Assembly Standing Committee on Elections

Good morning, and welcome to the March 29, 2023 hearing of the Assembly Elections Committee. We'll begin as a Subcommittee, seeing it as it's just me and Mr. Essayli here. If you are a Member of this Committee and you are available, please come to room four. Four, four. We have two options for the public to testify today's hearing. One is in person, the second is by a moderated telephone service. The Committee has eight bills on our 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. After we've heard from the primary witnesses, the public will have an additional 15 minutes in total time for additional public comment on each Bill, starting with Members who are here in this hearing room. Thank you for coming today. Other witnesses are limited to providing their name, the organization they represent, and their position on the Bill. Additional comments will be ruled out of order.

If you're unable to get through on the phone, please feel free to submit written testimony through the portal on the Committee's website. All written testimony will become part of the official record of the Bill. For those who are watching the hearing remotely and who wish to call to register your position, the call in number for this hearing is 877-692-8957, 877-692-8957 and the access code is 131-5444 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 on your smart devices to reduce sound distortion. We want to be able to hear you. If you're having any problems with the moderated phone service, you can call the Committee directly at 9163192094 and the Committee staff will be there to try to help.

Thank you for bearing with us as we continue to implement methods to make sure that everybody can be heard and so that we can do our best job serving the people of California. With those announcements out of the way, we'll go ahead and move to the Committee's agenda at this point, since we do not have a quorum. We'll take up the consent calendar. A little bit later, we'll move to the other bills on the Committee's agenda. The first Bill on the agenda is going to be Ms. Wilson. You may begin whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Chair. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Member. I am pleased to present AB 868, the Digital Advertisement Transparency Accountability Act. This would create a centralized, searchable, and user friendly public record of digital campaign advertisements that appear across multiple online platforms associated with a campaign or election.

I would first like to thank the Committee for the Suggested amendments and I am septing the amendments, which will include moving the operative date to the January 1, at least 60 days from certifying the new system and making the change in the enforcement section from negligent to nonintentional.

This Bill would require a Campaign Committee that pays for a digital advertisement on an online platform to submit to FPPC copies of their digital ads and information about the ads, including the name and ID number of the committees that paid for the ad, the amount paid for the ad, the platform on which the ad appeared, and the dates the ad ran. Committees would be authorized to contract with online platforms to transmit copies of the ad and information about the ad on behalf of the Committee.

This information would be due along with the same deadlines as semi annual and pre election campaign statements. The Bill would require the FPPC to make the ads and associated information available in a centralized and publicly accessible online format that is user friendly and searchable. This easy access public resource would provide voters with more information about campaign activity, including the messaging used by campaigns and the amount and sources of money spent on ads in support or opposition of various campaigns. With me today is Lindsey Nakano from FPPC and Dora Rose from the League of Women Voters of California.

Thank you both for being here. Whatever order you choose, I'll kick it off.

Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Lindsey Nakano, a Senior Legislative Counsel with the Fair Political Practices Commission. The Commission is very pleased to support AB 868 by Assemblymember Wilson, also known as the Digital Advertisement Transparency and Accountability act, and the purpose of this Bill truly is to improve transparency and accountability around digital campaign ads. Currently, Members of the public do not have consistent or full access to information about digital campaign ads that appear across multiple online platforms.

Information about the interests and groups funding a campaign allows voters to become better informed and to think critically about an ad's message and hold speakers accountable for their messaging, including any inconsistent, false or misleading statements that might appear in the ad. Digital campaign ads can be difficult or sometimes impossible to find again by the average person since these ads are frequently not located in static locations.

Also, the ability of campaigns to target digital ads creates even more complexity since some voters will see different ads than other voters for the same campaign, or may not have access to a campaign's ads at all if they are not part of a targeted group. Targeting tools also create opportunities to send inconsistent or even conflicting messages to appeal to different groups of people either within the same online platform or on different online platforms.

And without a way to search for these ads, search for and view these ads, it is very difficult to discover these inconsistencies and hold speakers accountable. Thank you to Assemblymember Wilson for your leadership on this issue, and thank you to the Committee for hearing this Bill.

Good Morning Chair Bryan Members Member I'm Dora Rose, Deputy Director with the League of Women Voters of California. The League was a member of the Fair Political Practice Commission's digital transparency task force, the group that made the recommendations that are contained in AB 868.

And we thank Assemblymember Wilson for bringing the recommendations forward, which we think are critically important. Over the last 10 years, the adoption of social media as a core messaging platform for political campaigns has dramatically increased both the velocity and the intensity of the communications environment, and we need to keep pace with that.

This has opened the door to an alarming range of abuses, from misinformation, disinformation and contradictory, very targeted messaging. As political actors become increasingly sophisticated and creative in the use of the platforms, these tactics make it increasingly difficult for voters to sort fact from fiction, right? To make informed, meaningful choices that reflect their actual political preferences. AB 868 represents an important step forward in deterring these kinds of abuses and ensuring a fair, transparent and an orderly communications environment.

We also support adoption of a recommended amendment, not one that is referenced in the Committee's staff analysis. It's not one that was being adopted today, but it is one that we think that is important, that would shift responsibility for submitting advertisements from political committees to the digital platforms themselves. That would ensure that information is transferred to the FPPC in a timely and orderly fashion. Because those platforms can modify their systems to automate the process better.

It also avoids a problem that we think might occur with small committees who make buys, small buys, running tens of hundreds of variants of these targeted ads, having to make individual manual submissions to the FBPC. It's simply a task that we think the platforms are better equipped to manage. So even without that amendment, though, we think it's a good one. The League of Women Voters of California respectfully urges an aye vote on AB 868. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any Members of the hearing room who'd like to register their support for this Bill? We're going to turn it to the phone lines operators, anybody on the phone lines who'd like to register their support.

If there are any phone participants that would like to speak in support please press one, then zero at this time. Once again, if you'd like to speak in support, please press one, then zero at this time. One moment, please. We got one queued up. Just one moment.

And while we get that line number, if there's any others that would like to speak in support, please press one to zero at this time, and we'll go to line number 46. Please go ahead.

Hi, Trent Lange, California clean money campaign. We have a support, if amended, position and ask you to move this important Bill forward.

Thank you, Trent. Thank you. And at this time, there are no further lines. Thank you.

Is anybody in the hearing room who would like to register their opposition to this Bill or primary witnesses in opposition? I don't see any. With that, we'll go back to the phone lines, operators, anybody on the phone line who would like to register their opposition?

Thank you, If you'd like to speak in opposition, please press one, followed by the zero at this time. Once again, if you'd like to speak in opposition. Two, please press one, then zero. And first, we'll go to line number nine. Please go ahead.

Hi, yeah, so, my name is Joe Ferrari, and I'm a citizen, and I think that these provisions appear to conflict with our first amendment rights enshrined in the US Constitution. It should not be.

We'll go ahead and end it there. And next we'll go to line number 41. Please go ahead. Line 41, you're open. Please go ahead.

Yes, I'm calling in opposition to this Bill. I am strongly opposed to this.

Thank you so much. And next, we'll go to line number 27. Please go ahead.

Jackie Coda, election integrity team of Alameda County Register opposition to this Bill. Thank you.

And next we'll go to line number 20. Please go ahead.

My name is April Bean. I'm from Sacramento County, and I am speaking in opposition to this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. And next we'll go to line number 50. Please go ahead.

Can you hear me?

Your line is open. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Peggy Wilson, Santa Barbara County. I oppose this Bill, which is 868. Thank you very much.

Moderator, can we pause for a second and call a quorum here in the hearing room, seeing as a quorum is present?

[Roll Call] We have a quorum.

Thank you so much. Moderator will return to phone lines.

Thank you. And we go next to line number nine. Please go ahead.

Hello. My name is Joseph. I was not able to get through. Before I end up opposition, it sets up the central bureau. Thank you so much. Determine what's free speech and what isn't.

We'll cut it there. Next person, name, organization, and position on the Bill, please.

And next, we'll go to line number 52. Please go ahead.

Jenette Felt, Sacramento.

Your line is open.

This is Jeanette Felt, Sacramento County, and I oppose this Bill.

Thank you so much. And next, we'll go to line number 32. Please go ahead. And line number 32, you are open.

Hello. Amy Cho, Conservative Action Group from Placer County, opposed to AB. 868.

And next we'll go to line number 67.

Hello, my name is Matthias Mendezona. I'm a citizen of Sacramento County, and I oppose this Bill.

Thank you. We'll go to line number 51.

Tim Coddington, Sacramento County, opposed to this Bill. 868.

Thank you. And next we go to line number seven.

Yes, my name is Debbie Ferrari from San Joaquin county, and I oppose this Bill.

Thank you. And next, we'll go to line number 56. Please go ahead.

Lee Mentberry, Placer County, and I'm in opposition of this Bill 868.

Thank you. And next, we'll go to line 65. Please go ahead.

My name is Joan Kelley. I'm in Solano County, and I oppose this Bill.

Thank you. And next, we'll go to line number 23.

Hello, I'm Missy from Los Angeles County. I strongly oppose this Bill.

And lastly, we have line number 69. Please go ahead.

Yes. Linda Harmison, Alameda County and I oppose this Bill AB 868.

And with that, there are no further lines. Thank you.

Thank you so much. We'll now turn it to Committee Members. Do we have any questions, comments for the author here from the Committee, Mr. Essayli? And a motion by Mr. Low.

I just have a question for the FPPC witness. Do we have a similar database for mail or printed ads?

No, we do not.

I guess. What's the difference between printed ads and digital ads? I'm trying to understand what the purpose of this is. I mean, you're not in the business of regulating speech, right? You're there to do oversight, campaign finance. So what's the logic of doing it for digital ads but not print ads?

The purpose, as we see it, is really to increase transparency. We think that digital ads are kind of inherently different from print ads, which once you have it, you have it, whereas digital ads, they can kind of disappear once you move away from a web page. Or social media platform page.

So the non static nature of them, the ability of them to be targeted in a way that we don't currently see with mail ads or other kinds of print ads, they're just unique challenges that make it in the interest of the public to have access to what's being released and what variations are being released.

And what is it you think the public would do with these ads?

I think one of the things that we are hoping for or that we envision with this is that if a person, if a campaign is sending conflicting messaging, that then they can hold that person accountable. To hold that campaign accountable, say, hey.

How do you hold them accountable?

I can interrupt for a minute.

I'm just curious how it plays out.

The Bill does not restrict speech in any way. It does not stop someone from misinforming the public, nor does it stop someone from disinforming the public, nor does it stop someone from contradicting themselves. What it does do is inform the public that that particular campaign is doing so. All of those running for a campaign in any way, whether it is the dog catcher, to a judge, to the President, are held accountable by the voters.

And if voters see someone that is providing disinformation, misinformation, or contradictory messages, then they can note that and let others know so they know not to vote for them. And as was noted by the representative from FPPC, is that when you have a print message in any form, you have it in your possession and you can distribute it to others and say, hey, this looks different than what you got in your mail.

But as noted, when you go online, whether it be social media or you're going to your favorite website and something comes up, you do not have access to that later unless you do a screen grab. And sometimes those are rolling messages, so you don't even have time to do a screen grab. So this is to ensure that every single candidate, no matter which office they are or every single campaign, is being held accountable by the people who they are seeking their vote.

Explains. So when you say accountable, you mean by the voters, not like no FPPC.

There are no government accountability. It is by the voters. It seeks to inform the voters and be transparent to the voters. FPP is purely the person that you're reporting to, just like we report our financials to.

Thank you. All right. I think this is a fantastic transparency Bill. I think in my dream world, the tech companies themselves are providing that information. But I think that's something that I'm willing to let you work through. The process and decide if it makes sense for this particular Bill. This Bill has a do pass. A motion by Mr. Low, second by Mr. Lee. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll.

On AB 868. Wilson. The motion is do pass as amended, and be re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Five to two, that bill is out. Thank you, Ms. Wilson. Next, we have Ms. Bonta. Before Ms. Bonta, you can work your way up, but on your way up, let's take up the committee's consent calendar while folks are here. Motion by Mr. Low, second by Ms. Pellerin. There are two bills on the consent calendar. Those bills are item number seven, AB 1219, by Assemblymember Berman, as proposed, to be amended as described in comment number six of the analysis. And item number eight, AB 1559, by Assemblymember Jackson, as proposed to be amended as described in comment number six on the analysis. Does any member wish to remove an item from consent? Seeing and hearing none. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

[Roll Call]

The consent calendar has been adopted. Time for AB 37. Ms. Bonta, when you're ready.

Thank you, Chair and members, I introduced AB 37 as a response to the alarming increase in political violence directed towards elected officials and candidates for office. Just this past year, three of our colleagues were targets of intimidation tactics or threats, including a death threat. As public servants, there is a lot we humbly and willingly sacrifice to serve, including spending time with our family and our privacy.

However, the one thing we should never be willing or expected to give up is our sense of safety or the safety of our families or those who work closely with us. Unfortunately, we have seen an increase in threats against candidates and public officials, especially women, and harassment to staff who are serving our constituents. AB 37 protects candidates, elected officials, their families, and staff by authorizing personal security as a campaign expense and expanding who is eligible for that security.

The measure also removes the $5,000 lifetime cap on security expenses used using campaign funds, which has not been adjusted for 30 years. Lastly, AB 37 removes the need for there to be a verified threat by law enforcement to reimburse a security expense. In 2022, the Public Policy Institute of California conducted a survey which revealed that 40% of Californians and 48% of likely voters anticipate an increase in political violence across the country and in the next few years. Candidate security is a nonpartisan issue. Here to testify is Audrey Ratajczak on behalf of the Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer.

Whenever you're ready.

Okay. Good morning, Chair and members, Audrey Ratajczak from Cruise Strategies on behalf of Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer. I'm here today to support AB 37 by Assemblymember Bonta and thank her for bringing this much-needed legislation forward. This bill provides necessary changes in law to protect the safety of elected officials and their families.

Under current California campaign laws, campaigns can pay for in-home or office security systems, but that is limited solely for the protection of the candidate or elected official once the threat has been verified by a law enforcement agency. Additionally, there is a $5,000 lifetime cap on campaign security expenditures that has not been adjusted for inflation or cost of living. The cap needs to be updated to reflect the current cost market for home alarm systems and other security protection measures which easily exceed the current cap.

The process is transparent and all of these security expenses are reported on the appropriate campaign finance forms of the candidate or office holder. AB 37 expands access to security by allowing additional types of security expenses to be allowed for reimbursement, removes the $5,000 lifetime cap on security expenses, and expands eligibility to include family members and staff of the elected official.

As an elected official for over two decades, DA Spitzer and his family have experienced numerous concerning threats, including a stalker that has shown up at his home multiple times. Throughout his career, he's had to implement a myriad of necessary security protections that far exceed the current cap under current law. So for these reasons, we support AB 37 and urge your support today. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there any support here in the hearing room who would like to register their position on the bill? Seeing none, we'll move to the phone lines. Moderator, is there any support on the phone lines for this bill?

If there is any support at this time on the phone lines, please press one, then zero on your telephone. Again, if there's any support at this time, please press one, then zero. And we have a few queued up here. One moment. And we will go to line 36. Please go ahead.

Good morning, Chair and members. Johnnie Pina with the League of California Cities, in strong support. Thank you.

And then we will go to line 62. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Libby Hike and I support AB 37, Orange County.

And at this time, there are no further lines in queue.

Thank you so much. I don't see any primary witnesses in opposition. Anybody in the hearing room who would like to register their opposition to this bill? Great. We'll go back to the phone lines. Moderator, anybody in the phone lines who would like to register their opposition to this bill?

If you'd like to speak in opposition, please press one, then zero at this time. And first we'll go to line 52. Please go ahead.

I oppose this bill.

And next we'll go to line number 69. Please go ahead.

Linda Harmison, no on AB 37.

And next we'll go to line number 65.

Joan Kelley, Vacaville, California. I oppose this bill.

And next we'll go to line number 27.

Jackie, Alameda County. I oppose this bill.

And next we have line number 23.

Hello, I'm Mrs. LA County. I strongly oppose this bill.

Thank you. And next we go to line number 20. Please go ahead.

April Bean, Sacramento County, and I oppose this bill.

And with that, there are no further lines. No further lines in queue.

Thank you so much. We'll turn it to committee members. Mr. Low.

thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Assemblymember Bonta, you and I communicated about this legislation, and I submitted to you that I thought that this was already existing law, and it was painstaking to understand that there was a need for the legislation in hand.

I am puzzled as to why there is opposition to this legislation, as we help to maintain the integrity of those wishing to serve in public office. And actually, this prevents the utilization of public taxpayer dollars. I actually do believe that this should be an expense for public taxpayer dollars, but in the meantime, helping to rectify and address the issues at hand, which is the unfortunate reality of the threats that public officials are facing, is important, so I'll be supporting it. And thank you very much for bringing this to light. And with that, make a motion.

Motion by Mr. Low, a second by Mr. Lee and Ms. Pellerin. Yeah, Ms. Bonta, this is an incredibly important bill. Our nation's capital was raided. As you mentioned, we had colleagues who had their home addresses put on hit pieces and mailers. All of us leave our homes to come to Sacramento. I myself leave my favorite person alone at home while I'm up here doing this work.

It's unfortunate that every dollar you have to spend on basic security because of how hostile our political environment is a dollar you can't spend reaching voters. And I agree with Mr. Low. I think in the long term, this might have to be an additional public expense so that we don't disincentivize good people from running for office, because in the times that are most hostile is when we need our best leaders. Thank you for doing this work. Thank you for bringing this. It enjoys a do pass recommendation. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

[Roll Call]

Five to zero, that's out.

Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no one while we still wait for Ms. Cervantes. Ms. Pellerin, would you like to go and present your bills? Should we start with 773? Let's do 1206.

My witnesses are on the phone.

You may begin when ready.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair and Members, in a state with statewide mailed ballots, the accuracy of our voter records is of paramount importance. The Electronic Registration Information Center, known as ERIC, is a powerful tool elections officials can use to ensure that we have the most up-to-date voter rolls. ERIC is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization governed by its member states.

There are currently 27 that mutually agree to share data, such as voter registration and vehicle licensing data, in order to keep their voter rolls updated and to reach out to eligible but unregistered citizens. By the Secretary of State's estimates, there are almost 5 million unregistered eligible voters in California. That is greater than the population of 26 states. When a voter moves, they often reregister to vote in their new jurisdiction, but do not notify their prior county elections official that they have moved.

Due to the highly mobile nature of California's population, it is likely that there are millions of voter registration records that are out of date due to a recent move. AB 1206 directs the Secretary of State to join ERIC on behalf of the State of California to provide the state with data on voters who have moved in-state, out-of-state, or passed away.

ERIC is designed to work within the framework of the National Voter Registration Act, under which states cannot remove voters from the rolls just because ERIC reports they have moved. Before removing a voter, states must contact that voter, seek to confirm ERIC's information, and leave the voters on the rolls for at least two federal general election cycles, as consistent with federal law. California joining ERIC prior to the 2024 presidential election would likely result in at least 500,000 new registered voters and perhaps up to a million.

California's efforts to increase the accessibility of our voter registration system has been a great success. Becoming an ERIC member is a natural step in California's mission to improve the accessibility and ease of voting. AB 1206 is sponsored by the California Association of Clerks and Elections Officials. And on the phone with me today to testify are David Becker, the Executive Director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, and Shane Hamlin, the Executive Director of ERIC,

Thank you so much. Can we get David on the line?

Yes, I'm here. Thank you, Chair.

You may begin.

Can everyone hear me?

Thank you. Good morning. My name is David Becker and I'm the Executive Director and founder of the nonpartisan, nonprofit Center for Election Innovation and Research, based in Washington, DC. I'm also a Californian and I've worked in elections nationally and in California since I joined the Justice Department 25 years ago and led Voting Rights Act enforcement in California and several other states.

Yes, sir.

I also served as Voting Rights Act Counsel to the California Citizens Redistricting Commission in 2021 and relevant to today's hearing, I led the effort to create the Electronic Registration Information Center, ERIC, while I was serving at the Pew Charitable Trust. First, I want to recognize that California has made incredible strides in building a highly accessible and more accurate voter registration system in the last decade or so. Innovations like automatic voter registration, online voter registration, and same-day registration have been a tremendous success.

Under the leadership of Secretaries Padilla and Weber, California implemented and improved a new state of the art voter database. As a result, California currently has a registration rate of 82% of its eligible voters according to the Secretary of State. That's up from 73% in 2014. That improvement did not happen by accident, but rather because government officials here in Sacramento and county election officials throughout the state worked hard to make that happen.

But according to the United States Census, California still lags behind the nationwide average for voter registration by about four percentage points. This isn't a criticism of California, but more likely a result of California's young and highly mobile population, which makes it much more difficult to keep people registered accurately than other states that have older and more static populations.

The challenge to get these young, newly eligible voters registered and keep their records up to date as they continually move to new addresses is only going to increase. By California's own calculations, even after the extensive, productive reforms adopted by the state, as Assemblywoman Pellerin mentioned, approximately 5 million eligible citizens are not registered to vote in the state, and we estimate that there are likely millions of voter registration records that are out-of-date due to voters moving.

Out-of-date registrations are particularly concerning in a state like California, where all registered voters receive a ballot in the mail. Mail voting is an important and successful reform leading to a much easier voting process for all voters. But if a voter's ballot goes to an old address, that voter will likely have more problems voting and could be disenfranchised accidentally.

ERIC is the last piece of the puzzle for California, and joining it could help it close its gap of 5 million unregistered citizens and better keep its voter list up to date as its population moves. All of the states that border California currently are members of ERIC. ERIC's Executive Director, Shane Hamlin is going to speak more on this.

But in short, ERIC is a nonpartisan nonprofit governed entirely by the 25 plus member states that allows states to securely share data to identify voters who have moved, voters who have died, and eligible citizens that aren't registered. The states mutually agree that they will use this information to keep their voter rolls accurate and also reach out to eligible but unregistered citizens to encourage their participation. There are several benefits to joining ERIC. States save money and see fewer voting.

We're going to have to wrap it up a little bit.

Reductions in. Okay. I'll just, I'll just leave it at that and let you ask any questions as you have them.

I appreciate you, David.

Thank you.

Can we go over to Shane?

Yeah. Good morning, Chair Bryan and Members of the Committee, can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Great. My name is Shane Hamlin. I'm the Executive Director of the Electronic Registration Information center, or ERIC. I'd like to thank Assembly Member Pellerin for sponsoring AB 1206.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak in favor of the Bill today. As you've heard, ERIC is a 501C3 nonprofit, nonpartisan membership organization currently comprised of state election officials from 32 states and the District of Columbia. Our mission is to help election officials maintain more accurate voter rolls and increase access to voter registration for eligible citizens. We are a member-led, member-driven organization. We are governed and funded by our members through payment of annual dues.

Maintaining accurate voter rolls is a serious and ongoing challenge because, as you've heard, every day, voters move and voters die. And many do not remember to notify election officials when they move and fewer still report the death of a family member. Since 2012, ERIC has identified for our members about 36 and a half million inaccurate or out-of-date voter records and about 60 million potentially eligible but unregistered individuals.

If California were to join ERIC, based on the experience of our current members, we estimate your first reports would identify nearly 2 million out-of-date or inaccurate voter records, including about 1.3 million voters who have a more recent address with your DMV than what's on their voter record, about 476,000 voters who have moved to another state, about 50,000 duplicate registrations and 47,000 deceased voters. We also believe we'd identify between six and seven million potentially eligible but unregistered individuals.

ERIC would be a secure, cost-effective resource for the Secretary of State and the 58 county election offices they could use to improve the accuracy of California's voter rolls and provide voter registration information to potentially eligible but not yet registered Californians. The Bill analysis covers our history, how we work, our membership requirements, and our General approach to protecting the data we utilize. I'd be happy to expand on any of these topics or address any questions you may have.

And thank you again for the opportunity to speak in support of AB 1206.

Thank you so much. Is there anybody here in the hearing room who would like to register their support for this Bill?

Good morning. Tricia Webber on behalf of California Association of Clerk and Election Officials. We're proud to sponsor and support this.

Thank you, Tricia. Seeing no more. I hear we have a primary witness in opposition here in the hearing room. Is that accurate? Good morning. You can begin when you're ready.

Thank you. My name is Colleen Britton. I'm with the Election Integrity Project California. I hope that you have all read the Judicial Watch Review, please. It's got a lot of facts in it. I'm going to hit the highlights. First of all, I think the jig is up. The public knows that ERIC is basically a bait-and-switch organization. It self-identifies as a tool to help maintain voter rolls and in that effort, it's totally ineffective.

States outside ERIC have a much higher efficiency rate of maintaining accurate voter rolls than ERIC members. What ERIC does do is collect data. It requires states to share an incredible amount of sensitive personal data every 60 days. That data includes everyone who could possibly generate a ballot. There's a whole list, but I don't have time to go into that. The data is then shared with CEIR, C E I R, a Center for Election Innovation and Research, another questionable organization created by the same David Becker who created ERIC.

CEIR gives the states a list of not yet registered but eligible persons. The state is required to contact 95% of those in an effort to get them registered. Since ERIC prohibits the transmission of eligibility on the basis of citizenship, the results of these lists are often more bloated roles of phantom and ineligible voters. What happens to that data is even more problematic. CEIR has no privacy agreements with the states. Seven states have already indicated that they will withdraw from ERIC. Primarily for possible breach of privacy.

ERIC uses outdated 1980s technologies. There are new programs utilizing fractal technology. They're much more effective. They're transparent, auditable, cost-effective, about half the cost of ERIC, and can be up and running quickly. Election Integrity Project California has provided documentation to the Secretary of State, the Department of Justice, showing that the vote is patently unreliable. That information has been totally ignored, which raises a question about the real priorities and intent to maintain an accurate voter roll. The people of California are watching your vote today.

Will you act in the best interest of our citizens and look for a better way? Or will you succumb to the siren call of ERIC and exacerbate our already failing voter rolls? We urge a No vote on AB 1206. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any Members of the hearing room who would like to register their opposition to this Bill? Great. Moderator, we're going to turn to the phone lines. Any opposition to this Bill?

And if we have any opposition, please press one, then zero at this time. And first, we'll go to line number 20. Please go ahead.

Hello, my name is April Bean. I'm with Election Integrity Project California, and I am in strong opposition to AB 1206. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Next, we'll go to line 15. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Jean Sullivan, Goleta, California. I strenuously opposed AB 1206.

Next, we'll go to line number 18. Please go ahead.

My name is F. Allison Boyle, Los Angeles County. I'm with Election Integrity Project California, and I strongly oppose AB 1206.

Next, we'll go to line number 19.

This is Nicholas Badnarsky, Ventura County. I'm a volunteer with the nonpartisan Election Integrity Project of California. I absolutely oppose this Bill.

Next, we'll go to line number 21.

Yes, my name is Liz Waggy. I am with Election Integrity Project California. I am from Sacramento County, and I strongly oppose this Bill, AB 1206.

Next, we'll go to line number 23. Please go ahead.

Hi, this is Missy in Los Angeles County. I absolutely oppose this Bill.

Next, we go to line number 27. Please go ahead.

Jackie Coda, Election Integrity Team of Alameda County, strongly oppose AB 1206.

And next, we go to line number 32. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Hello, this is Amy Cho, conservative action group in Placer County. I totally am against this Bill, AB 1206.

And next we go to line number 38. Please go ahead.

My name is Gwen Myers. I'm with Election Integrity Project California. And I'm in Placer county. And I strongly oppose AB 1206.

And next we'll go to line number 39. Please go ahead.

Yes, this is Jason Anderson, citizen of San Luis Obispo county. And I oppose AB 1206.

And next we'll go to line number 41. Line number 41, you are open. Please go ahead.

Cheryl Trosky, Santa Barbara County. I oppose this Bill.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 48. Please go ahead.

My name is Rita Pizzioli. I'm from Placer County. I represent Election integrity Project California. I strongly, energetically and emphatically oppose AB 126.

And next, we'll go to line number 37. Please go ahead.

Hello, my name is Jeff Hickenbottom. I'm with the Election Integrity Project. I'm from Orange County. I strongly oppose this. AB 1206. Please get rid of it.

Next, we'll go to line number 43. Please go ahead.

Hello, this is Eunice Malley. I might have pressed the wrong button. Anyway, I'm Eunice Malley, Solano county. I'm with Election Integrity Project. And I strongly oppose AB 1206. Thank you.

And next we'll go to line number 35. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Cynthia Cuevas, San Joaquin county resident. I'm affiliated with Lodi Republican Women Federated through the vote and my faith votes. And I am adamantly opposed to AB 1206.

And next we'll go to line number 50. Please go ahead.

Can you hear me?

Your line is open.

Okay. This is Peggy Wilson, Santa Barbara County. I strongly, vehemently oppose AB 1206. Thank you.

And next we'll go to line number 52. Please go ahead.

This is Jeanette South, Sacramento county. And I strongly oppose this Bill.

And next we'll go to line number 54. Please go ahead.

Yes, good morning. My name is Julio Barrios. I live in Lancaster, California. That's La County. And I strongly oppose AB 1206. And I'm with the Election Integrity Project California.

And next we'll go to line number 55. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Alice Kao from Santa Clara County. I'm a concerned citizen. I strongly oppose AB 1206.

And next we'll go to line number 44. Please go ahead.

My name is Patricia Ishaman from Santa Barbara county. And I strongly oppose AB 1206.

And next we'll go to line number 40, please go ahead.

Yes, my name is Melanie Knott. I'm a citizen of San Joaquin County of California, and I strongly oppose AB 1206.

Thank you. And next we'll go to line number 53. Please go ahead.

This is Michael English from Santa Barbara County. I strongly oppose this Bill.

And next, we'll go to line number 56. Please go ahead.

Lee Mantebury, placer County. I'm with Election integrity Project California, and I strongly oppose this Bill.

And next, we'll go to line 59. Please go ahead.

John Guerrero Itaca, Alameda, California. Emphatically opposed 1206.

And we'll go to line number 37. Please go ahead.

My name is George Anderson. I opposed 1206. I'm with the EIPCA.

Thank you. And next, we'll go to line 33. Please go ahead.

Hi, I'm Lisa with Orange County. I'm a volunteer with EIPCA, and I absolutely oppose AB 1206. Thank you.

And next we have line 57.

This is Sarah Ackerman, San Diego County. Republican Women of California, El Cone Valley. And I strongly oppose AB 1206.

And next we have line 100.

My name is George Anderson. I oppose 1206 with the EIPCA.

Hi, I'm Lisa with Orange County. I'm a volunteer with EIPCA, and I absolutely oppose AB 1206.

And we'll go to line 104. Please go ahead.

My name is Georgia Wright, and I strongly oppose 1206.

And we'll go to line 60. Please go ahead.

Good morning, my name is Pam Banks. I'm with Sacramento county. I'm also with the Election Integrity Project California. And I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you.

We'll go to line 61. Please go ahead.

Hi, this is Dalilah Epperson, Chapter Leader Act Monterey Bay, from Monterey, and I and we absolutely oppose this Bill.

And next, go to line 62. Please go ahead.

Line 62, you're open. Please go ahead.

Moving on. We have line 65. Please go ahead.

Joan Kelly, Solano county. And I strongly oppose AB 1206.

And next, we go to line 68. Please go ahead.

Karen Lawley, Placer county. I'm a volunteer with Election Integrity Project, and I strongly and absolutely oppose AB 1206.

Next, we'll go to line 69.

I'm Linda Harmison. I'm with the Election Integrity team of Alameda County, and I strongly oppose AB 1206.

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

Debbie Ferrari, San Joaquin County. I strongly oppose AB 1206. Anything digital can be manipulated. Thank you.

And next we go to line number 52. Please go ahead.

Jeanette Phelps, Sacramento county and I strongly oppose this Bill.

And next we go to line number 72. Please go ahead.

Joe Ferrari from San Joaquin county. I'm calling in strong opposition to AB 126. NGOs should not guide the voter rolls at all. Thank you.

And next we'll go to line number 73.

I'm Carol Hammock from San Bernardino. county. I'm with Election Integrity Project California. I strongly oppose AB 1206.

Thank you, and we'll go to line number 74. your line is open.

Thank you. My name is Jill Wright. I'm from San Mateo county and I strongly oppose AB 1206.

And next we'll go to line 75.

Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Tian Sun Huang. I'm from San Jose. I strongly oppose AB 1206.

Next we'll go to line 76. Please go ahead.

Linda Ray, Orange County. I'm a volunteer with the Election Integrity Project and I strongly oppose AB 126.

Next we go to line 78. Please go ahead.

Stephanie Hopping, Santa Barbara County. I strongly oppose AB 1206.

And next we go to line number 80. Please go ahead.

Tim Cottington, Election Integrity Project from Sacramento. And I strongly oppose this AB 1206.

Next we go to line number 82. Please go ahead.

Hi, yes, this is Mindy Petronok. I'm with the Election Integrity Team of Alameda County here in Oakland, and I strongly oppose 1206.

And next we go to line number 83. Please go ahead.

Good morning, I'm Wendy Huang from Alameda County, representing. We're the people against the means to consolidate power and centralized control. Thank you.

Name, organization, position on the Bill?

Yes.

We do have line 86. Please go ahead.

This is Peter Kaiser, Monterey Peninsula. Election integrity. I strongly oppose 1206.

And next we'll go to line 88. Please go ahead.

Callan C. Monterey County, Carmel parent awareness. In opposition to AB 1206.

And next we'll go to line number 90. Please go ahead.

My name is Joanne Bowen. I am with election Integrity Project. I live in Yolo County and we are strongly opposed to AB 126.

And lastly, we have line number 99. Please go ahead.

My name is Conrad Hammond, San Diego County. Affiliated with the Election Integrity Project California, and I strongly oppose 1206.

And with that there are no further lines. Thank you at this time.

Thank you so much.

With my apologies, we do have one last one. We have line 62.

Get them in now. Yeah.

Hello?

Line 62, you're open.

Hi, my name is Libby Hike, and I strongly opposed AB 1206, Orange County.

Thank you, Libby.

And there are no further lines in queue.

And with that we will turn it back to Committee Members. Mr. Lee, thank you.

I want to thank the author bringing this Bill forward. I think we've had a couple of conversations about this and your experience as an elections official and very clear examples to me have shown Weiss is a common sense measure. So I'll be supporting the Bill today. I would love to be at as a co author and I'll make the motion for the Bill.

A second by Mr. Low, Mr. Essayli.

Thank you. Just a few questions and I hope this, you are an prior election official and I know we've spoken and you take this seriously, as I do, and I appreciate that. I want to understand the opposition a little better and then I'll have some questions for you. I've read the judicial watch report. A lot of it seems to be focused on the organization, how it was funded and created. But I'm looking at the actual practice of the organization.

Sounds like your concerns, you said are privacy and potentially bloated roles. Are those the two primary?

Yes. Yes, they are.

Okay. And I want to ask the ERIC people on the line if they could address the privacy concerns. And then when you say bloated roles, are you talking about ineligible voters? Are you talking about just extra voters in General?

Phantom voters? There's ineligible voters, both of them.

What's a phantom voter? Is that a person that doesn't exist?

Person that doesn't exist.

Okay. And then can the ERIC people just address those concerns that have been raised? Are they still on the hopefully.

Do we have David Becker or Shane Hamlin?

I'm still here.

Okay.

This is Shane Hamlin. I'm here.

Perfect. Shane, would you be willing to answer those questions for us?

Sure. I'll address the privacy first and take this opportunity to clarify that no other organization assists ERIC in producing these reports for our Members to use. The CIR is not involved in that process and CIR does not help create the list of eligible but unregistered individuals. So we have a significant number of privacy protections and data protections built into the membership agreement. And those provisions were actually strengthened and clarified just a couple of weeks ago by the membership.

All of our data protection provisions are predicated on federal data privacy laws, including the federal Drivers Privacy Protection act and the regulations that protect the limited access death master file. So our Members follow those same laws. We follow those laws and how we handle the data, produce the reports, and how our Members may partner with others to evaluate the effectiveness of their use of ERIC.

What about the issue of phantom voters or ineligible voters? Do you have any response to that.

Our data is based the reports we provide are based on the DMV data. So when we give back our Members a report of individuals who are not registered to vote, we are simply identifying individuals who are on the driver rolls who are not registered to vote. Those individuals have an active driver's license or state ID card. And then our Members take that list and they actually do additional sort of quality assurance on the data.

They remove individuals they know not to be eligible based on felony status or other information they may have, and then they send out a postcard providing information on how to register to vote. We do not interact directly with voter roles. Voter registration systems. We have never been or nor are we connected to voter registration systems. We have no way to put data on a state voter know. I don't understand the assertion that we create phantom voters.

Again, we are identifying individuals who have a license or ID and are not registered, and then our Members act on that by sending out a mailing, and then those individuals can choose to register or not.

Okay, let me ask Ms. Pellerin, because you're an election official. So if they say, here's John Smith, they have a driving record, they have a driver's. The, is the ROV still responsible for confirming eligibility of that voter? What is the process like when they give you a name or what do you think will happen?

So, as Shane said, the elections official will be sending those folks information on how to register. They can either go online and register online, or they can fill out a voter registration card.

But how do you confirm that they're eligible to vote?

Then we verify that through our state systems. To verify their ID through the DMV system and the last four digits of their Social Security number.

So you confirm they're a citizen.

If you go to the DMV, there's different licenses for people who are not citizens and those are tagged, so we would not be doing that. Yeah.

Okay. What if it's a driver's record? So is this a California driver's record, or are they giving you information on someone who registered, has a driver's license in a different state? Do they have to have a California driver's record to register to vote?

You do not have to, but you would either have a driver's license or state ID, or the last four digits of your Social Security number. Okay, so those are the unique identifiers that we would use to verify the existence of a person.

And is that a California issued ID that you need or any state are?

Well, with ERIC, we'd be getting information from other states. As far as people who have moved. So if we got information that Bill has moved to Arizona and you have a DMV there, then we would reach out to you to make sure. Yes, indeed. Have you moved? Are you no longer in California? You give us verification of that, then we can move you to the inactive file.

And someone who moved to California, do they have to get a California ID first or provide the last four of their social.

If I may?

Go ahead, Shane.

I appreciate the chairs.

So this is Shane Hamlin again. The only individual on the report of potentially eligible are individuals who have a California driver's license or ID card.

Don't we automatically register everyone who comes to the DMV already?

Those who want to register?

Those who want to register. I see. So these could be people who got an ID but declined to register. Okay. That's the privacy side of things I want to talk about, actually, the side I'm more interested in is how is ERIC used to clean up voter rolls? I think the ERIC representative said there's about 2 million people on our voter rolls that they believe are ineligible. Is that correct?

That is the estimate I provided, yes.

So you've identified at least 2 million people on our roles that potentially are no longer eligible. Does ERIC require states to remove ineligible voters from their roles?

Yeah. I'd like to clarify. So I estimated about 2 million, including 1.3 million voters who probably have a more recent address on their DMV record, 476,000 who may move to another state, and a much smaller number of duplicate registrations and deceased voters.

ERIC requires its Members to use these reports that identify these individuals in order to contact the individual to update their record or start the process of removing them if they are ineligible and have moved out of the jurisdiction, or to cancel the deceased voter record, or to resolve the duplicate registration that is a requirement in our membership agreement.

Is that something you can share with us? Is that something that ERIC reps, you can share with us in writing that that's in the agreement?

Absolutely.

Okay.

I'd be happy to follow up in writing with that provision.

Okay.

And they must do all of this in compliance with federal and state law that dictate how list maintenance is to be administered.

And Ms. Pellerin, I hopefully would like to work with you on making sure our voter rolls are clean. I can tell you as Republicans, we're not against registering people to vote. Everyone who's eligible should have the ability to vote. But we want to make sure the voter rolls are clean and accurate, especially since we're doing universal mail ballots. It's important that those voter rolls are clean and accurate before they go out. So are you willing to work with us to help ensure that?

Okay. And based on that statement that was provided, and I'm going to review those records that under the ERIC bylaws, the State of California will be required to use the ineligible voter data to clean up its voter rolls. Is that Ms. Pellerin?

Absolutely.

Yes. Yes.

Okay.

And what we find often is know, especially people who are elderly sometimes will go to live with a family Member in another state, and then they pass away, let's say, in Nevada, and we have them registered in California. So we're going to be getting those death records as well, and be able to cancel those records.

Okay.

So that's going to be okay.

Well, I just want to say it's more than we're doing now. We are not really doing a lot to clean up those voter rolls. So if this is a step in that right direction, and there's a commitment to kind of work on that, I welcome that. And so I appreciate the time, Mr. Chair. It's an important issue, and thank you.

Ms. Pellerin, would you like to close?

I would love to. So, California is a leader in election Administration, and we conduct secure, accurate, transparent, accessible elections. And this Bill will give elections officials a vital tool to continue to be that leader and ensure that we have accurate voter rolls. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. I think this is an important Bill being a part of ERIC will provide other data to assist in the maintenance of our voter registration roles, including helping to identify people who are eligible but not currently registered to vote. It's important. It's good policy. You have great experience here. I also would like to be a co author of this Bill. It has a do pass record. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

AB 1206 Pellerin, the motion is do passed and be re referred to the Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection. [Roll Call]

That Bill is on call. And can we actually move to Ms. Cervantes, since the remaining bills after her are Committee Members? Is that okay?

Yeah, I think I already lost my other witness.

Right? Yeah.

So we're good.

Thank you.

Okay.

Happy to do that.

Mr. Cervantes, welcome to Committee.

Thank you.

You may begin.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members, for the opportunity to present Assembly Bill 63, which will both increase transparency during the canvas of the vote and assist both houses of the Legislature in their constitutional duty to judge the qualifications of its members. I want to begin by accepting the committee amendments that are on pages 8 and 9 of the committee analysis, and I do want to thank your hardworking staff for their diligent assistance on this bill.

Existing law requires county registrars to provide only two election results updates to the public after election day. The first is when the semifinal canvas of the vote is completed. This includes early mail ballots and ballots cast in person at polling places at vote centers on election day. This update is typically issued within a few days of the election. The second is upon the certification of the canvas of the vote, or in other words when the final results of the election are published.

This must occur within 30 days of the election. This means that county registrars are not required by law to provide the public with updated election results during this interim period of nearly three weeks. While most county registrars do provide regular and frequent election result updates of their own accord, a handful of counties provide minimal or zero updates to the public during this period. We all know that misinformation and intentional efforts to undermine confidence in our election is unfortunately part of our current political climate.

When counties fail to provide regular updates to the public, they contribute to any distrust in the canvas process and election result. And as we are all aware, over the past three election cycles, races in California have been pivotal in determining control of the House of Representatives. This has led to much national attention being paid to our elections and has many observers outside of California asking why some of our counties do not provide regular updates.

AB 63 will solve this issue by requiring county registrars to provide the public with updated election results at least three times per week. This update would also include the number of type of ballots left to be counted. This will provide a level of consistency across our state and ensure that the public is provided with a minimal number of updated election results as the canvas continues.

I know that the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials have some logistical concerns about this bill, specifically the number of updates per week and how to handle the end part of the canvas. My team and I are having those conversations with them, detailed conversations which will be addressed over the course of the next several weeks. Those concerns will be addressed and I look forward to working with them as the bill continues.

Finally, in recent years, there has been cases of legislative candidates who have won their campaigns while not been continuously registered to vote in the district that they represent. The notion that members of the Legislature are also residents of the district that they represent is a found fundamental principle of our constitution and the democratic way of life.

AB 63 will address this by requiring the Secretary of State to notify the relevant house of the Legislature if any winning legislative candidate has not been continuously registered in the district that they ran to represent after the filing as a candidate. This will allow each house of the Legislature to properly exercise its constitutional duty to judge the qualification of its members and act if necessary. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Cervantes. Is the witness in support here? No, just technical staff. Are there any members of the hearing room who would like to register their support? Operator, can we go to the phone lines? Anybody on the phone lines who would like to register their support for this bill?

If you'd like to speak in support of the bill, please press one, then zero at this time. Again, please press one, then zero at this time. And we will go first to line number 96. Please go ahead. Line 96, you are open. He may have removed himself. We have line 65. Please go ahead.

Joan Kelley, Solano County. I approve this bill.

And next we'll go to line number 42. One moment. And next we'll go to line number 42. Please go ahead.

This is Carla from San Joaquin County, and I vote yes on this bill.

And next we'll go to line number 27. Please go ahead.

Jackie Cota, Election Integrity Team, Alameda County, and I have approve this bill.

And next we go to line number 72. Please go ahead. Line 72, you are open. Please go ahead.

And they removed themselves from queue. There are no further lines in queue at this time.

Thank you, Mr. Moderator. I don't see any primary witnesses in opposition. Are there any persons in the hearing room who would like to register their opposition or tweeners? Okay. Anybody on the phone lines who would like to register their opposition to this bill?

And if you'd like to speak in opposition position, please press one, then zero at this time. And we do have line number seven. Please go ahead. Line number seven, you are open. Line number seven. You may want to check your mute button.

Hi, this is Joe Ferrari from San Joaquin County. I support this measure.

All right, thank you. And there are no further lines in queue at this time.

Awesome. We'll now return it back to committee members. Are there any members of the committee who would like to speak on this bill? Motion by Mr. Low, second from Ms. Pellerin, and a question from Ms. Pellerin.

Thank you to the author for bringing this forward. I do have a concern about the updates three times a week, especially if there's few ballots. And I know you said you were going to be working with the California Association of Clerks and Elections Officials to work that out, because if there's less than 100 ballots, it's really not worth doing an update. And once you get into the later weeks before you're certifying, you're kind of doing those onesies, twosies is what we call them, and also protecting voter privacy when we're doing those updates. So I would hope you'll work with them on setting something up like that.

Certainly. Thank you so much for issuing those concerns. We do look forward to working and addressing those through the course of this bill moving through.

Great seeing no more questions. I think this is important. With the increase in the number of ballots that are counted in the days and the weeks after the election date, it's essential that the election results are updated regularly, although I agree with Ms. Pellerin's concerns, but I have full faith and trust that you will work that through the process.

Additionally, this Bill takes steps to ensure that each house of the Legislature has the essential information it needs when exercising its constitutional authority to judge the qualifications of each of its Members. Thank you for the work that you're doing. Thank you for working with my staff. I think there's a little bit more work to do, but with that, you have my full support today. I'm recommending an aye vote or do pass. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

[Roll Call]

Five, zero. That bill is out.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members.

Ms. Pellerin, you're back up to the mic. 773.

Thank you, Chair and Members. My colleagues who live in larger, multi-county districts will love this Bill. AB 773 will allow those who do represent multi-county districts, and we have some Members that represent 11 different counties, 13 different counties. This Bill will allow the candidate to file their candidate statement of qualifications electronically with the counties that are outside their home county.

So they would file their original candidate statement of qualifications with their home county, and then for the other counties that they represent, they would have the candidate statement form, the candidate statement content, and the check, and they would file everything electronically and then FedEx to the county elections official within 72 hours. So they'll have all those original documents.

So AB 773 eases the candidate filing process by requiring that all county elections officials accept electronic submissions of candidate statements of qualifications and the other filing forms that go along with that. And this Bill will also allow the hard copies of the statement and forms to be submitted overnight, as I said, with the 72 hours.

Additionally, there's always been concern when a district is in multiple counties and they're doing a measure on the ballot that this Bill is going to create what we're calling the lead county, one county to be responsible for accepting arguments for and against the measure. And then they would be sharing that with the shared counties. So that would eliminate the need for these district representatives to have to hustle to another county to get their information to them.

So basically, we're taking advantage of technology that we have where we can easily send things through electronic means with the backup original verification. Gets those cars off the road. And so these changes will work collectively to streamline the filing process for candidates' local ballot measures and lessen the confusion. And I'm hopeful that we still have Donna Johnston on the phone. She's a Sutter County clerk recorder.

We did, I think, lose Matt Wetstein, who's the President and Superintendent at Cabrillo College, who was going to testify in support.

Do we have Ms. Johnston on the phone?

Yes, I am.

You may begin when ready.

Thank you. Thank you for having me today. I'm Donna Johnston. I'm the Sutter County Clerk-Recorder and Registrar of Voters and the immediate past President of the California Association of Clerks and Elections Officials. AB 773 will help streamline county processes for acceptance of statements and arguments, as well as ensuring consistency in county elections offices.

County election offices differ in the way that statements can be accepted, such as a printed copy only with the original signature. Some additionally request providing it on a CD, believe it or not, or a USB. As well as some holding the USB drive until a later date when then it can be retrieved by the candidate, necessitating another trip to our office.

Sutter County is a rural county and candidates do arrive with their statements generally closer to the deadline and usually with a sense of urgency as they are rushing to several counties to meet those deadlines. Being able to accept candidate statements electronically would additionally be beneficial to election offices as we'll likely have the opportunity to start our voter pamphlet layout work earlier. Having only one county to file with for the entity filing arguments for in favor or oppose counties do differ in those filing deadlines as well.

Once received, there's oftentimes met with other counties in the shared district discussing the language acceptability as registrars and county councils differ in their opinions. This can result in delays processing arguments into those voter councils as well. Speaking as a lead county, although we're small for a multicounty district with other candidate filing responsibilities, AB 773's establishment as the lead county for arguments for and against the measure would help ensure consistency with these arguments would have a very minor impact on us.

I think AB 773 would help both candidates, ballot measure proponents and opponents, as well as election officials. I respectfully request your support of the Bill and thank you again to the Committee for allowing me to speak.

Thank you, Ms. Johnston. I don't see any primary witnesses in opposition. Is anybody here in the hearing room who would like to register their support? Anybody on the phone lines who would like to register their support?

If you'd like to speak in support, please press one, then zero at this time. First, we'll go to line number 27. Please go ahead.

Jackie Coda, Election Integrity Team Alameda County, in support of this Bill.

And we'll next we'll go to line 42. Please go ahead.

This is Carla Hinney from San Joaquin County. I am in support of this Bill.

And next we'll go to line number 83. Please go ahead. Line 83, you are open. Please go ahead. Thank you. One moment. And next we'll go to line 118.

Hi, this is Joe Ferrari from San Joaquin County. I'm in support of this Bill.

And with that, there are no further lines in queue.

Thank you so much. Are there any Members in the hearing room who would like to speak in opposition. Great. Operator, is there anybody on the phone lines who would like to speak in opposition?

If you'd like to speak in opposition, please press one, then zero. At this time. We do have one line, number 83. Please go ahead.

Sorry, I was on mute, but I was in support of this Bill. My name is Wendy Wong, calling from Alameda County. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

And with that, there are no further lines in queue.

We'll turn it back to Committee Members. Mr. Lee.

I want to thank the author again for another great common sense, reasonable Bill. As you and I share. We have multi-county districts, and going to, even though we may share a southern edge of a district, the county seat is sometimes very far away from our district lines.

And doing everything in person has definitely not been very convenient, especially for candidates who don't have the means to always do that. And obviously, we have colleagues who have very many counties in one district. Can it be difficult? But I think Alameda County and Santa Clara County, our own one county, we share together during the pandemic, moved to electronic submission form, and that worked out really great for candidates of all levels. So I think this is a really great practice to cement.

So happy to support the Bill and would also love to be add as co-author if possible. I'll make the motion.

Motion by Mr. Lee. Mr. Lackey, did you have comments?

Yeah, I'll second the motion, too. I just have some objectivity concerns. Obviously, I am a co-author on this provision, so I am in support of the standardization. However, I do have some concerns as it relates to objectivity in taking positions on local ballot measures, because according to this proposal, the lead county would be the most populated county. That would be the determiner of arguments that are going to be used.

And so I would love to work with you and try to get a more fair, objective approach as it relates to the arguments that are used in local measures.

Yeah. So in response to that, I think what we're trying to do is get that consistency so the same argument goes to all the voters, so they all have the same information to cast their vote.

My concern is, though, who determines what arguments are used?

Right. And there's statute that will tell you.

I would like some of the other counties to have some control over what argument is used in their local measure.

All right, fair enough. We could work on that. Yeah. Thank you.

Mr. Essayli.

Yeah. I'll also be supporting this, and I share the concern that Mr. Lackey has and just making sure that one county doesn't get to put its views and override other counties, but I'll be supporting the Bill today.

Thank you.

Ms. Pellerin, would you like to close?

Yes, please. So, the requirement that candidates drop off their forms and payment in person is an unnecessary procedural hurdle faced by many candidates and can be especially burdensome for candidates in larger rural districts. And streamlining the argument filing will just make sure that everybody has the same information when casting their vote. I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you. This is a smart Bill. I live in a singular county. My district is all in one county, and I find it difficult to drive from South Central Los Angeles to Norwalk. And they're not nearly as far as the different places that some of our colleagues and some of the local elected officials have to drive to complete their filing process. This is long overdue. Thank you for doing it.

I do think there are some county clerks who do have some minor concerns with the lead county provision that's been specified by some of our colleagues up here. But I am fully confident that you're going to work this through all the way to where it needs to be. It is a great Bill. It has a do pass recommendation. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

AB 773 by Pellerin. The motion is do pass and be referred to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call].

Six to zero. That Bill is out.

Thank you.

Mr. Lowe. Take us home. In whatever language you prefer.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Committee Members, for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 884, which helps to address the beauty of the State of California and recognizing the strength of a diversity and helping to increase access with respect to language and accessing the pinnacle of our democracy, which is that of voting engagement. This helps to strengthen the opportunities for increased voice with our translations and voter materials. And I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

And before doing so, I also want to acknowledge the Committee staff and the Chair for helping to acknowledge some of the outstanding fiscal issues with respect to implementation on the threshold specifically, and our deep commitment to continuing to work with the elections officials, county clerks, as well as Secretary of State.

And I also want to acknowledge fellow Committee Member Pellerin for also helping to provide some additional insight, given her previous experience in this as well, too. So fully committed in ensuring the implementation is acceptable moving forward, hopefully into the fiscal Committee, but appreciate the acknowledgment and consideration of the policy here today too, and additional witnesses here in support. Respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Absolutely.

Good morning. I'm Deanna Kitamura with Asian Americans Advancing Justice Asian Law Caucus. Thank you to Assembly Member Low for authoring AB 884. And thank you to the various Assembly Members for adopting many election reforms in the past few years to make it easier for Californians to vote. Unfortunately, language accents hasn't been baked into those reforms.

Currently, the Federal Voting Rights Act provides that all election materials must be translated if a language group reaches specific county thresholds, but those thresholds are high, and the federal provisions only applies to Spanish, Asian languages, and Native American and Native Alaskan languages. State law has a much lower threshold, but in terms of written materials, only provides for a translated sample reference ballot, and a court has limited the statute to the same language categories as federal law. The state law threshold applies at the precinct level currently.

The complication is that many counties now have vote centers. In those counties, a limited English-proficient voter covered under state law can go to any vote center, but usually must leaf through a binder to find the correct translated sample ballot. And we know from listening sessions we conducted that they are confusing and difficult to use. AB 884 creates state and county-level thresholds.

If a language group reaches the state-level threshold, the Secretary of State would translate their voter registration process and other materials and would expand the existing voter hotline to new languages. At the county level, if a language group reaches the bill's county threshold, the county would be required to provide translated voter registration form, votable ballots, and other election materials. We're committed to continue to work with CACO and the Secretary of State on this Bill.

We know from an academic study that translated election materials increased voter registration and turnout. During the March 15 Committee Hearing, I was heartened to hear Committee Members express a desire to remove barriers to voting. For limited English-proficient voters, not having translated materials is a key barrier. Therefore, I respectfully ask for a yes vote.

Good morning. My name is Rahima Abdi. I'm the Director of Organizing and Campaign with the Partnership for Advancement of New America. PANA is based in San Diego and founded and led by refugee and immigrants. We are proud to sponsor of AB 884, a common-sense approach to make California democracy more inclusive and accessible for diverse communities. Language access is part of so much of our work.

Our community are diverse, we are multiethnic, and numbers are often lost in a census count, not only due to the undercounting of our communities, but also because the census category do not reflect how our people identified. This makes our community invisible and as a result, the current federal and state law, language access law do not include our community e work with. Many of our communities speak Somali, Arabic, Oromo and Amharic.

Because of the federal law does not include African language for the language access, we are not able to receive the language assistance provided by the state. When our county moved to Voter Choice Act Model, it reduced the number of our voting site available in the county and it makes really difficult for our community. There was a lot of change that came with Voter Choice Act and because of our language are not covered by the state law, it was difficult for our community to receive those informations.

Our community wants to be part of California and while the sample ballot at the start for that having access to election material and votable ballot will mean that our community would not have to struggle by relying on others or have to compare separate documents when they voting. As an example, during the past election cycle, the community heavily relied on community volunteers to help people find their nearest voting center, translate voting material, and also help them vote.

I personally helped a dozen of our elders and our family to understand their ballots. This place heavy burden on the community to overcome the challenge when we should be making democracy more accessible for more communities. Many recent arrivals to California do not speak the language covered by the state and federal law. And AB 884 would fix by recognizing our community and providing access to information and ballot that we understand. I thank you for your time. I respectfully ask for your yes. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any Members of the hearing room who would like to register their support for this Bill?

Good morning. Pedro Hernandez, California Common Cause. We are a sponsor of the organization in support of the Bill. Thank you.

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

Ruth Dawson, ACLU California Action, in support. Thank you.

Marquis, California Environmental Voters, in support. Thanks.

Thank you so much. Moderator, can we go to the phone lines? Is there anybody who would like to register their support on the phone lines?

Of course. If you'd like to speak in support, please press one, then zero at this time. And first we'll go to line number 35. Please go ahead. Line 35, you are open. Please go ahead. Your line is already open. Please go ahead. Moving on to line 58. Please go ahead.

Good morning, Chair and Members. This is Eric Harris with Disability Rights California, in strong support.

Thank you, Eric.

And next we'll go to line number 122. Please go ahead.

Good morning. My name is Jacqueline Coto. I'm calling with NALEO Educational Fund, and I am calling in support.

And with that, there are no further lines in queue at this time.

Thank you so much. I don't see any primary witnesses in opposition. Is there anybody in the hearing room who would like to register their opposition?

I reluctantly come up here because it's hard. Oh, sorry. Tricia Webber, California Association of Clerk and Election Officials. It's hard to come up here and say, I don't support language access, because I do. And I've enjoyed working with the author's office and the sponsors and look forward to continuing to work with them.

But as the Bill currently is in print and the threshold levels and the discrepancy on where the data is coming from and how that data is interpreted, we see that it's not fiscally feasible for counties to provide. To give a specific, for Santa Cruz, we would be going from one 14201 language to something as great as 17 languages based on where you look at the data and how it is. And so that's why we're saying that it's a fiscal constraint to counties to provide.

And that's why we continue to look forward to working with the sponsors and the author in order to get the thresholds wider.

Thank you so much. Are there any people on the phone line who would like to register their opposition to this Bill?

If you'd like to speak in opposition, please press one, then zero at this time. And first we'll go to line number 83. Please go ahead.

Yes, my name is Wendy Wong. I speak three languages and I oppose this Bill.

And next we go to line number 35. Please go ahead. Line 35, you are open. Please go ahead.

Well, I was line 35 last time. Maybe I'm line 35.

No, that's you. Please go ahead.

Okay. I don't know a lot about the Bill. I think I might oppose it. I do have a question about.

Thank you so much.

People are allowed to legally vote.

Thank you so much.

And next, we go to line number 27. Please go ahead.

Jackie Coda, Alameda County Election Integrity, opposed this Bill.

Thank you.

And with that, there are no further lines in queue.

We'll return back to Committee Members. Questions, comments, concerns? Yes, Ms. Pellerin?

Hi. Thank you. I spoke to our Assembly Member Low about this, and I do have concerns about the thresholds and the impact it has on counties. I am all in favor of language access. Absolutely. We want to make sure voters have a positive voting experience.

They get information in their language that they understand, but I do understand the practicality and the impacts of this and know they got fiscal concerns, but also just getting it done in the time frame allowed to get the information out there to do 17 more language in Santa Cruz County would be detrimental and not successful.

And also, when we're looking at this, where if I have 100 voters in the county, but they're all in just two ballot types, and I've got 100 ballot types for my county, am I having to translate all the ballot types for those hundred voters? So I think there's some things we need to work out, and I look forward to working with you on making it more palatable. Thank you. But I'll be voting yes today.

Mr. Lee.

I want to thank the author, bringing the Bill forward too. You know it advances our idea of a pluralistic, diverse democracy. And certainly in a district like mine, where there are so many people from different parts of the world speak so many different languages, our counties are trying their best even to keep up with all the languages, frankly. So I really want to support the Bill.

I know, of course, the concerns raised today that you'll work through these and make them work on the implementation level because we want them to actually work in real life for voters. So I would like to also ask to be co-author on this Bill, too. Thank you.

Mr. Lackey.

Yeah. Obviously, this is a laudable goal to have this kind of language access, and I don't think anybody that has a reasonable heart would be in opposition to this Bill. However, I think it's pragmatically unrealistic at this particular juncture, especially considering the cost of, well, the budget circumstances as it relates to our economic condition right now. I think the timing is difficult. I think we should work towards making it as easily available to people that have language barriers.

But I feel like this is a little too strong, and so I won't be able to, I'm not going to vote against this thing, heavens no. Because that would send the wrong message. But I don't think I could support at this juncture.

Mr. Essayli.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I learned a lot. I didn't realize that Arabic isn't covered under federal laws. I have a lot of family members that are citizens. They do speak English, but obviously, they're not as proficient in English, especially reading. So I definitely commend this. I do share the concerns. Maybe the threshold is too high right now, maybe this is too low. So no pun intended, but maybe somewhere in the middle. And I'm just wondering, thinking out loud, I mean, we have AI today.

We got Chat GPT, we got Google Translate. I wonder, how difficult is it to at least have a link or online, have the information translated into different languages? Is it really that big of a burden these days? That's not really a question. I'm just kind of thinking out loud. I'm interested to see how the Bill. Develops, but appreciate it.

Thank you. I think our county elections officials definitely have some concerns with implementation, but it's an amazing goal. Language access, I believe, is something that's foundational to where all of our civic institutions, and especially our democracy should be headed. That being said, as one of the three L.A. Members, if Santa Cruz is concerned about 17, we will have well over 100. There are over 100 people who speak Icelandic in Los Angeles County. And so there's a lot of implementation work that can and should be done.

But I can think of very few authors who are ready to handle that kind of a task. And so you do have a do pass today, and Madam Secretary, can we call the roll? We have a motion. Do we? I'll second it. We'll second it. Gail will second. Ms. Pellerin.

AB 884 by Assembly Member Lowe. The motion is do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call]..

Beautiful, we're going to lift the call on or that's out 6-0. Congratulations, Mr. Low. We're going to lift the call on item number six, AB 1206 by Senator Pellerin the current vote is four to zero, with the chair voting aye. Madam Secretary, can we call the absent Members?

[Roll Call]

Madam Secretary, can we go through the roll on all of the bills today? Can we go through the roll on all of the bills.

On consent? [Roll Call] Item one, AB 37 Bonta the motion is due pass and be re referred to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call] Item two, AB 63 Cervantes the motion is due pass as amended, and be referred to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call] Item three, AB 773 Pellerin the motion is do pass and be re referred to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Item four, AB 868 Wilson the motion is do pass as amended, and be re referred to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call] On item five, AB 884, Low, the motion is duo pass and be re referred to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call] Item six, AB 126 Pellerin, the motion is due pass and be re referred to the Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection. [Roll Call]

We're going to keep it open for Mr. Bennett. Madam Secretary, can we call the role for the absent member?

AB 37 Bonta. [Roll Call] Item two, AB 63 Cervantes. [Roll Call] AB 773 by Pellerin [Roll Call] Item five, AB 884 by Assemblymember Low. [Roll Call] AB 126, Pellerin [Roll Call]

Thank you, Mr. Bennett. That concludes today's elections committee hearing. Thank you.