Assembly Standing Committee on Elections

Just the two buttons now. Good morning. Welcome to the March 15, 2023 hearing of the Assembly Elections Committee. We're going to begin as a subcommittee because a quorum is not present. If members of the committee are monitoring this hearing, please come to room 444 of the state capitol so that we can establish a quorum. We have two options for the public to testify at today's hearing in person or by moderated telephone service.

The committee has seven bills on its agenda, including two bills that are proposed for consent. For each bill, there will be a maximum of two primary witnesses in support and two primary witnesses in opposition, with a limit of two minutes per witness. After we've heard from the primary witnesses, the public will have up to 15 minutes in total time for additional comment on each bill, starting with members of the public who are here in this room.

Other witnesses are limited to providing their name, the organization they represent, if any, and their position on the bill. Additional comments will be ruled out of order. If you are unable to get through on the phone, please feel free to submit written testimony through the portal on the committee's website. This written testimony will become part of the official record of the bill.

For those who are watching this hearing remotely and who wish to call in to register their position, the call in number for this hearing is 877-692-8957, 887-692-8957, and the access code is 1315444. You can also find this number on the Assembly Elections Committee website as well as on your TV or computer screen. If you are calling in, please eliminate all background noise. This includes muting your live stream broadcast and your smart devices to reduce the sound distortion.

If you are having any problems with the moderated phone service, you can call the committee directly at 916-319-2094, 916-319-2094, and our team will be there to try to help. Thank you for bearing with us as we implement methods to continue to serve the people of California while we wait for quorum. And with those announcements out of the way, we will now move on to the committee's agenda. Let's take up the committee. Well, we'll take up the committee rules in the consent calendar later in the hearing. We're now going to move to the other bills on the committee's agenda. The first item on the agenda is AB 13 by Assemblymember Essayli. Yeah. Thank you, Assemblymember. You may begin.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee.

You know what? Before we do that, we can establish a quorum. Madam Secretary, will you call the roll?

[Roll Call]

And just to get it out of the way, because I know members have to go in and out, before we get to the bills, our first order of business will be to adopt the committee rules for the 23-24 legislative session. The proposed committee rules are similar to the rules that we've used the last several sessions. Several technical amendments clarifying changes. Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

The rules have been adopted. Our next item in business is to take up the committee's consent calendar. There are two bills on the consent calendar. Those bills are item number four, AB 453 by Assemblymember Cervantes, and item five, AB 507, by Assemblymember Bryan. Thank you. Does any member wish to remove an item from the consent calendar?

I don't want to remove an item, but on the Cervantes bill, I may vote differently later, but we can move forward. I just want to make comment.

Okay. We have a motion and a second motion by Ms. Pellerin, seconded by Ms. Rubio. Madam Secretary, can we please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

The consent calendar has been approved. Thank you so much, Assemblymember. You may now begin with AB 13.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to present today Assembly Bill 13. Nothing is more sacred in our American system of government than the right to vote. Generations of Americans have made great sacrifices to protect and expand our voting rights. Unfortunately, confidence in our democratic republic is in jeopardy because the public is losing faith in our voting process. The lack of sufficient safeguards to mail voting, poorly maintained voter rolls, and delayed election reporting are breeding distrust in our system.

To restore trust, I have introduced Assembly Bill 13, which does three primary things. First, it restores our voting system to pre pandemic procedures, which worked well before, and voters would still be able to request a permanent absentee ballot and vote by mail. It just would not be the default. Second, it would reinstate the prior ban on ballot harvesting so that only family members could handle and turn in another person's ballot.

And third, it would remove any barriers for people to vote in person by making election day a holiday. Voting in person has been the default for the overwhelming majority of our nation's history. It's a solemn day on when all Americans come together to exercise their power of consent over our government, and historically, we would have the results the same day, not weeks later. I don't need to tell Members of this Committee.

When we were getting sworn in, there were still about two seats that we didn't have the final election results for, and that was almost a month after the election. Our elections should not be dragged into partisanship. They should be sacred, and they should not be undermined by politics. In order to restore trust, I'm asking the Committee today to please consider the merits of this Bill. It really is intended to be a compromise Bill.

I would say the best indicator of a good compromise is when both sides are a little equally dissatisfied. And I think you'll hear that today. The opposition to my Bill is unhappy with restoring the prior procedures from 2016 for mail voting, and those in support dislike my proposal to make election day a holiday. I believe that by doing both, we can accomplish our objectives to ensure that all Californians have the right to vote and ability to cast a ballot.

At the same time, we can restore the public's trust in the fairness of our elections and render the results irrefutable. I look forward to answering your questions and hopefully working with the Committee to strengthen our election systems while making voting more accessible. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I now turn it over to my witnesses. Thank you.

We'll now have the primary witness in support and then our tweener.

Well, thank you. Good morning, Chairman Brian Honorable Members of the Committee, my name is Audrey Perry-Martin. I am a partner at a political law firm. I've been practicing election law exclusively for almost 20 years and taught several election law courses on the subject. I appreciate the opportunity today to speak in support of AB 13. COVID and the 2020 election combined caused a big shift in state election laws around the country.

For one, there's been an extremely heightened level of rhetoric surrounding the election processes and procedures. Issues of voting hours, mail ballots, and early voting didn't used to be partisan and controversial. There's always going to be a need to make a balance between making voting more accessible and making sure elections can be run smoothly and securely. AB 13 is a rare Bill that makes voting both more accessible and more secure.

The COVID pandemic hit during presidential election year and it required a quick, dramatic response to ensure everyone could vote safely, laws were quickly passed around the country to increase mail voting without much regard to how it fit into the state's overall election systems. This was clearly necessary during the height of the pandemic. However, these pandemic laws have been extended in California and has caused some problems. One of the problems we've seen is how slow mail ballots are to process.

As all of you know, if you use more mail ballots, it's going to take longer to get election results. California's local election officials do an incredible job of processing massive amounts of ballots as quickly as they can. But as someone who spent a lot of time observing ballot counting, I can attest that it's an incredibly complicated, multi-step process with very little room for error. California has increasingly made the job of these local election officials more difficult.

The COVID law that required every registered voter to be mailed a ballot isn't in and of itself problematic. If California had perfect voter roles, mailing everyone a ballot wouldn't be as challenging as it has turned out to be. Unfortunately, our voter roles are not perfect, and I understand the impulse to not remove people from voter roles.

You don't want registered voters to show up and not be able to vote, but it causes a problem when there's duplicates and outdated voter registration and you're sending everyone a ballot. For example, I talked to an 80 year old man this last election who was stressed beyond measure because he had received four ballots in the mail and he didn't know which one to vote. They were all addressed to him, all at the same address, all for the same election.

This is just one story, but I've been supervising California Collins for candidates for almost 10 years, and we constantly are receiving, ever since this new law came about reports of people getting multiple ballots, people getting ballots for people who don't live there. I've gotten lots of calls from out of state people who say somehow California tracked me down and sent me a ballot. Now, do I think these ballots are being fraudulently voted? Not necessarily. I don't think that's very common.

But the problem is it really undermines confidence in elections when somebody gets multiple ballots in the mail and is getting misaddressed ballots. So ballot harvesting can cause similar problems. For example, in the 2021 election recall election, you had several counties who had little hole punches, and you could actually.

We're passing that two minute mark, so.

I will finish up. AB 13 is a common sense Bill that made it easier to vote. It rolls the clock back a couple of years to where they were pre COVID, makes election day a state holiday. This is the type of Bill that should be receiving overwhelming bipartisan support. It solves many of the problems and concerns about California's elections, all while making it easier to vote overall to increase accidents and confidence in voting.

Thank you, and we will now go to our witness in the middle.

Thank you. My name is Colleen Britton. I'm with the election Integrity Project California, and we support three portions of this Bill very strongly. The first is that it eliminates universal ballot mailing. The mailing of ballots to all registrants is reckless and extreme. In the November 2020 election, California mailed ballots to over 400,000 registrants who had not voted or updated their registrations for 12 or more years. Nearly 42,000 had moved, canceled, inactive, a notation on their records.

But they were still mailed ballots and over 66,000 of those questionable registrations voted. The moment a ballot goes into the mail to or from a voter, it loses the chain of custody and becomes vulnerable. Mailing a ballot to any individual without a recent verification of their eligibility, correct residence, or even their existence is reckless and wasteful of millions of taxpayer dollars.

Over half a million ballots are returned undeliverable each election because the universal mailing statute, the cost of paper printing, postage of that many unnecessary ballots, is astronomical, and incurring the cost is irresponsible. The only way to avoid that waste is to expect capable voters to physically go to the polls and require those who cannot to apply for absentee ballot for each election where they need it. EIP urges an end to universal ballot mailing. Thank you. And permanent vote by mail balloting as well.

The second point of this Bill that we strongly support is the elimination of the statute that allows unrestricted, uncontrolled ballot harvesting and returns to the previous position of the voters-

Coming up on two minutes.

-to authorize their household member to supply the ballot. Third point real quickly is to reduce the seven day grace period to three days for ballot arrival. This is a big step in the right direction. Any postelection day grace period both enables and incentivizes voter fraud and ballot manipulation.

We would prefer total elimination of the post election day grace period, and we support the bones of the Bill, AB 13 encourage amendments to further strengthen the integrity of our elections. Thank you for your time and consideration.

And they don't support the holidays. So this is the compromise.

Thank you for your testimony. Because it's the first day of the Committee hearing, I've been a little flexible with the two minutes. We'll get better. As future committee hearings go on. We'll next move to witnesses in support in the room. Is there anybody in the room who would like to register their support for this Bill? Is there a single person in this room who would like to support this Bill? Yes, ma'am.

My name is Liz Waggy and I support the Bill.

Thank you so much. We're now going to go to the phone lines. Are there any witnesses on the phone lines who'd like to register their support for this Bill?

To speak in support of this Bill, please press one, then zero on your telephone keypad. You'll hear an indication you've been placed into queue and your AT&T specialist will provide you with your line number with which you'll be identified. You may remove yourself from the queue by repeating the one, then zero command. We'll first go to line 23. Go ahead.

Name organization position on the Bill.

My name is Judy Frankel. I live in Rancho Palos Verdes. I strongly support this Bill, but that's not the whole reason. I also support AB 83.

Thank you.

Line 19.

Yes, my name is Wendy. I'm calling to support AB 13. Thank you.

Thank you.

We do have others queued up one moment while we provide them their line numbers. We'll go next to line 32. Go ahead.

Hi, my name is Ashley Chinyu and I'm from San Jose, California. And I support this Bill and AB 83.

Thank you so much.

Line 12.

Hi, my name is April Bean, I'm from Sacramento county. I'm with election Integrity Project, California, and I am in support of this Bill.

Line 13.

Hi, my name is Jeanette Feltz. I'm from Sacramento county with EIPCA, and I support this Bill, if amended.

Line 17.

Jackie Coda. I support the Bill as amended. Election integrity team of Alameda County.

Line 26. Line 26, your line is open. Please check your mute feature or pick up your handset. Moving on to line 31.

Yes, hello, I'm Hunter Cobb. I'm with the election integrity team of Alameda County, and I support this Bill.

Thank you, Hunter.

Mr. Chair, we have no further lines in queue.

Thank you so much. We are now going to go to primary witnesses in opposition.

Yeah, I think there's room there. Mr. Berman, thank you for joining us.

Always a pleasure, Mr. Chair.

For the purposes of testimony, you were just a resident of Menlo County, I presume?

Just a resident of Menlo Park, sir. Nothing else.

Okay. Menlo park. You see how well I know Northern California. Thank you for joining us. Your history, chairing this Committee and serving on this Committee has, I think, made a lasting impact for California. You each have two minutes. Go ahead.

All right. Good morning, chair Members. I'm Paul Spencer. I'm a voting rights attorney with Disability Rights California. As an advocate for voting rights, I respectfully oppose this Bill and Disability Rights California has been joined by a large list of other organizations in the state who are opposed to this Bill for, I think, really compelling reasons, and I just want to read the list.

It's ACLU, California action, Advancing Justice Asian law Caucus, Asian Americans advancing justice Southern California, California Black Power Network, California Donor table, California Environmental voters, California State Council of Service Employees International Union, Inland Empire United, Legal Women Voters of California, the National Association of Latino elected and appointed officials, and Voices for progress. This Bill would significantly restrict voting access for California's voters and undermine the progress that the Legislature has made in recent years to ensure all eligible voters can participate in the democratic process.

Turning back the rules to send everyone a registered vote by mail ballot, elimination of vote centers the prohibition on voters to designate an authorized representative to pick up their ballot. These are just a few of the examples of the many restrictions in AB 13. Look, these changes would disproportionately impact underrepresented communities and voters with disabilities who often have limited access to transportation and may have difficulty leaving their homes to vote. Limiting the authorized representatives who may return a ballot would further reduce access.

Many voters rely on family, friends, and others for assistance with voting. Additionally, the Voters Choice act has been instrumental in expanding access to voting in some counties. This is especially helpful for people who face barriers to voting on election day. Repealing the Voters Choice act would undermine work that has been done to make voting easier and more accessible for all Californians.

In addition, shortening the time frame for election offices to receive a ballot that's also turning back on something that protects people's ability to have their votes counted. Finally, I want to emphasize that this Bill would weaken California's democracy by making it harder to vote. Voters should have equal access to the ballot box, but also access that makes voting less burdensome. And California has been taking steps over the years, even before the pandemic, slowly and over time, to make voting easier to do.

AB 13 would reverse this progress, and it would restrict the ability of Californians to participate in voting in the democratic process. Therefore, I urge you to oppose AB 13 and continue to support policies that ensure all eligible Californians have full access to the democratic process. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Berman.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to come. Just as a private citizen to talk about this Bill, I want to thank the author. I respectfully come in opposition to AB 1313. That's ominous. But I want to thank him because any opportunity to come and talk about all of the pro-democracy laws that this Committee and this Legislature have passed over the past couple of years is a good day.

That's a great day to come and talk about how we've increased access to the ballot in California, how we've made our elections systems safer, more secure, more accessible for all 40 million residents, or at least all 22 plus million voters that we have in California. It was alluded to, but during the height of the pandemic, we passed a law to open to make sure that every Californian gets a vote by mail.

The Legislature passed that law, the wise recommendations of the Committee staff and the Council of Committee staff. And then what happened was we had the biggest voter turnout in California in 70 plus years. And elections officials across the state talked about what a smooth election it was, how we made it easier for people to vote, but how it was also easier for them to process the ballots and get them counted.

And yeah, it took a couple of days, but I would argue that our democracy is worth waiting for. And making sure that our democracy is accurate, our voting and our elections are accurate is worth waiting for. But we've done more than that. California was the first state in the country to create its own office of election Cybersecurity. To make sure that our election systems are secure.

California adopted the track my ballot system to increase transparency, increase voters' faith, in our democracy, where they can follow their ballot through the mail, make sure that it was received by elections officials. As Assembly Member Pellerin used to be an election official and make sure that it was counted. And if it wasn't, they had an opportunity to fix it. Now, from what I can tell, the only State of reason for this Bill is that supposedly voters have lost their faith in democracy.

But what wasn't discussed was why voters have lost their faith in democracy. Voters have lost their faith in democracy because they've been lied to. They've been lied to by President Trump. They've been lied to by Rudy Giuliani. They've been lied to by Rupert Murdoch. And what's that moron? Tucker Carlson?

And these people got caught with their pants down, right, sending text messages to each other, talking about how they know the election wasn't stolen, but then going on Fox News and lying to their millions of viewers, eroding America's faith in our democracy.

So this Committee has an opportunity we can double down on democracy and the Committee can reject this obviously partisan Bill, or we can get caught up in the lies, the fraudsters who would sooner sell out their democracy just to make a buck and have been caught in those lies and be further cynical about the safety of our election system in California, which everybody has said is secure. And if people do commit fraud, we have laws to go after those people who commit election fraud.

And I support that if people commit election fraud, they should be prosecuted. So far, it's mostly only been Republicans across the country who have actually committed election fraud, but we have laws on the books to make sure that doesn't happen. But to rescind, to erode access to the ballot because national leaders have lied to Americans doesn't make any sense. So I respectfully oppose the Bill, but I encourage and wish the Committee and its good judgment to do what's right. Thank you.

Thank you. Witnesses in opposition. Is there anybody in the hearing room who wishes to register their opposition to this Bill? Name, organization, position on the Bill.

Good morning. Tricia Webber, on behalf of California Association of Clerks and Election Officials, and we oppose the Bill.

Good morning. Eric Garrison, on behalf of the office of Secretary of State in opposition to the Bill.

Morning, Dora Rose, League of Women voters of California in very strong opposition to this Bill.

Good morning. Ruth Dawson, ACLU California Action in opposition thank you.

Mark East Mason, California environmental voters. We're in opposition to the Bill. Thanks.

Robert Copeland, concerned citizen, oppose the Bill.

We're now going to turn it to the phone lines operators, anybody in the phone lines who wishes to register their opposition to this Bill.

If you wish to speak in opposition to the Bill, please press one, then zero at this time. And we'll start with line 37. Please go ahead.

And yes, this is not Hunter Biden or the FBI. This is Gerald Petchinuk of the Alameda County election integrity team with strong support and no sense.

Thank you so much.

Please. Thank you.

Please. For folks wishing to register their opposition to this Bill, we are on the opposition phase of the Committee.

And we'll go to line 26. Please go ahead.

Hello, this is Mindy Petchunek from the Alameda election integrity team, and I want to say I'm in support of this Bill as amended. I'm sorry I missed my turn earlier.

Thank you for participating in democracy. Are there any other folks on the phone line?

Yes, we have about seven still on the line here. Next, we'll go to line 27. Please go ahead.

I'm Molly Brown in Mount Shasta, California, and I am in strong opposition to AB 13. Thank you.

Thank you.

Line 24, please go ahead.

Greetings. Carolyn Fowler, Inglewood, California. California election protection. Strong opposition to this Bill.

Thank you. Ms. Fowler.

Line 45, please. Go ahead.

Isabel Storey, California voter in Santa Monica. I'm in strong opposition to AB 13.

Line 10, please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Sarah Ruth. From Chair Bryan AB 55. And strong opposition for this bill. Thank you.

Line 47, please go ahead.

Good morning. My name is Dan Okenfuss, representing the California Foundation for Independent Living Centers, and we oppose.

Line 28, please go ahead.

Leslie Purcell. Ventura, longtime California voter. I am in opposition to this bill. Thank you.

And lastly, we'll go to line 42, please go ahead.

Yes, hi, Ryan Boone with Boone Enterprises, Redondo Beach, California. Strong opposition.

And Mr. Chair, we have no one else in queue at this time.

Thank you, operator. We're now going to turn it over to Committee Members. Are there any Members who wish to speak on this bill? Ms. Pellerin?

Hello. So, as somebody here who has worked in elections for 27 and a half years, and I've seen elections evolve over those decades, we have come a long way. And making sure that voting is accessible to everybody is so vitally important to our democracy. And this bill takes us back prior to pre pandemic. And so I am supportive of people having access to voting and making it as easy as possible while maintaining our integrity and transparency and accuracy and efficiency.

And just because things take time does not mean that things are going wrong. So having the time to do the essential audits post election is essential to ensuring an accurate vote count. So I will be voting no today.

Can I respond briefly? Okay. I just want to be clear. The intent is not to lower access or deny anyone's access. I assure you, anyone who wants a mail ballot will still have the opportunity to receive one and can sign up for a permanent absentee ballot, so they will receive it in perpetuity. So I can't stress any clear. It's not intended to lower access. In fact, that's why I added the holidays, to increase access. So there's no barriers for people to vote on election day. But I share that goal. I don't seek to undermine it. I assure you.

With our current voting system, people can vote 29 days before an election, and the vote centers will open 10 days prior to an election. There's multiple opportunities to vote. This bill adds barriers to people for voting, so I cannot support it. But thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Are there other Members of the Committee who wish to speak? Mr. Lackey?

Yeah. First off, let me just express a little disappointment. I believe that insulting opponents only creates or validates division. I don't think it addresses the issue effectively. I think everybody should realize that our state and our country is very divided right now. And I think what we need is healing and not exacerbating the problem. I've never seen another member come in to committee and bring insulting remarks. Very disappointed. But back to your issue, sir.

All your bill is trying to do is return to normalcy, which is what we had just two years ago. And there was no opposition at that point to the way we were conducting business. The COVID emergency has expired. All you're trying to do is get back to normal. And there's no evidence that sending mail ballots to everyone and waiting seven days after the election helps democracy. So I'm very proud to embrace democracy and even bite the bitter pill of election day holiday.

I don't think that is really what we're looking for here, but so be it. Because I believe your other tenets of this bill are very worthy and would help bring integrity back to our system.

Mr. Lee, thank you so much.

So I strongly am going to be opposing this bill. While the state embraced vote by mail for all voters across the state, due to recently, my counties of Santa Clara and Alameda have already, Ford embraced this for a long time, and it has shown that we have stronger participation, stronger turnout. And I want to remind that every single one of us elect in this room, including yourself, the author benefited from vote by mail, especially benefited from vote by mail and the remote voting procedures.

So this is going backwards and regressing when we should be leading the nation and saying there should be less barriers to access, less barriers to voting, and more people should be able to participate. Everyone eligible should be able to participate, and we should lower those barriers. That's what California's vision is. That's the model. We're going forward and we should never take one step back. So I'm going to be opposing this bill today.

Are there any other Members of the Committee who wish to speak on this bill? Mr. Essayli, you may close.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I appreciate the committee's time and thoughts that were expressed. This really isn't intended to be a partisan bill, and I hope we can just lower the temperature a little bit and just have a conversation. There are two main issues that my bill seeks to address with the voting, the mail voting. And that is one, the voting rules have traditionally not been very accurate. And as the reasons discussed, some people get multiple ballots or people have moved get ballots.

And so that's what creates distrust, is when people get ballots that they shouldn't and people talk and spread that. So that's one concern is maybe moving forward, Mr. Chair, we can look at how we can improve our voting rules if we're going to continue the mail ballots. But also the other problem is the ballot harvesting. I have a real problem with the ballot harvesting because we have unknown people going to people's homes for almost a month before the election and persuading people to hand over ballots.

And we have no idea who these people are. We have no idea what the conversation is at the door. We don't know if they're being pressured to vote a certain way or someone is handing over their ballot when they don't want to. I have a lot of concerns about the ballot harvesting.

And so what this bill does, it says, yeah, if you want to vote by mail, you can, but the default should be, everyone votes in person on election day, just like the rest of the world does. And I think there's something sacred about that. I mean, we come together on a single day as Americans and we make a decision on one day, and then we have the results soon after. So I just think it's a good thing.

I know Mr. Low has introduced the election day holiday in the past, and that's sort of where I got the idea to include it. So it could be a bipartisan effort. And I just want to close with one statement because I don't think it's a partisan issue. There was this Commission by President Ford and Jimmy Carter, and they raised a concern about the growing use of absentee ballots.

And I quote, "growing use of absentee voting has turned this area of voting into the most likely opportunity for election fraud now encountered by law enforcement officials. These cases are especially difficult to prosecute since the misuse of a voters ballot or the presence or pressure on voters occurs away from the polling location or any other outside scrutiny. These opportunities for abuse should be contained, not enlarged." And again, that's a bipartisan report between President Ford and Jimmy Carter.

So with that, I close, Mr. Chair, and I thank you for your time.

So the Committee that you're quoting was 20 years ago, President Ford nearly 60 years ago. I was 11 when that Committee did that analysis. We have come a long way since then. Our voting integrity has come a long way since then. I think the election day holiday is a great idea. I've supported it before. We would have been happy to work with you to actually amend this bill to something that's passable, like having an election day holiday.

What I'm deeply concerned by is repealing the Voters Choice Act. The idea that we get rid of dropboxes, we'd get rid of universal vote by mail, which have shown to increase the efficacy of our elections and the participation of our elections specifically for black, brown, poor, indigenous, and communities with people who suffer from disabilities or people who live with disabilities. Accessibility is the goal of a thriving democracy. We know democracy thrives when everybody can participate in it.

There are states around this country that are rolling back voting rights with dozens of legislation. There's a single state in the union that has two dozen bills to roll back voting rights. We're not going to do that in California. I'm also disappointed. I'm disappointed that this is the first bill this Committee is going to hear this session, one that undoes the righteous work that's been done in California over the last several years. We didn't just do this because of the pandemic.

The pandemic forced us to question the features of our democracy that weren't working as well as they could have been this entire time. I'm incredibly proud of this work, and for those reasons, I can't support this bill today. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll? If there's a motion? Is there a second?

I'll second it, Mr. Chair.

Let's call the roll.

The motion is do pass and be re referred to the Committee on Governmental organization. [Roll Call]

We're going to leave it open for absent members, but I wouldn't hold my breath. We'll put it on call.

There's still a chance.

Everyone gets to vote in this committee. Next, we have Mr. Lee. AB 83, welcome back and welcome to the committee. You may begin.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I present a somewhat contrasting bill, I suppose, this morning. I want to thank the chair and Members today for hearing AB 83, the Get Foreign Money Out Bill. This bill, before you, affirms a founding principle of this nation and protects the integrity of California's democratic self-government from foreign actors. AB 83 will limit the influence of foreign countries and entities who own a significant amount of shares in a US-based corporation from being able to exert influence over our elections.

Specifically, a corporation would deem foreign influence if 1% of its shares are owned by single foreign investor. And this could be a London hedge firm, a Russian oligarch, or a oil prince from the Middle East, or 5% of shares owned by multiple foreign investors. In Agria, a foreign entity participates in decision-making with respect to state or local political spending.

And shortly after the 2010 Citizens United ruling, then President Obama warned in the State of the Union that the Supreme Court had opened the door to foreign money in US elections. And 13 years later, we have evidence that this holds true. Foreign investments in US companies have skyrocketed in recent years. In 1982, foreign investors owned only about 5% of all US corporate equity, and by 2019 that number jumped to 40%. So one in four. Sorry, two in five.

While foreign investors are prohibited by federal law from spending money to influence US elections, there is a loophole being exploited by foreign investors with large amounts of shares in US corporations. Foreign companies with domestic subsidiaries are especially able to circumvent these prohibitions and exert influence in political spending. Owning 1% of shares in a major corporation can amount to hundreds of millions of dollars, with large shareholders having direct lines to the CEO.

As we look around the world, Saudi Arabia's sovereign wealth fund now holds shares in Amazon, Google, Visa, Microsoft, Disney, Uber, PayPal, and Zoom, among many other US-based corporations that are very familiar to us. Saudi Arabia's ultimate goal is to become the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world by 2030, with assets worth over 2 trillion, with a T, trillion dollars.

Saudi Arabia's wealth fund has more than tripled its holdings in US companies from the end of 2020 to $43.4 billion during the third quarter of 2021. And more recently, when Elon Musk acquired Twitter and took it private, the prince of Saudi Arabia agreed to convert his nearly $2 billion of shares of Twitter. He now approximately owns 4% of the entire company. And Russian oligarchs such as Len Blavetnik have been tied to millions of dollars in contributions to influence elections.

And also the sovereign wealth fund of Norway has a stake in around 1900 companies and an average holds 1.4% of shares. Across the country, multinational corporations and foreign governments have used their money and power to influence outcome elections to advance agendas in their favor. It is time we put an end to foreign actors and foreign entities using their power and wealth to influence California's election. With that, I'd like to introduce my two witnesses in port. With me in-person, I have Dora Rose, deputy director of the League of Women Voters. And on the phone, I have Ron Fein, who is the legal director of Free Speech for People.

Ms. Dora Rose, it's good to see you. You may begin.

Good to see you. Do you want me to begin or do you want your primary witness to speak first? Okay, why doesn't he frame? Oh, fine.

Ron, if you're on the phone, why don't you go first then? How about that?

Thank you. My name is Ron Fein. I am the legal director of Free Speech for People. We're a national, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, and we've worked on similar legislation around the country alongside the Center for American Progress. There are three main questions that people ask about this bill. Is it constitutional? Is it workable? And are the thresholds reasonable? In terms of, is it constitutional, yes.

I explained this in detail, my written testimony, as well as that attached from Professor Laurence Tribe of Harvard Law School and Federal Election Commissioner Ellen Weintraub. Very briefly, the Supreme Court Citizens United decision specifically said it was applying to, quote, associations of citizens. And that's not what the types of businesses we're talking about are. And a later Supreme Court decision called Blumen made a carve-out for foreign spending.

There's also a very similar Seattle law that's been in effect since January of 2020 without being challenged in court as some data point of its legality. Second, is it workable? Yes. So, first of all, most businesses are privately held. They know exactly who their investors are. And of course, the vast majority of businesses in California and around the country have no foreign investment. This isn't about immigrants or people here who may own a stake in a business. This is about foreign investors abroad.

Now, with publicly traded corporations, it is true that their ownership can change throughout the day, but they have very well established procedures that they use multiple times a year to determine exactly who owned how many shares as of any particular date. And I attached testimony from Professor John Coates, who's a former general counsel of the Securities Exchange Commission, explaining that process. My final point is about the thresholds. To some people, 1% doesn't seem like a lot, but this isn't about control. It's about influence.

And at a major corporation, say, S&P 500, only a handful of shareholders will have 1%. That's hundreds of millions of dollars. And I explained in my testimony how the Securities Exchange Commission actually recently lowered a threshold that it had from 1% to below 1% for being important enough to be able to qualify to submit a shareholder resolution. Informally speaking, someone who owns 1% of shares can get the CEO on the phone within 24 hours. I don't think anybody would dispute that 1%.

Investors have multiple channels of formal and informal influence on corporate governance, including not just proxy votes, but they can make moves on the board, pressure it to fire the CEO. They can threaten to dump shares, which would crash the price and so forth. So putting all these together, AB 83, is constitutional, it's workable, and the thresholds are drawn from corporate governance research that shows that at this level, a corporation's decision-making process is influenced.

And I'll sum up with a quote from the former CEO of ExxonMobil, Lee Raymond, who said, I'm not a US Company and I don't make decisions based on what's best for the US. And this bill would say that companies like that should not be spending to influence California's elections. Thank you.

Thank you, Ron. Ms. Rose.

Good morning, Chair Bryan. Members, here in support of AB 83. So as you might expect, the league believes that our campaign financing system should level the playing fields for equitable competition among candidates. Right? It should combat corruption and it should prioritize the interests of ordinary voters. Not big money, not special interests. And as you've heard, the Citizens United loophole that we have here allows foreign investors to circumvent our laws against political contributions by securing ownership interests in United States corporations. Right?

This loophole has actually sort of blown up in recent years as we've seen increasing foreign investment in US companies. Foreign influence corporations have fiduciary responsibilities, right? They're answerable to their shareholders. They do not center the interest of Californians. But our elections have got to be responsive to the interests of Californians, not skewed toward foreign interests. We're already experiencing a real crisis of democracy with myths and disinformation that is perpetuated to a very disturbing degree by certain foreign powers.

The corrupting influence of big money in politics is magnified when citizens of other countries are allowed to influence our elections by simply investing in US companies. AB 83 is a really big idea. Right? It's an audacious idea to try to prohibit corporations with certain percentages of foreign principal ownership or where foreign entities participate in political spending decisions from making campaign contributions and expenditures. But it's the right thing to do. It's the right thing to do to push back on political manipulations by these foreign influence corporations. It's going to foster trust, public trust in our elections, and it's going to also protect representative democracy. So for these reasons, the League of Women Voters urges an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Rose. Are there any witnesses in the room who would like to register their support for this bill? Name organization, position on the bill.

Good morning, Chair Bryan and members. James Michael Agpalo with the American Federation of State County Municipal Employees, in support of AB 83.

Thank you.

My name is Coleen Britton with the Election Integrity Project California, and we are in support of AB 83. Thank you.

Robert. California retired for support the bill. Strong support.

Marquis King Mason, California Environmental Voters, in support of the bill.

Liz Waggy and I am in support of the bill.

Thank you so much. We will now go to the phone lines. Is there anybody on the phone lines who wishes to register their support for this bill?

If you wish to speak in support, please press one, then zero at this time. We'll start with line 23. Please go ahead.

Hi, I'm Judy Frankel. I live in Rancho Palos Verdes, and I strongly support AB 83 and urge you to pass it out of this committee.

And next, we'll go to line 21. Please go ahead.

Jennifer Tanner, on behalf of all the 82 groups of Indivisible California State Strong and the 25 other groups totaling 105 plus groups, we are in strong support of AB 83 to keep our self-governance. Thank you.

Line 28, please go ahead.

Do you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Thank you. It's Leslie Purcell. I am a longtime voter and I support the bill strongly. Thank you.

And next, we'll go to line 13. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Jeanette, Sacramento County with EIPCA, and I strongly support this bill.

And line 46, please go ahead. I'm sorry, 46.

Unfortunately, you're breaking up, but I think I heard you say, I strongly support this bill.

Yes.

Yes ma'am.

And we'll go to line 12, please go ahead.

Hello, this is April Bean from Sacramento County, and I am with Election Integrity Project California, and I am in strong support of this bill. Thank you very much.

Line 53, please go ahead.

Hi, this is Lawrence Abbott from San Leandro with the California Alliance for Retired Americans, and we are in strong support of AB 83.

Line 18, please go ahead.

Hi, this is Amy Hui in Walnut Creek with Money Out Voters In and Indivisible Resistors Walnut Creek, and we're in strong support of AB 83 and urge you to pass it out of this committee. Thank you.

We'll go to line 11. Please go ahead.

Yes, good morning. Cindy Fowler, Money Out Voters In Long Beach, and we are in strong support of this bill. Please pass it.

And we'll go to line 41, please go ahead.

Good morning. My name is Michael Draskovic. I'm with Los Angeles for Democracy Vouchers and the Democracy Policy Network, and we at both organizations are in strong support of this bill.

Thank you.

And line 32, please go ahead. And line number 32, please go ahead. Okay, we'll move on to line 42. Please go ahead.

Yes, hi, Ryan Boone, CEO with Boone Enterprises out of Redondo Beach. We strongly support AB 83. Thank you.

Line 44, please go ahead.

Lee, Placer County Election Integrity Project, California, in support of this bill. Also, as I was dropped out of the queue for AB 13, I want to support that bill as well.

Thank you.

Line 50, please. Go ahead.

Hello?

Yes, we can hear you.

Is this line 50?

Yes, ma'am.

Oh, thank you. Because I did not get the number in the beginning. Anyway, this is Connie Thomas with the Community Action Mobilization Team in Los Angeles, and we strongly support AB 83, and we ask you to pass it out of committee. Thank you.

Thank you, Connie.

We'll go to line 24, please. Go ahead and.

Line number 24, please go ahead.

Greetings, Carolyn Fowler, Inglewood, California. Movie and California Election Protection in strong support of AB 83. Thank you.

Line number 51, please go ahead.

Good morning, my name is Karen Powers. I'm calling from Solano County, and I'm with Election Integrity Project California, calling in support of AB 83. Thank you.

Line number 55, please go ahead. Start. Please.

I support the bill.

And once again, if there are anyone speaking in opposition, press one then zero at this time. Mr. Chairman, we have no one else in queue.

Thank you.

Hello?

Yes.

This is James Provenzano from San Diego County Private Citizen. Please support AB 83.

Thank you, James.

Thank you. We'll go to line 30. Please go ahead.

I'm sorry, did you say line 30? I apologize.

Yes, we did.

Okay. Good morning. This is Dina Eigles Root, co-chair of the Legislative Action Committee of the Los Angeles County Democratic Party, which represents more than 3 million democrats in Los Angeles County. The Los Angeles County Democratic Party is in strong support of AB 83. Please vote yes. Thank you.

Thank you.

And lastly, we'll go to line 59, please go ahead.

Hello, this is Stephanie Brown as a citizen and also as a volunteer with Indivisible California State Strong. And we strongly urge passage of this bill. And thank you for introducing it. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, we have a couple more queue up. We'll go to line 10. Please go ahead.

Hi, I am Sarah Ruth from 8055. We do need to limit big money's influence. Please support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

And we'll go to line 25. Please go ahead.

Good morning. Thank you. This is Michelle Flutter of Money Out Voters In. We're the California sponsor of this bill and we urge your aye vote this morning. Thank you.

Thank you.

And we'll go to line 49. Please go ahead.

Hello, this is Cynthia Hart calling from the Culver City Democratic Club. And our club voted overwhelmingly in support of AB 83, and we urge you to pass it out of Committee.

Thank you.

And, Mr. Chair, we have no one else in queue at this time.

Thank you so much. We'll now go to primary witnesses in opposition. Good morning.

How you doing?

Doing all right.

Good. Mr. Chair and Members, Ben Golombek with the California Chamber of Commerce in respectful opposition to the bill. While we've not been able to poll and assess the impact on all of our nearly 15,000 members or the more than 850,000 businesses registered to operate in the State of California, I would point out that the bill sponsor's own study shows that the proposal would prohibit 98% of S&P 500 companies from participating in the political process. The bill also raises constitutional questions in our mind.

I know one of the witnesses mentioned the proposal in Seattle. However, the Washington State Democratic Party had Perkins Cooey, a longtime Democratic law firm, do an analysis, and the law firm said that the legislation there, which is very similar to the legislation here, would face constitutional challenges and a challenge would have strong likelihood of success on the merits. It's clear that this proposal is simply meant to have the business community unilaterally disarmed in terms of its participation in the political process.

Some of the requirements are also rather punitive and seem impossible to implement, including the requirement that if a business makes a contribution, the CEO themselves has to sign a statement of certification that promises that the business does not have foreign investors. The final issue I'll raise is what I call the pass through provision.

And this essentially, without re-quoting the language in the bill, essentially, if one of you receives a contribution from one of your colleagues for your reelection campaign or for another campaign that you're running for, you would also have to get a business that contributed to your colleague this statement of certification from the CEO that's required under this bill.

Honestly, when I read the bill, I assumed it was being sponsored by an association of campaign lawyers and treasurers, because this would create an explosion in terms of the jobs in those industries as the only way to comply with this. And for those reasons, we are respectfully opposed to AB 83. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses or are there any people in the room who wish to register their opposition to this bill? Not a single one. Is there anybody on the phone lines who wishes to register their opposition to this bill?

Speak in opposition, press one then zero at this time. We will open up line 54.

Yes, this is Mark Zulum with Alameda County Election Integrity Team. I've been involved in elections since 2019. I'm actually in support of AB 83. So I was left in the queue. So I just want to state that AB 83 should pass and it's good for California. I understand that.

Thank you so much.

Position. We just spoke.

Yeah, I appreciate you.

Thank you, Mr. Operator. We'll now turn it to Committee Members. Are there any Committee Members who wish to speak on this bill? Ms. Pellerin?

Thank you. So thank you, Assembly Member Lee, for bringing this bill to our Committee. I just have one question about that statement of certification. I'm just wondering whether it's going to be a uniform form that everyone uses or what kind of form is that going to be?

Yeah, I imagine the statement of certification which just almost is just them saying we are not. That's how they accredit themselves. Not to be a foreign influence corporation can be a standardized form by FPPC. But I'll also turn over to Ron if he has any commentary about how the form could be standardized and made accessible.

Hi. Thank you. This is Ron fine again. Certainly the FPPC could create a standardized form. That's what the local elections agency did in Seattle. But the law doesn't specify anything about that form. But it could be extremely simple. It could have the statement pre-made and just fill in name, date, and sign.

We have a motion by Mr. Low. Mr. Lackey, do you wish to speak on this bill?

I do. I'm obviously not going to be able to support this bill because I'm not a lawyer, but I believe it has questionable compliance with the First Amendment. Most of America's largest publicly traded companies exceed this 5% criteria threshold, and we would be prohibited from political speech. And so this bill, unfortunately, I believe it has a little tenor of payback for the Uber Lyft involvement in Prop 22, which tried to fix AB five and would serve an unfortunate veto of the people's express voice. So I'll be opposing.

We have a motion by Mr. Low. Is there a second? Ms. Pellerin. Mr. Lee, would you like to close?

Yes, thank you. Just to address the point that the opposition raised about, and it's a good point, is that Seattle, since 2019, when they passed this, the home of Amazon, of course, many people said this is unconstitutional, it would get sued. It was 2019. To this day, there still has not been a lawsuit because they could not win that lawsuit. That's the fact of the matter is they have run several elections, and the sky has not fallen down in the capital of Amazon in Seattle.

And we can do the same thing. In America right now, the Supreme Court holds this up, saying, of course, especially that free speech is for association of citizens. If you're a company right now that has 51% ownership or 50.1% ownership by foreign interests, you are a foreign entity and you are barred from spending elections. There is strong precedent for that. American elections are for Americans, and that's how we should protect our democratic self government.

And when we have this back end loophole of foreign money that seeps in, either it be 1% as one entity, which, again, is millions and millions of shares, or 5% as a group, it is true. A lot of corporations are now owned very, very much so by international holders. And that's a case of a globalized economy and more and more folks seeking to stock their money here in America, whether it be real estate or in corporations.

And that goes from some of our more typical adversaries like Russian oligarchs or even multinational corporations based in Europe or even in Asia. It is sadly the case, and I think we should be guarded against that. And also, just to note from the opposition is that, as you know, CalChamber infamously does call me a job creator. So I am happy to see that this bill will create a lot of new jobs in election integrity. So I ask for, humbly, your aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Lee. I think what you've heard by some people up here, questions about just tightening it up, making sure that all the factors make sense. I know scaling something up from Seattle to like the State of California could come with some unique challenges and complications. That being said, this was not the Committee you got held last time bringing it. I don't believe it's going to be the Committee you get held in bringing it this year. It has a do pass record from me. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

The motion is do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Yeah, we'll put that on call. Ms. Pellerin, you are up. Came into Committee swinging. Would you like to start with AB 398?

I would love to. Good morning.

Good morning.

We're still mourning, right?

We are.

So. Thank you, chair and Members, I'll start by accepting the Committee amendments to AB 398. And the elections code currently states that an elections official can issue a replacement ballot to any voter who provides a statement, under penalty of perjury, that they've either failed to receive the ballot or lost it or destroyed that original ballot.

And the signature requirement delays the process of voters as elections officials are barred from issuing a replacement ballot until they've received that statement under penalty or perjury, even if the voter has already contacted the elections official to request that ballot. So this requirement is basically saying that we do not need that wet signature and that a replacement ballot can be provided to the voter by whatever means that the county elections official is going to be using telephone or online requests.

And AB 398 is sponsored by the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials and has the support from disability rights and environmental advocates. And with me to testify in support today is Tricia Webber, the Santa Cruz County Clerk and Co. Chair of the Elections legislative Committee of the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials. I love you guys.

That means I'm done, okay? No, they're just supporting me as a freshman Member.

What it means is they've taken a minute of your time.

Okay, then I will go really quickly. Good morning, Chair Bryan and Members of the Committee. My name is Tricia Webber. I'm the Santa Cruz County Clerk Registrar of Voters, and I'm here today on behalf of the California Association of Clerk and Election Officials. We're proud to support and sponsor Assemblymember Pellerin's, AB 398 regarding replacement of the vote by mail ballots.

An unintended consequence that occurred last year during the cleanup to the vote by mail section was the removal of the ability for voters to request a vote by mail ballot replacement, either by phone or online. Instead, it requires a voter to send a signed request to the election official. This is frustrating for both voters and the election officials. Election officials have the voter on the phone.

They've identified who they are, they've identified that they have not received their vote by mail ballot or they need a replacement because they made an error on it. But then we have to say, I'm sorry, I can't help you until you send me a notice that says this language and you sign it. Sending that signed document is especially difficult for our military and overseas voters who we are corresponding with, either on the phone or through an email.

Mail does take longer to get to the states from overseas, and if we have to send that back out by mail, there's a delay and a possibility that that voter will not receive their ballot on a timely fashion. Assembly Bill 398 clears the way for election officials to more efficiently help voters. It allows voters to have a better voting experience, and it allows the military and overseas voters to have the same access as their domestic counterparts.

Thank you very much for your time, and I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in the room who would like to register their support for this bill? Name organization position on the bill.

Eric Harris, Disability Rights California in strong support thank you.

Mark East Mason, California Environmental Voters in support.

Dora Rose, League of Moon Voters of California. We're in very strong support of the bill. We've discussed certain amendments with Assemblymember Pellerin and appreciate her working with us on this, just to spell out the verification procedures that are already used in practice. We'll be in support. Thank you.

Thank you. With that, we'll turn it over to the phone lines. Is there anybody on the phone lines. Who would like to register their support for the bill?

Register support for this bill, please press one, then zero on your telephone keypad at this time.

Thank you so much. Are there any primary witnesses in opposition? Seeing and hearing none. Are there any witnesses in the room in opposition who would like to register their name, organization, and position on the Bill? Seeing none. Operator, is there anybody on the phone lines who would like register opposition to.

Speak in opposition of this Bill, press one, then zero on your telephone keypad. We'll first go to line 13. Go ahead.

My name is Jeanette Feltz, Sacramento County, and I oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

We'll go next to line 44. Go ahead, please.

Mantebury, Placer County, with Election Integrity Project, California, in opposition to this Bill.

Line 68.

My name is Jackie Coda, and I am with the election integrity team of Alameda County, and I am in strong opposition of this Bill.

Line 54.

Yes, my name is Mark Zulum. I am with the election integrity team of Alameda County, California. I've been involved in elections for a long, long time, and I'm in strong opposition of this Bill.

Line 64.

My name is Alice Cow from San Jose, California. I would say no for this Bill.

Line 12.

My name is April Bean, Sacramento County. I am in opposition to this Bill.

Mr. Chair, we have no one else queued up at this time.

Thank you so much. We will now turn it to Committee Members. Are there any Members who wish to speak on this Bill? Mr. Lackey, you are recognized.

Yeah, it's more a question, I assume. Have you accepted the Committee's amendments?

Yes.

And that would include specifically the verification of the voter? Yes.

That included them to state their name, residence, and date of birth? Yes.

Correct.

Thank you.

I'm sorry. One last question.

That's what I needed to know.

If I may. What is the motivation by removing the perjury statement under penalty of perjury? Removing.

Sure.

Because. Well, the current law requires it to be a signed statement. So these are going to be received via online requests, through telephone requests. And so there's really no need once you verify who the voter is, and then you'll provide them with that replacement ballot. And when they get that replacement ballot, that identification envelope is what they will sign under penalty or perjury, that they are who they say they are and that they have not previously voted in this election.

Thank you.

Ms. Pellerin, and you may close.

So thank you all so much. I think this is an important Bill to make sure that people continue to have access to our election procedures and our voting. And the other thing I think it does that's really cool is that we're taking out second vote by mail request and using the word replacement, because that is indeed what it is. We're not sending out multiple ballots for people, so this would void that first ballot they received and give them that second replacement ballot.

So I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

I want to thank you for bringing this forward. I want to thank you for working with the Committee and accepting our proposed amendments. By removing unnecessary barriers to replacement ballot requests, this Bill allows election officials to fulfill those requests more quickly. You've gotten rid of redundancy. You've made it more efficient. I am recommending support, and what is most exciting is that because this Bill is keyed non fiscal, it's going to go straight to the floor if it leaves this Committee with that.

Madam Secretary, can we open the roll?

Roll Call

Five to zero. That Bill is out.

Thank you.

Is next up. AB 545 for you?

Yes.

Mr. Harris, good to see you, brother.

Good to see you, too.

You may begin when you're ready.

So current law sets minimum standards for the accessibility of voting locations for voters with disabilities, and accommodations can include curbside voting and accessibility aids, such as magnifying glasses and signature cards to help voters sign their ballot envelopes where required. And while these accommodations exist, there is a lack of standardization across the State of California.

For instance, in many counties, signage providing information about curbside voting is not prominently displayed, and voters with disabilities are often unsure on how to attract the attention of election workers to have a ballot delivered to the curb. Additionally, accessibility aids are often forgotten in the boxes behind the voter check in station rather than being easily accessible to voters coming in to vote. So AB 545 makes voting more accessible to voters with disabilities by requiring curbside voting at all voting locations.

This was done in 2020 to mitigate the effects of COVID-19 and prove that it is feasible. AB 545 requires the signage related to accessible voting to be prominently displayed and requires that voting locations establish a method for a voter with a disability to contact an election worker in order to vote by curbside. And AB 545 additionally removes the outdated requirement. The voters with disabilities must swear under oath that they are unable to mark a ballot.

They can simply just say, I need assistance with marking my ballot and I choose this person to assist me. AB 545 is sponsored by Disability Rights California and supported by the California Association of Clerks and Elections Officials, the League of Women Voters, and environmental and disability advocates. And with me to testify and support today is Eric Harris, representing Disability Rights California. And by phone, I believe we have Dan Okenfuss from the California Foundation for Independent Living Centers. I respectfully.

Go ahead. It's your turn, Mr. Harris.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Eric Harris and I'm the Director of public policy at Disability Rights California. We are proud sponsors of AB 545, a bill that looks to make impactful and Low cost improvements to in person accessible voting for voters with disabilities. Curbside voting handheld magnifiers and signature guides are available at many voting locations statewide, but there are currently minimal or no requirements in the elections code.

Curbside voting allows voters to vote in their car in person at voting locations, voters park in designated spots and election workers check them in and provide them with a ballot. Currently, curbside voting availability is only available in certain counties and has limited signage and staff availability. AB 545 would make that process available for voters who choose to use it at in person voting locations and make it uniform throughout the state.

Even if voting locations are accessible, curbside voting is still helpful for people who have difficulty getting out of their cars. This could include people who use supplemental oxygen. DRC's poll monitoring consistently finds that handheld magnifiers and signature guides are also inconsistently available at voting locations. In many circumstances, these devices are forgotten about and left in storage. AB 545 would make a clear requirement that these voting supplies be at all voting locations and displayed at voter check in tables.

Finally, this bill also allows for voters with disabilities to get assistance with marking their ballot without swearing an oath to an election voter that they are unable to complete the ballot. We believe that this is an overly burdensome requirement for disabled voters and should be removed. For these reasons, DRC is a proud sponsor of AB 545 and urge your aye vote today.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Harris. Mr. Okenfuss, are you on the phone line?

Yes, I am. Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Great. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members of this Committee. My name is Dan Oakenfuss and I'm the public policy manager for the California Foundation for Independent Living Centers, and I'm here to express our support for AB 545. Aiming to improve accessibility for voters with disabilities. CFILC is a statewide disability rights organization that serves as the Membership Association for California's Independent Living Centers, which provide direct services and supports for thousands of individuals with disabilities. CFILC partners with the DRC disabled sorry, got a little cold.

Here we partner with DRC and other organizations in a program, Disabled Vote California, and we seek to improve voter access across the state. Existing law requires or guarantees several means for voters with disabilities to participate in their civic duty, and that includes vote by mail, remote accessible vote by mail, curbside voting, as you mentioned, and accessible voting machines.

AB 545 would require that all in person voting locations offer curbside voting, establish uniform requirements for curbside voting statewide and create clear requirements that will improve the supplies, services and practices at voting locations impacting voters disabilities. For the above reasons, I've stated, respectfully urge your. I vote on AB 545.

Thank you so much. We'll now go to Members of the audience. If you are here in the hearing room and you'd like to register your support for this bill, please state your name, organization and position on the bill.

Jimmy Fremgen, with RespectAbility. We are a nonpartisan disability civil rights organization and we are in strong support.

Thank you, Tricia Webber, on behalf of the California Association of Clerk and Election Officials. And we're in strong support.

Dora Rose, League of Women Voters of California in very strong support. Thank you.

Mark East, California Environmental Voters. We're in support. Thanks.

We will now go to the phone lines. Operator, is there anybody on the phone lines who'd like to register their support for this bill?

To speak in support, press one, then zero at this time. We'll go to line 74. Go ahead, line 74.

Hello, my name is Mindy Pechenuk. Okay. I'm with Alameda election integrity and I actually wanted to register no vote to AB 398. I'm sorry I missed the call earlier, but I wanted to register the no vote on AB 398. Thank you.

Line 51.

Yes, my name is Karen Powers. I'm with Election Integrity Project California from Solano county in support of AB 545. Thank you.

Thank you.

Line 73.

Good morning. This is Deanna Kitamura with Asian Americans Advancing Justice, Asian law Caucus, and we are in strong support of Assembly Member Pellerin's bill.

Line 76.

Yes, good morning. This is Lisa Ross with movie and CCMC volunteer and campaign finance reform advocate. I am also in support of this bill and encourage it be passed out of Committee and with appreciation for your unanimous support.

Line 70.

Yes, I missed the queue for I'm going to vote no on AB 398.

Thank you.

We do have one more line in queue. One moment while we provide their line number. Line 71.

Yes, this is Helen Telenov. I am in California and I'm voting in support of AB 83.

Thank you so much.

I urge you to pass it out of the Committee.

And Mr. Chair, we have no other lines in queue at this time.

Thank you so much. Do we have any primary witnesses in opposition in the room? I don't see any registered. I don't see any in the room. Are there any people in the hearing room who would like to register their opposition? Name, organization, position on the bill?

My name is Colleen Britton. I'm with the Election Integrity Project California. I just wanted to register our sole opposition to this bill. One point that we have is the elimination of the administration of the oath. We think that that is actually a protection for the disabled voter and we should keep that in because any voter who is forced to accept unwanted help from an accompanied person will have the protection of the election officials there to vote independently without duress by simply measuring that. So thank you.

Thank you.

Liz logi in opposition to the bill.

Thank you. Let's head to the phone lines. Is there anybody on the phone lines who would like to register their opposition to this bill?

And to speak in opposition? Press one, then zero at this time. We'll first go to line 68. Go ahead.

My name is Jackie Coda, Election Integrity Team, Alameda County. The only opposition we have for this bill is that it doesn't mandate that it's only people with disabilities.

Thank you so much.

Line 13.

Hi, my name is Jeanette Phelps, Sacramento county. I'm with Election Integrity Project of California. And we oppose this bill.

Thank you.

Line 12.

Hello, my name is April Dean. I'm with election Integrity Project California, Sacramento county. And we oppose this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Line 70.

Is that me? Okay. Yes, I oppose this bill. AB 545. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Line 54.

Yes, hi, Mark Zulum again with Alameda County election integrity team. And I read this Bill and I am in opposition of AB 545. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Mr. Chair. There are no further lines in queue.

Beautiful. We'll now turn it over to the Committee. Have any members of the Committee who have questions, comments would like to speak on this bill?

Yeah, I just have a question and it's more for the witness. Is it considered insulting? Because I really am in support of increased access, but I have some concern over the privacy being compromised in the name of convenience. And so I'm just worried that eliminating that one aspect that this bill proposes might be doing that very thing. Is there a reason why you don't believe that that's being compromised? The privacy is being compromised by that removal.

So people with disabilities, a variety of disabilities, have to disclose all the time that we have disabilities for services and supports that we need. And there are certain circumstances where swearing under oath to do so would be overly it just in this circumstance, we don't believe that this would be violating people with disabilities rights when it comes to voting.

I appreciate that. Thank you.

Mr. Essayli.

Thank you. I guess my question for the author is traditionally the right to vote has always been secret or our voting secret, and that's so people can make a decision free of influence. So by taking away some requirement to at least confirm from the voter that they do want assistance, how do we ensure that people aren't being taken advantage of or being pressured to vote?

Well, when voters come in to vote, they know what their abilities are and they will just simply say, I need assistance with marking my ballot or reading it to me or whatever they do need.

So if the voter specifically requests it is that the voter is going to.

Have to say, I need help, they want the elections official or they can go to the voting booth with the person of their choice to assist them.

I don't know if you'd be willing to work on or anything, but if there's some requirement that the voter has to ask, because what if they just show up and there's someone with them and they're doing everything for them? I don't know that the polling workers are going to go out of their way to interview them or make sure, but I understand maybe not a formal oath, but at least some indicia from the voter that they are requesting assistance. So we know it's voluntary.

That's my only concern is I want to make sure people aren't being taken advantage of. And yeah, I think a polling worker asking, do you need assistance? And they say, yes, we can take them at their word.

Well, the other requirement that's still in code, I believe, is the requirement for the elections official to write the name of a voter who is getting assistance. So if there's ever any issue around that, they have that proof and documentation that when Gail Pellerin came in to vote, she had someone assist her, whether it was the poll worker who assisted me or a person of my own choosing.

I just would ask that you consider maybe when they get that information that they also confirm with the voter that they are requesting assistance. It's just an idea. So I just appreciate that consideration.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other Committee Members wishing to speak on this bill? Ms. Pellerin, you may close.

Thank you. So it's my honor to be authoring this bill on behalf of Disability Rights California and someone who's conducted elections for 27 and a half years. I think it's so important that every voter coming in to vote is treated with dignity and equity and inclusion, and this bill does exactly that. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

We have a motion by Mr. Lowe, second by Ms. Rubio and Mr. Lee. Ms. Pellerin. And I want to thank you for bringing this bill forward. I think that the people closest to a problem are often closest to a solution. As the older brother of two siblings with special needs and disabilities, removing any and all barriers that we can to participation in society and participation in our democracy, I think, is a value that we all should hold with that. This bill has a do pass.

Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out, and I believe we're coming to our final Bill of the Committee hearing today. Ms. Pellerin. AB 626. Same witness.

Three. Is it called a hat trick? Is that what I'm doing?

If you get them out, let's find out.

Okay, so I will start again by accepting the Committee's amendments to AB 626. And over the years, we've seen an increase in the number of voters who are choosing to vote by mail. This trend is accelerated now that every registered voter in California is mailed a ballot that they could either vote and turn in in person, or they could drop it off at a Dropbox or mail it.

And under current law, when a mailed ballot's returned by mail to a Dropbox, the signature on that identification envelope must be compared to the voter signature on file. And I think that is what happens in elections. People do tend to wait for those last few days before the election, and if they are dropping those ballots off or returning them in the mail, then you have a huge backlog of ballots that come in post election day or on election night.

And that's what leads to a lot of the time constraints that elections officials go through in processing all those return ballots. So this Bill is a creative solution to that. So if a voter is willing to then take that ballot that was mailed to them, walk it into a voting location, and then the poll worker will basically void that vote by mail ballot, and they will instead record them in as an in person voter.

They will verify that it is the correct voters in front of them. We're going to make sure that they're checking to make sure it's the correct ballot type, and then that voter can simply turn in that ballot they have in their hand versus having to go through the whole process of being reissued a ballot.

So this will make things more efficient and hopefully speed up some of that time on counting ballots if voters are willing to come in and do that in person voting instead of returning their ballot to a Dropbox or by so let me see who else we have. And with me to testify again, we have Eric Harris from Disability Rights California, and the Bill is also supported by the League of Women Voters, environmental advocates and the election integrity project.

Thanks so much, Mr. Harris.

Thank you. Good morning, Chairman, Members once again, Eric Harris, Disability Rights California, in strong support of AB 626 AB 626 aims to improve the efficiency of the voting process by allowing voters to return their vote by mail ballot in person and have it counted as an in person vote. Currently, a large number of mailed ballots are returned in via mail or Dropbox in the final days before an election, making it challenging for elections officials to process, prepare and count the votes on time.

This delays the election results and creates an administrative burden for election workers. AB 626 will significantly speed up ballot processing after an election for voters who bring their voter mail ballot into a voting location to be processed instead of returning the ballot by mail or Dropbox. By allowing voters to take their voted mailed ballot into a voting location, have their voter record have their voter record updated to reflect that they are voting in person, and then have their ballot counted as an in person ballot.

The ballot can be processed more quickly with fewer demands on elections workers time. This also provides certainty for voters that their ballot was submitted and accepted. AB 626 will also benefit voters with disabilities. Under current law, voters with disabilities who vote by mail risk having their ballot rejected due to inconsistent signatures. This is an issue that affects all voters, but inconsistent signatures can disproportionately impact voters with disabilities.

AB 626 would allow voters with disabilities to complete their vote by mail ballot at home and use the normal in person voter check in procedure. The procedure requires a signature, but the signature does not need to be compared to another signature on file to be accepted, reducing the chance of ballot rejection for voters with disabilities. In conclusion, AB 626 makes California's democracy more efficient, accessible, and inclusive.

By allowing voters to return their vote by mail ballot in person, we can speed up the ballot process, reduce the workload of election workers, and provide greater access to individuals with disabilities. I urge this Committee to support this important Bill and help improve our election process for all.

Thanks. Thank you. Is Mr. Okenfus also testifying on this Bill?

I don't think so.

Okay.

No. So sorry.

With that, we'll go to witnesses in the room. Name organization, position on the Bill.

League of Women Voters of California. Dora Rose in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Rose.

Tricia Webber, California Association of Clerk and Election officials in support.

Thank you.

Colleen Britain Election Integrity. We're in strong support. We use that system in Solano County. I absolutely love it, especially with four page ballots. It's just nice to do that at home and bring it in. So thank you.

Markie Ski Mason, California. Environmental voters in support. Thank you for your leadership.

Beautiful.

I don't see any primary witnesses in opposition. Well, I guess we'll go to support on the phone line. First operator. Is there anybody who would like to speak in support? On the phone line and to speak.

In support, press one, then zero at this time. We'll first go to line 78.

Good morning again, Mr. Chair and Members. Dan Okenfuss, California foundation for independent living centers, in support.

There you are, Dan

Line 13. Line 13, your line is open. Go ahead, please.

Sorry. Jeanette Feltz, Sacramento county with election Integrity Project, California in support.

Line 51.

Yes. Karen Powers, Solano county from Election Integrity Project California in support.

969.

Lehmanberry Placer county, election integrity project California in support.

Good morning. Kim Alexander with the California Voter Foundation. We support this Bill and concept and look forward to continuing to work with Assemblymember Pellerin on some clarifying language. Thank you.

Line 44,

Line 12.

Good morning. April Bean, Sacramento county, election integrity Project California in support.

Line 10.

Good morning. Sarah Ruth. 8055. I want to thank you for a really great, truly bipartisan Bill in support. Thank you.

Line 54.

Mark Zulum, Alameda County, with the election integrity team of Alameda County, California, in support of AB 66.

Mr. Chair, there are no further lines in queue.

Thank you. We'll go to primary witnesses in opposition. I don't see any registered. I don't see any in the room. Is there anybody in the hearing room who would like to speak in opposition? Seeing none. Is there anybody on the phone line who would like to speak in opposition?

To speak in opposition, press one, then zero at this time. Line 68.

Jackie Coda, election integrity team of Alameda County. I don't understand this Bill because we already have something that's called in person voting. Don't understand the necessity for this. They can simply ask for a Bill, I mean, a ballot.

Line 70.

Yes. My name is Wendy Horn and I opposed this Bill. If it doesn't show ID. And you just stop mocking the disabled people, because we are capable of doing voting just like everyone else so much. We will come prepared.

Thank you so much.

Thank you

Mr. Chair. We have no further lines in queue.

Beautiful. We will open it up to Committee Members, any Members of the Committee who wish to speak on this Bill. Motion by Mr. Lowe. Mr. Lackey, you reckon?

Yeah, I just have a statement. I really don't have a question. I just wanted to say that I do believe that this Bill actually creates a big gap toward voter integrity. And in my opinion, voter integrity overshadows any efficiency justification. So I can't support this today.

Mr. Essayli.

Thank you. Ms. Pellerin. I know we spoke briefly, and I wanted to confirm that when a voter shows up, they go through the same verification process as an in person voter when delivering the ballot. Is that correct?

Correct.

So that process would not change?

Correct.

Only thing that's changing is instead of filling out a blank ballot, they could hand in the ballot they filled out at home.

Correct.

Okay. So, generally, I mean, I agree with my colleague that I think we should have voter ID, I think we should have more checks in there. But this process seems to be consistent with the same process as voting in person. And I can say, at least for my side of the aisle, there's a lot more voters who now wish to vote in person or drop their ballot off in person. So I actually think this would expedite the counting of their ballots.

So I will support this, and I hope we can work together on other issues. I appreciate your experience that you bring, and I'd love to work with you on figuring out how to clean up our voting rolls and other things. So thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Great. Any other Members who wish to speak on this Bill? We have a motion by Mr. Lowe, motion by Mr. Lee. I love this Bill. The reason I love this Bill is because my ballot in Los Angeles was many, many pages long. And sometimes you need to sit and go through it, and it takes some time. And the ability to then turn that in is great. To my colleague, who mentioned it could potentially expedite the counting process. It will expedite the counting process.

There's also a generational bias here. Young voters vote late. I know because I just did a survey of Mr. Lee and I, and we voted late, and we were on the ballot. So you are solving many, many problems with this smart and thoughtful Bill. It has a do pass record from me. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

Roll Call

That's six to zero.

That bill is out.

Thank you.

Three for three. That's a hat trick.

Hat trick. Okay.

[chatter]

If there are absent members who'd like to come down to the Committee. We could really use you. Now, I'm going to lift the call on item number one, AB 13, by Assemblymember Essayli. The current vote is two to four, with the chair voting no. Madam Secretary, please call the absent Members.

[Roll Call]

That fails two to six. I'm going to lift the call on item number two.

Mr. Chair, could I respectfully ask for reconsideration on AB 13?

Objection by Mr. Lee. Do we have a motion? We have to have a reconsideration motion in a vote. Correct? Motion by Mr. Lee. Is there a second? Yes. Got you. Is there a motion to grant reconsideration? And a second. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

[Roll Call]

Reconsideration fails. Going to lift the call on item number two, AB 83, by Assemblymember Lee. The current vote is four to one with the chair voting aye. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

That bill passes five to two. Madam Secretary, can we go through the role to allow members to add on. And make vote changes.

On the adoption of the rules? [Roll Call]

Yes, some Member Lackey likes to wants to change his. Abstain to not voting.

[Roll Call]

That concludes the first elections Committee hearing of this year. Thank you all for participating. We are adjourned.