Existing law vests control of the state park system with the Department of Parks and Recreation, and provides for the formation of park and open-space districts in the state.

This bill would provide that it is the intent of the Legislature to enact subsequent legislation to support the development of parks in rural communities.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

ELECTIONS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS

Senator Scott Wiener, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: Hearing Date: 6/30/26

Subject:

DIGEST

This bill prohibits a person who has ever had to register as a sex offender from running for or being elected to state or local office in California.

ANALYSIS

Existing law:

1. Requires persons convicted of specified sex offenses to register as sex offenders and have a continuing duty to register, even when the underlying conviction has been dismissed, unless that person obtains a certificate of rehabilitation or is exonerated. Willful violation of the duty to register is a misdemeanor, if the offense requiring registration was a misdemeanor, and is a felony if the offense requiring
2. Requires pursuant to the California Constitution that “[l]aws shall be made to exclude persons convicted of bribery, perjury, forgery, malfeasance in office, or other high crimes from office or serving on juries.”
3. Prohibits a person from being a candidate for office or serving in elected office in California if the person has been convicted of a felony involving accepting, giving or offering to give any bribe, the embezzlement of public money, extortion or theft of public money, perjury, or conspiracy to commit any of these crimes.

This bill adds anyone who has ever had to register as a sex offender to the prohibition in 3) of existing law.

BACKGROUND

Existing Ban on Running for Office. The California Constitution states, “Laws shall be made to exclude persons convicted of bribery, perjury, forgery, malfeasance in office, or other high crimes from office or serving on juries.” To effectuate these constitutional prohibitions, the Legislature has enacted various state laws, including various Penal Code and Government Code sections that enumerate events and actions which cause certain crimes to result in an elected official being disqualified from holding public office in the state.

AB 2410 (Fuentes), Chapter 160, Statutes of 2012, expanded this prohibition for persons convicted of crimes of public corruption to include running for office. Before

AB 2410 took effect, the prohibition was on holding office. AB 2410 deemed accepting, giving or offering to give any bribe, the embezzlement of public money, extortion or theft of public money, and perjury to be crimes of public corruption and subjected those who had felony convictions for those crimes or conspiracy to any of those crimes ineligible to run for state or local office. This created a prohibition on running for office consistent with the constitutional prohibition on holding office.

Sex Offender Registry. California was the first state to require sex offender registration in 1947. The stated purpose for sex offender registration is to deter offenders from committing future crimes, provide law enforcement with an additional investigative tool, and increase public protection. California’s sex offender registration law historically required lifetime registration by persons convicted of specified sex crimes.

Through AB 1562 (Alby), Chapter 908, Statutes of 1996, California enacted “Megan's Law” allowing the public to access an address list of registered sex offenders. AB 488 (Parra), Chapter 745, Statutes of 2004, required the California Department of Justice to put the Megan’s Law list of offenders on a public access website with the offender’s address, photo, and list of offenses. For some offenders with less serious offenses, only their ZIP code is listed. In addition, juvenile offenders do not appear on the Megan’s Law website, nor do adult offenders who were convicted of crimes of incest.

SB 384 (Wiener), Chapter 541, Statutes of 2017, modified California’s sex offender registry to a tiered registration system based on seriousness of the crime, risk of sexual reoffending, and criminal history. The recommendation to move to a tiered system came from the California Sex Offender Management Board’s 2010 recommendations report. SB 384 established three tiers of registration for adult registrants for periods of 10 years (tier 1), 20 years (tier 2), and life (tier 3), and two tiers for registration for juvenile registrants for periods of 5 years and 10 years.

Rene Campos of Fresno. In February of 2026, Rene Campos, a tier 1 registered sex offender convicted of possession of child sex abuse material, announced his intention to run for a position on the Fresno City Council. Mr. Campos was originally charged with a felony but ultimately plead to a misdemeanor charge related to viewing child pornography. Mr. Campos was unable to successfully file the required documents to run for office because, according to press reports, he was unable to secure 20 signatures from registered voters required by state law on his nomination papers.

COMMENTS

1. Author’s Statement. To ensure public trust in California’s democratic institutions, California law prohibits those with certain criminal convictions from holding elected office. Despite this, current law has no restriction on registered sex offenders running for or holding elected positions. To ensure the safety of the public, this bill will prohibit all those who have ever been required to register as a sex offender from holding or being a candidate for any state or local elected position. This will reaffirm the public’s trust in their democracy by preventing those guilty of these heinous crimes from holding an elected position of trust in their communities
2. Ever Is A Really Long Time. Unlike the sex offender registry itself, which is not necessarily a permanent listing, this bill makes permanent a person’s ineligibility to run for office if they were ever registered. It does not make allowances for a person’s conviction being overturned in a later court proceeding, a pardon, or the removal from either tier 1 or tier 2 of the registry through the process prescribed in existing law. The bill does not make allowances for changes in law over time, so things that may have been sex offenses in the past, such as consensual sex between two men, would preclude a person from running for office under this bill. The committee may question whether such a broad disqualification is appropriate and instead may wish to consider amending the bill to prohibit those currently required to register as tier 3 sex offenders from running for or holding office.
3. Concerns of the LGBTQ Community. California’s sex offender registry dates from 1947, and over that time it has included those convicted of laws meant to marginalize and target sexual minorities, including those in the LGBTQ community. Leading civil rights organizations have worked over many decades to address the injustices embedded in the registry. As an example from its website, “Equality California has successfully worked to modernize California’s outdated, ineffective and discriminatory laws … and to reform California’s broken sex offender registry, which for decades treated LGBTQ+ people differently from their non-LGBTQ+ peers.” By excluding from candidacy any person who has ever been on the registry, this bill dismisses those decades of work for greater justice in California’s criminal justice laws and reopens the door to using those outdated laws to marginalize members of those communities.
4. Making Misdemeanors a Disqualification. This bill introduces the idea that being convicted of a misdemeanor can disqualify a person from ever being a candidate for office in California. Such misdemeanors would include any that result, or previously resulted in, having to register as a sex offender. An example of such a misdemeanor could be a 19-year-old possessing illicit photographs of their 17-year-old romantic partner for which they are convicted of a misdemeanor. The committee may question whether it is appropriate to make non-felonies a disqualification from running for office in California.
5. How Do We Know? When a candidate files a declaration of candidacy, they attest they meet the qualifications for the office, they have not been convicted of a crime of public corruption, and they will accept the nomination/election rather than withdraw. In some cases, such as for sheriff, county assessor, or district attorney, a candidate must submit documentation establishing they meet the qualifications for the office and files this documentation with a declaration, signed under penalty of perjury, certifying the information provided is true and correct. The committee or the author may wish to amend this bill to provide for documentation or attestation under penalty of perjury that the candidate has never been a registered sex offender. Something that could only be confirmed by an entity that has access to information about all those who have ever been on the registry, such as the Attorney General or the courts.
6. Other States. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Florida and Utah have statutory and/or constitutional provisions related to candidate disqualification for conviction of a sex offense. In Florida, the right to hold office is revoked upon conviction of a felony and may be restored when a person is returned to their civil rights. This mirrors the process for voting rights revocation and restoration. Civil rights (including voting rights and office-holding rights) are restored automatically upon completion of a sentence, unless the person was convicted of a felony sexual offense or of murder, in which case they need to petition the governor for restoration of those rights. The governor can then choose to grant or deny those petitions for rights restoration on a case-by-case basis.
   

In Utah, a person convicted of grievous sexual assault against a child is permanently barred from serving as a member on the state board of education or on any local school board (both are elected boards).

1. Arguments in Support. Noting its unanimous adoption of a resolution in support of the bill, the Fresno City Council writes:

Currently, there is no prohibition preventing individuals required to register as sex offenders from seeking elected office. This undermines public confidence and raises serious concerns about the standards we set for those entrusted with leadership. Public office is built on trust, accountability, and the responsibility to protect the most vulnerable. Those who have committed crimes that violate that trust, particularly against children should not be eligible to serve in positions of public authority.

[This bill] establishes a clear, consistent, and necessary standard across California.

1. Arguments in Opposition. Smart Justice opposes the bill because while supportive of “proportional and effective criminal accountability for people who have been convicted of sexual offenses against others, we believe the electorate should be responsible for making determinations about when and how a person’s prior convictions should impact their ability to run for and be elected to public office.” Smart Justice continues:

California has a demonstrated commitment to providing opportunities for rehabilitation and second chances. This bill is fundamentally inconsistent with those values and fails to allow voters to consider important questions, including: whether a person seeking office has served their sentence, is meaningfully contributing to their community, and could honorably and productively serve in office. We believe it is the job of the voters and the democratic process to weigh these considerations - even if that means, as it frequently has, that the electorate chooses not to advance a candidate who has engaged in the behavior underlying the offenses addressed by this bill.

RELATED/PRIOR LEGISLATION

AB 2691 (Addis), also on today’s agenda, prohibits a person convicted of specified felony sexual assault or human trafficking from running for or being elected to state or local office in California.

AB 2410 (Fuentes), Chapter 160, Statutes of 2012, prohibits a person from being a candidate for office or serving in elected office in California if the person has been convicted of a felony involving accepting, giving or offering to give any bribe, the embezzlement of public money, extortion or theft of public money, perjury, or conspiracy to commit any of these crimes.

PRIOR ACTION

POSITIONS

Sponsor: Author

Support: City of Calimesa

City of Fresno

Oppose: League of Women Voters of California

Smart Justice California, a Project of Beyond Impact

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 2753

Author:(Soria)

As Amended Ver:March 19, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Prohibits a person from being a candidate for, or from being elected to, any state or local elective office if the person has ever been required to register as a sex offender pursuant to existing law.

Major Provisions

COMMENTS

The California Constitution provides that a person convicted of bribery involving an election or appointment cannot hold elected office. It also directs the Legislature to create laws that ″exclude persons convicted of bribery, perjury, forgery, malfeasance in office, or other high crimes from office or serving on juries.″ Although that provision is mandatory, it is not self-executing and requires legislation to give it effect. To effectuate the constitutional prohibitions, various state laws were enacted. AB 2410 (Fuentes), Chapter 160, Statutes of 2012, enacted Elections Code Section 20 which lists various types of felony convictions that prevent a person from being eligible to be elected to state and local office. The disqualifying crimes are ones that are sometimes referred to as ″public trust″ crimes – that is, illegal acts that involve the breach of the ethical obligation that a public servant is expected to exercise their public responsibilities in a manner that prioritizes the public interest over private gain. Elections Code Section 20 is, to some extent, an implementing statute for Article VII, Section 8 of the California Constitution.

This bill expands the existing limitations on candidate eligibility and prohibits a person who has ever been required to register as a sex offender from being eligible to be elected to any state or local elective office. The author contends those seeking higher office must be held to a higher standard and that this bill will reaffirm public′s trust in their democracy by preventing those guilty of these heinous crimes from holding office.

If this bill is signed into law, it could set a precedent for extending similar restrictions to individuals convicted of other crimes, thereby narrowing eligibility for public office. For instance, others may contend that a conviction for a serious crime such as murder warrants disqualification from public office. Once the list of disqualifying offenses is expanded to include crimes that do not involve a breach of a public servant′s ethical obligations when exercising public responsibilities, it is less clear what standard should be used for determining which types of criminal convictions should disqualify a person from holding elective office.

Under Penal Code Section 290, also known as the Sex Offender Registration Act, the sex offender registration is a tier-based schema. Generally, there are three tiers of registration for adult registrants for periods of 10 years, 20 years, and life, and two tiers for registration for juvenile registrants for periods of 5 years and 10 years.

Under this bill, a person who has ever been required to registered as a sex offender is disqualified for life from public office even though they may not have been required to be registered as a sex offender for life.

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

According to the Author

″In order to ensure public trust in California′s Democratic institutions, California law prohibits those with certain criminal convictions from holding elected office. Despite this, current law has no restriction on registered sex offenders from attempting to attain elected positions. To ensure the safety of the public, AB 2753 would include registered sex offenders among those prohibited from running for or holding local or state elected office due to a past conviction. This will reaffirm the public′s trust in their democracy by preventing those guilty of these heinous crimes from holding higher office.″

Arguments in Support

In support of this bill, the Fresno City Council, writes: ″On March 19, 2026, the Fresno City Council unanimously adopted Resolution No. 2026-41 in support of this legislation…Currently, there is no prohibition preventing individuals required to register as sex offenders from seeking elected office. This undermines public confidence and raises serious concerns about the standards we set for those entrusted with leadership. Public office is built on trust, accountability, and the responsibility to protect the most vulnerable. Those who have committed crimes that violate that trust, particularly against children should not be eligible to serve in positions of public authority.

″AB 2753 establishes a clear, consistent, and necessary standard across California. It aligns with existing expectations placed on individuals in positions of public trust and reinforces the integrity of our democratic institutions.″

Arguments in Opposition

None received.

FISCAL COMMENTS

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

VOTES

ASM ELECTIONS: 7-0-1

YES: Pellerin, Gallagher, Bennett, Berman, Johnson, Solache, Stefani

ABS, ABST OR NV: Elhawary

UPDATED

VERSION: March 19, 2026

CONSULTANT: Nichole Becker / ELECTIONS / (916) 319-2094 FN: 0002371

Date of Hearing: April 15, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS

Gail Pellerin, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2753 (

Author:Soria) – As Amended Ver:March 19, 2026

SUBJECT: Elective office: sex offenders.

SUMMARY: Prohibits a person from being a candidate for, or from being elected to, any state or local elective office if the person has ever been required to register as a sex offender pursuant to existing law.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Provides that a person who is convicted of any of the following crimes is disqualified from holding public office in this state:
   
   1. Giving or offering a bribe to procure personal election or appointment (Article VII, Section 8, California Constitution).
      
   2. Bribery, perjury, forgery, malfeasance in office, or other high crimes (Article VII, Section 8, California Constitution).
      
   3. As a public officer, for gratuity or reward, appointing another person to public office, or permitting another person to exercise or discharge the duties of their office (Penal Code §74).
      
   4. While a member of the Legislature, refusing to appear before the Senate, Assembly, or any committee of the Legislature after being summoned to testify, or while appearing before the Senate, Assembly, or any committee, refusing to be sworn or to answer any material and proper question, or refusing to produce, upon reasonable notice, any material and proper books, papers, or documents in their possession and under their control (Government Code §9412).
      
   5. While an executive or ministerial officer, employee, or appointee of the state, a county, a city, or another political subdivision of the state, asking for, receiving, or agreeing to receive any bribe to influence any decision made by that person in their official capacity (Penal Code §68).
      
   6. While a member of the Legislature or of a legislative body of a city, county, city and county, school district, or other special district, committing any of various crimes against the Legislative power, including bribery and logrolling (Penal Code §88, Government Code §9055).
      
   7. While an officer, committing any of various bribery and corruption crimes against the public justice, including bribing or threatening judges or jurors (Penal Code §98).
      
   8. Giving or offering a bribe to a member of a city council or a board of supervisors to influence any decision made by that member in their official capacity (Penal Code §165).
      
   9. While a public official, aiding the illegal casting of a vote at an election or otherwise facilitating the perpetration of election fraud (Elections Code §18501).
      
   10. While a public official, being financially interested in a contract made in their official capacity, or by any body or board of which the official is a member (Government Code §1097).
       
   11. Giving or offering a bribe to any executive officer in the state to influence any decision made by that officer in their official capacity (Penal Code §67).
       
   12. While an officer of the state or of any county, city, town, or district of the state, or while otherwise charged with the receipt, safekeeping, transfer, or disbursement of public moneys, appropriating such moneys for personal use, or refusing to pay any public moneys as required by law (Penal Code §424).
       
   13. Interfering with the work of prisoners employed at a road camp, or giving or attempting to give such prisoners any controlled substances, intoxicating liquors, firearms, weapons, or explosives of any kind (Penal Code §2772).
       
   14. Interrupting the work of prisoners employed at a public park or camp, or giving or attempting to give such prisoners any controlled substances, intoxicating liquors, firearms, weapons, or explosives of any kind (Penal Code §2790).
       
2. Prohibits a person from being considered a candidate for, or from being elected to, any state or local elective office if the person has been convicted of a felony involving accepting or giving, or offering to give, any bribe, the embezzlement of public money, extortion or theft of public money, perjury, or conspiracy to commit any of those crimes. Provides that “conviction of a felony” includes a conviction of a felony in this state and a conviction under the laws of any other state, the United States (US), or any foreign government or country of a crime that, if committed in this state, would be a felony, and for which the person has not received a pardon from the Governor of this state, the governor or other officer authorized to grant pardons in another state, the President of the US, or the officer of the foreign government or country authorized to grant pardons in that foreign jurisdiction (Elections Code §20).
3. Provides a person is disqualified from holding public office upon conviction of designated crimes as specified in the Constitution and laws of the State (Government Code §1021).
   
4. Requires a person who has been convicted of specified sex offenses but is no longer incarcerated to register as a sex offender with the appropriate law enforcement agency where they reside, as specified (Penal Code §290).

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

COMMENTS:

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

In order to ensure public trust in California’s Democratic institutions, California law prohibits those with certain criminal convictions from holding elected office. Despite this, current law has no restriction on registered sex offenders from attempting to attain elected positions. To ensure the safety of the public, AB 2753 would include registered sex offenders among those prohibited from running for or holding local or state elected office due to a past conviction. This will reaffirm the public’s trust in their democracy by preventing those guilty of these heinous crimes from holding higher office.

1. Public Trust Crimes: The California Constitution provides that a person convicted of bribery involving an election or appointment cannot hold elected office. It also directs the Legislature to create laws that “exclude persons convicted of bribery, perjury, forgery, malfeasance in office, or other high crimes from office or serving on juries.” Although that provision is mandatory, it is not self-executing and requires legislation to give it effect. To effectuate the constitutional prohibitions, various state laws were enacted. For example, various code sections listed above enumerate events and actions which cause certain crimes to result in an elected official being disqualified from holding public office in the state. For instance, a person convicted of bribing an executive officer to influence their actions cannot hold elected office in California.
   
   Additionally, AB 2410 (Fuentes), Chapter 160, Statutes of 2012, enacted Elections Code Section 20 which lists various types of felony convictions that prevent a person from being eligible to be elected to state and local office. The disqualifying crimes are ones that are sometimes referred to as “public trust” crimes – that is, illegal acts that involve the breach of the ethical obligation that a public servant is expected to exercise their public responsibilities in a manner that prioritizes the public interest over private gain. Elections Code Section 20 is, to some extent, an implementing statute for Article VII, Section 8 of the California Constitution.

Court cases relating to the interpretation of Article VII, Section 8 of the California Constitution pertaining to public officers and disqualification from holding office illustrate that same sentiment. One such case is Lubin v. Wilson (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 1422, a case involving former state Senator Paul B. Carpenter who unsuccessfully attempted to appeal his disqualification and forfeiture of public office on the Board of Equalization after being convicted of racketeering, extortion, and conspiracy. The court's opinion acknowledged that the “[r]emoval from public office is simply a consequence of a reasonable and sound public policy, and a condition imposed upon a public official in furtherance of the public interest in good government. Public officials are elected for the benefit of the community and can and should be removed, irrespective of detriment to the individuals involved if the interests of the community so require (State v. Twitchell, supra, 367 P.2d at p. 992.)."

In addition, the court opinion stated that, “[a] person holds office subject to conditions imposed by the state and, where cause for removal is provided by law, the person is deemed to have accepted the office on condition he or she could be removed for cause and in the manner provided (Cline v. Superior Court (1920) 184 Cal. 331, 336)."

This bill expands the existing limitations on candidate eligibility and prohibits a person who has ever been required to register as a sex offender from being eligible to be elected to any state or local elective office. The author contends those seeking higher office must be held to a higher standard and that this bill will reaffirm public’s trust in their democracy by preventing those guilty of these heinous crimes from holding office.

If this bill is signed into law, it could set a precedent for extending similar restrictions to individuals convicted of other crimes, thereby narrowing eligibility for public office. For instance, others may contend that a conviction for a serious crime such as murder warrants disqualification from public office. Once the list of disqualifying offenses is expanded to include crimes that do not involve a breach of a public servant’s ethical obligations when exercising public responsibilities, it is less clear what standard should be used for determining which types of criminal convictions should disqualify a person from holding elective office.

1. Background: According to the author, earlier this year Renee Campos, a registered sex offender who was convicted of a misdemeanor for possession of child sex abuse material in 2018, announced his intention to run for Fresno City Council. According to the author, the announcement of his candidacy greatly disturbed the Fresno community both with the idea of a sex offender representing the interests of children and the people of the community, and the fact that Mr. Campos held a press conference regarding his candidacy across the street from a school.
   
   This example, however, is the only example the author has provided to the committee to suggest that current law is insufficient to deter such candidacies. Notably, Mr. Campos was not elected, and did not even qualify to appear on the ballot. The limited evidence may indicate that California voters are not electing registered sex offenders to public office. It could therefore be argued that voters are capable of giving appropriate consideration to a candidate’s criminal history when making electoral decisions, raising questions about the necessity of this bill.
   
2. Will of Voters: As mentioned above, laws exist to prevent misconduct by elected officials. If voters are unsatisfied with the actions of their elected official, they have clear mechanisms to hold that official accountable. For instance, the constitution provides the electorate with the power to recall and remove any state or local elected official before their term has expired. Recent examples of this occurred in 2003, when former Governor Gray Davis was successfully recalled, and in 2018, when former state Senator Josh Newman was successfully recalled. According to the SOS's office, since 1913, there have been 182 recall attempts of state elected officials in California. Eleven recall efforts collected enough signatures to qualify for the ballot and of those, the elected official was recalled in six instances. Moreover, should the electorate believe a candidate has violated the public trust, they maintain the ability to vote against the candidate or vote the elected official out of office.
   
3. Other States: According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, two states ˗ Florida and Utah ˗ have statutory and/or constitutional provisions related to candidate disqualification for conviction of a sex offense. In Florida, the right to hold office is revoked upon conviction of a felony, and may be restored when a person is returned to their civil rights. This mirrors the process for voting rights revocation and restoration. Civil rights (including voting rights and office-holding rights) are restored automatically upon completion of a sentence unless the person was convicted of a felony sexual offense or of murder, in which case they need to petition the governor for restoration of those rights. The governor can then choose to grant or deny those petitions for rights restoration on a case-by-case basis.
   

In Utah, a person convicted of grievous sexual assault against a child is permanently barred from serving as a member on the state board of education or any on any local school board (both are elected boards).

1. Sex Offender Registry: The California Sex Offender Registry at the California Department of Justice (DOJ) maintains the registered sex offender database. By law, persons convicted of specified sex crimes are required to register as sex offenders with a local law enforcement agency. Prior to release from prison, jail, a mental hospital, or on probation, sex offenders who are required to register are notified in writing of their duty to register. This information is then forwarded to the DOJ. When a sex offender is released into the community, they must register within five working days at the law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over their residence. The registering agency forwards the registration information to DOJ. Registered sex offenders are required to update their information annually with local law enforcement, within five working days before or after their birthday.
   
   Under Penal Code Section 290, also known as the Sex Offender Registration Act, the sex offender registration is a tier-based schema. Generally, there are three tiers of registration for adult registrants for periods of 10 years, 20 years, and life, and two tiers for registration for juvenile registrants for periods of 5 years and 10 years.
   
   Under this bill, a person who has ever been required to registered as a sex offender is disqualified for life from public office even though they may not have been required to be registered as a sex offender for life.
   
2. Arguments in Support: In support of this bill, the Fresno City Council, writes:

On March 19, 2026, the Fresno City Council unanimously adopted Resolution No. 2026-41 in support of this legislation…Currently, there is no prohibition preventing individuals required to register as sex offenders from seeking elected office. This undermines public confidence and raises serious concerns about the standards we set for those entrusted with leadership. Public office is built on trust, accountability, and the responsibility to protect the most vulnerable. Those who have committed crimes that violate that trust, particularly against children should not be eligible to serve in positions of public authority.

AB 2753 establishes a clear, consistent, and necessary standard across California. It aligns with existing expectations placed on individuals in positions of public trust and reinforces the integrity of our democratic institutions.

1. Related Bills: AB 2691 (Addis), also being heard in committee today, prohibits a person who has been convicted of a felony involving sexual assault or human trafficking from being eligible to be elected to any state or local elective office.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Fresno City Council

Opposition

None on file.

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