county elections official to mail a county VIG to each voter in the jurisdiction prior to each election, except as specified. The county VIG must contain, among other things, candidate statements.
5. Allows candidates for local nonpartisan elective offices to submit a candidate’s statement to appear in the county VIG guide provided. The statement:
   1. May include the candidate’s name, age, and occupation, along with a brief description of 200 words (or up to 400 words if the local agency raises the cap) of their education and qualifications;
   2. May not include the party affiliation of the candidate, or membership or activity in any partisan political organizations; and
   3. May not in any way refer to other candidates for that office or any other candidate’s qualifications, character, or activities. A county elections official may refuse to print a candidate statement that refers to another candidate.
6. Requires that each candidate statement be available for public review for 10 days during which time any voter in the jurisdiction where the election will be held may seek a writ of mandate or an injunction requiring any or all of the material in the candidate statement to be amended or deleted. The writ or injunction shall issue upon clear and convincing proof that the material in question is false, misleading or inconsistent with 5) above and that issuance of the writ or injunction will not substantially interfere with the printing and distributing official election materials.

This bill:

1. States the intent of the Legislature to establish clear, enforceable standards to ensure that the candidate statements in a VIG remain factual, relevant, and appropriate for an official state publication, while respecting the constitutional right to free speech.
2. Specifies that a candidate statement of qualifications included in either the state VIG or a county VIG must be limited to a recitation of the candidate’s own:
   1. Education;
   2. Professional experience;
   3. Public service;
   4. Community Involvement; and
   5. Qualifications for the office sought.
3. Prohibits a candidate statement from including:
   1. References to other candidates;
   2. Attacks, accusations, or characterizations of other individuals or groups;
   3. Any reference, such as a link to an internet website, directing voters to external content;
   4. Content that is obscene or profane or that incites hatred, violence, or discrimination;
   5. Demonstrably false statements or materially misleading claims; and
   6. Content unrelated to the candidate’s qualifications for office.
4. Deems a candidate’s statement final upon the deadline to file as a candidate for the office sought and prohibits a candidate from modifying a candidate statement after the filing deadline.
5. Directs the SOS and county election officials, after the filing deadline, to omit from the VIG any portion of a candidate statement that does not comply with the standards in 2) and 3) of this bill. The remainder of the candidate statement shall be included if it can stand alone and does not mislead voters. If that is not possible, the entire candidate statement may be omitted from the VIG.
6. Makes any fee paid by a candidate for the printing or inclusion of the candidate’s statement in a VIG nonrefundable, even when all or a portion of the statement is omitted and deems payment of the fee as acknowledgement and acceptance of the requirements of this bill.
7. States that while reasonable efforts must be made to notify a candidate of the omission of content, the notice shall not delay the printing or distribution of the VIG and under no circumstances shall a candidate be entitled to a refund, credit, or reimbursement that arises from the enforcement of the requirements of this bill.
8. Permits the SOS to adopt regulations to implement its provisions.
9. Allows the SOS or a county elections official to refuse to print any candidate statement that does not comply with the provisions of this bill.
10. Allows any registered voter to seek judicial relief to enforce the bill’s provisions. The bill directs a court to give priority to actions brought to enforce the bill’s provisions due to the time-sensitive nature of the preparation and distribution of the VIG.
11. Includes an urgency clause so that its requirements are in place for the November 3, 2026, statewide general election.

BACKGROUND

Voter Information Guides. Proposition 9, which appeared on the June 1974 ballot, created the California Political Reform Act (PRA) and established California’s campaign finance and disclosure laws for state and local campaigns, candidates, officeholders, and ballot measures. Proposition 9 created the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) to implement, administer, and enforce the PRA.

Proposition 9 included provisions similar to existing law at that time requiring the preparation of a state ballot pamphlet, now called the state VIG. It also included a public examination process for the state ballot pamphlet similar to the one in existing law today.

State law provides for election officials to prepare VIGs and to distribute them prior to an election to each household with registered voters. VIGs are mailed, unless a voter opts to receive it electronically. For statewide elections, the SOS prepares and distributes the state VIG. County election officials prepare and distribute each county’s VIG, which are tailored to each voter based on the contests that will appear on the voter’s ballot.

COMMENTS

1. Author’s Statement. This bill comes in response to a candidate statement that appeared in the June 2026 Official State Voter Information Guide that contained no information about the candidate’s education and qualifications; instead, it used the voter guide as a platform to share hateful and antisemitic rhetoric and links to external inappropriate content. This bill strengthens standards that appear in official state and county voter guides by establishing clear, enforceable standards requiring that candidate statements remain factual, relevant, and appropriate for an official state publication while respecting constitutional free speech protections.
2. History of One Candidate’s VIG Submissions. The candidate the author references in comment 1) has had candidate statements in half a dozen California state VIGs dating back to the 2010 statewide primary election. None of which have provided information about this candidate’s qualifications, have often provided links to websites, and certainly violate the provisions of this bill in terms of discriminatory, hateful, and misleading content. The past two times he has appeared in the VIG, 2024 and 2026, the SOS has included a disclaimer that the views expressed are his and not those of the SOS.

All VIGs containing his statements have been subject to the 20-day public examination period during which any person eligible to vote may ask a court to amend or delete a candidate statement upon clear and convincing proof that the statement is false, misleading, or inconsistent with the requirements of state law. The SOS reports that during the 20-day public examination period this year no challenge to his statement occurred.

Other candidates’ statements in the state VIGs over the years have violated the requirements of this bill in many ways. These include comments extraneous to the person’s qualifications, links to websites, and profanity.

1. An Opportunity to Correct. This bill deems a candidate’s statement final upon the deadline to file as a candidate and prohibits a candidate from modifying a candidate statement after the filing deadline. It directs the SOS and county election officials, after that date, to omit from the VIG any portion of a candidate statement that does not comply with the bill’s standards. While the bill states reasonable efforts must be made to notify a candidate of the omission of all or a portion of their statement from the VIG, the bill does not contemplate a system whereby a candidate could correct the portion of their statement an elections official deems contrary to the requirements this bill. The author may wish to consider amending the bill to provide a process for a candidate to cure problems with their submitted statement in time to be included in the VIG.
2. Arguments in Support. A large coalition of Jewish organizations write in support of the bill because it ensures that hate speech, antisemitism, and targeted attacks against any community have no place in California’s official VIGs. They specifically note that, in this time when hate targeting vulnerable communities is surging, that content distributed under the authority of the State of California to 23 million households should not spread hateful ideas or amplify their reach in ways that have real consequences for real communities. These organizations support this bill because “the official publications California sends into millions of homes [should] inform voters and strengthen democracy rather than undermine it.”
3. Oppose Unless Amended. The Peace and Freedom Party, which opposes this bill unless it is amended, submitted a letter stating the bill appears to ban two types of content many candidates include in their statements that are clearly not profane, hateful, untrue or misleading. One is all links to websites; the other is candidates’ positions on political issues of the day and plans for what they would do if elected.

The Peace and Freedom Party notes specifically that candidates who are running on a slate or with party support should be allowed to include links to those slate or party websites. Further, the party notes most candidate statements include some of the candidates’ positions on political issues and how the candidate proposes to address those if elected. While this content is arguably related to the candidates' qualifications, it is not clearly so and may be excluded as “unrelated” if election officials are narrowing what is allowed in statements. The party states, “The language should be clarified to clearly allow such positions and plans, so long as they don't violate other restrictions, in candidate statements.”

1. Refer to Committee on Rules. Amendments to this bill made on June 8, 2026, deleted the contents of the original bill and replaced it with the current language being heard today. Should the bill pass today, it will be referred to the Committee on Rules for a probable re-referral to the Committee on Judiciary, which would examine the constitutional issues the bill raises.

RELATED/PRIOR LEGISLATION

SB 409 (Newman) of 2023 would have created an SOS county pilot program that would allow a candidate to include in the VIG a QR code link to a video statement. This bill also would have required, subject to the Americans with Disabilities Act, a candidate who is submitting a statement for a VIG to physically write the statement without reference to any outside materials at specified locations. This bill died on the Assembly Committee on Appropriations’ suspense file.

POSITIONS

Sponsor: Author

Support: 30 Years After
Adat Shalom – West Los Angeles
ADL
Agudath Israel of California
AJC - Los Angeles
AJC - San Diego
AJC Northern California
Bay Area Jewish Coalition Education and Advocacy
Beverly Hills Synagogue
Board of Rabbis of Southern California
California Jewish Democrats
California Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism
Contra Costa Jewish Democrats
Democrats for Israel – Los Angeles
JCC-Federation of San Luis Obispo
JCRC Bay Area
JCRC Santa Barbara County
JCRC, Jewish Long Beach
Jewish California (formerly JPAC)
Jewish Center for Justice
Jewish Community Action Network
Jewish Community Relations Council of Sacramento

Jewish Family and Children’s Center of San Francisco, the Peninsula, Marina and Sonoma Counties

Jewish Family Service LA
Jewish Family Services of Silicon Valley
Jewish Federation Bay Area
Jewish Federation of Greater Santa Barbara
Jewish Federation of Orange County
Jewish Federation of Palm Springs & the Desert
Jewish Federation of San Diego
Jewish Federation of the Greater San Gabriel and Pomona Valleys
Jewish Federation of the Sacramento Region
Jewish Federation of Ventura County
Jewish Free Loan Association
Jewish Partisan Educational Foundation
Jewish Silicon Valley
Jewish War Veterans of the USA, Department of California
JFCS East Bay
JFCS Long Beach and Orange County
Mosaic Law Congregation
Northern California Council of Jewish Democratic Clubs
Northern California Jewish Labor Committee
Oakland Jewish Alliance
Simon Wiesenthal Center, INC.
StandWithUs
Tam Union Together
Valley Beth Shalom
Young Israel of Century City

Oppose: Peace and Freedom Party of California

-- END --

Date of Hearing: March 25, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS

Gail Pellerin, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1853 (

Author:Pellerin) – As Introduced Ver:February 11, 2026

SUBJECT: Statewide referendum measures: fiscal impact statements.

SUMMARY: Makes clarifying changes to the content of the condensed ballot title and summary for a state referendum measure. Updates the summaries of the meanings of a “yes” and a “no” vote on a statewide referendum that are printed in the state voter information guide (VIG). Specifically, this bill:

1. Clarifies that the condensed ballot title and summary for a state referendum measure includes a fiscal impact summary, and that the fiscal impact summary is included toward the 75-word limit.
2. Clarifies, for a statewide referendum measure, that the concise summary of the effect of the vote on the measure that appears in the VIG provides the general meaning and effect of a vote to “keep the law” and “overturn the law,” instead of a summary of the general meaning and effect of “yes” and “no” vote on a statewide referendum.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Allows electors to approve or reject statutes or parts of statutes, except as specified, through the referendum process. (California Constitution Article II, §9)
2. Provides that for a statewide measure, the term “ballot label” means a condensed version of the ballot title and summary, including the fiscal impact summary, that is no more than 75 words. (Elections Code §303(b))
3. Requires, for a statewide referendum measure, the ballot label to consist of the condensed title and summary which includes the ballot title in the form of a question and a condensed summary containing the chief purposes and points of the law proposed to be overturned, as specified. Requires the condensed title and summary to be no more than 75 words total. (Elections Code §303.1)
4. Defines the term “ballot title and summary” to mean, for a statewide initiative measure or measure proposed by the Legislature, the summary of the chief purpose and points including the fiscal impact summary of any measure that appears in the state VIG. Requires the ballot title and summary for a statewide initiative measure or measure proposed by the Legislature to include a statement of the measure’s fiscal impact. (Elections Code §303.5(b))
5. Prohibits the condensed ballot title and summary for a statewide initiative measure, or measure proposed by the Legislature, from containing more than 75 words and requires the condensed version of the ballot title and summary to include the financial impact summary. (Elections Code §9051(b)(1)) Prohibits the condensed title and summary for a statewide referendum measure from containing more than 75 words, including the ballot title that shall be in the form of a question, as specified. (Elections Code §9051(b)(2))
6. Requires the state VIG to include a concise summary of the meaning and effect of “yes” and “no” votes on each state ballot measure. Requires the summary statements to be prepared by the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO). (Elections Code §9085)

FISCAL EFFECT: The Legislative Counsel has keyed this bill non-fiscal.

COMMENTS:

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

Article II, Section 9, of the California Constitution provides for the referendum process, which gives voters the ability to overturn an action taken by the Legislature. Last session, in an effort to reduce confusion when electors vote on a state referendum measure, AB 421 (Bryan) changed the question that voters are asked so that they are asked whether they want to “keep the law” passed by the Legislature or if they want to “overturn the law” that the Legislature enacted.

However, in 2024, while the Attorney General, Legislative Analyst Office, Secretary of State, and others were collectively working together to implement AB 421, they identified two technical issues. Specifically, while state law generally requires the ballot label for a statewide ballot measure to include the fiscal impact summary, the law for state referenda makes no reference to the fiscal impact summary being included. As a result, there is ambiguity about whether the ballot label for state referenda are required to include fiscal information. AB 1853 clarifies that the condensed ballot title and summary for a state referendum measure will include a fiscal impact summary, and that the fiscal impact summary will be included toward the 75-word limit.

Additionally, state law related to the section of the state voter information guide that provides the summary of the meaning and effect of a “yes” and a “no” vote on a state ballot measure was not updated to reflect the new “keep the law” or “overturn the law” referendum format changes made by AB 421. AB 1853 updates the summaries in the state voter information guide to make them consistent with the terms voters see on the ballot.

1. Previous Legislation and State Referenda: Whenever a state ballot measure qualifies for the ballot, the Attorney General (AG) and LAO share responsibility for preparing ballot titles and summaries. The AG prepares the title and chief points and purposes of the ballot measure, while the LAO prepares the fiscal impact summary. Additionally, both offices work together to prepare a condensed version of the ballot title and summary that appears on the ballot that must comply with the 75-word limit, also referred to as the ballot label. For a state referendum measure, current law requires the ballot label to consist of the condensed title and summary which includes the ballot title in the form of a question and a condensed summary containing the chief purposes and points of the law proposed to be overturned, as specified.

Last session, AB 421 (Bryan), Chapter 162, Statutes of 2023, changed the question that voters are asked so that they are asked whether they want to “keep the law” passed by the Legislature or if they want to “overturn the law” that the Legislature enacted. The previous framework of casting a “Yes” vote to enact the legislation but opposing the referendum, and a “No” vote to overturn the legislation but support the referendum, was inherently confusing to voters.

In 2024, while the AG, LAO, Secretary of State (SOS), and others were collectively working together to implement AB 421, they identified two technical issues. Specifically, while state law generally requires the ballot label for a statewide ballot measure to include the fiscal impact summary, the law for state referenda makes no reference to the fiscal impact summary being included. As a result, there is ambiguity about whether the ballot label for state referenda are required to include fiscal information. Additionally, state law related to the section of the state VIG that provides the summaries of the meaning and effect of a “yes” and a “no” vote on a state ballot measure was not updated to reflect the new “keep the law” or “overturn the law” format changes that AB 421 made.

This bill clarifies that the condensed ballot title and summary for a state referendum measure will include a fiscal impact summary, and that the fiscal impact summary will be included toward the 75-word limit. According to the author, this is consistent with the requirements for non-referenda ballot measures, and is consistent with the content of the condensed ballot title and summary before the enactment of AB 421. Additionally, this bill updates the summaries of the meanings of a “yes” and a “no” vote on a statewide referendum so that they are consistent with the terms that voters see when voting on a statewide referendum: namely, whether to “keep the law” or “overturn the law.”

According to the author, this bill makes clarifying changes that are consistent with the policy goals of AB 421, and will help the LAO, SOS, and AG effectively prepare ballot materials related to statewide referenda for future elections.

1. Arguments in Support: In support of this bill, the League of Women Voters California, writes:

Referenda can be especially confusing for voters because the question on the ballot asks whether the state should keep or reject a law that has already been enacted. AB 1853 improves clarity by ensuring that voters are given direct, understandable information about both the fiscal consequences of the measure and the practical effect of their vote.

The bill also brings referendum materials into closer alignment with the information voters already expect for statewide initiative measures. California voters should receive clear, consistent, and useful ballot information regardless of the type of statewide measure before them.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Elevate California

League of Women Voters of California

Opposition

None on file.

Analysis Prepared by: Nichole Becker / ELECTIONS / (916) 319-2094