Senate Standing Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments

Good morning. Good morning, everybody. The Senate Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments will come to order. The Senate continues to welcome the public here in person in our office building next to the Capitol, as well as via teleconference service. For individuals wishing to provide public comment today, the participant number is, get your pen and pencils ready, 877-226-8216 and the access code is 6217161 we are holding our Committee hearing here in the O Street building.

I would ask all Members of the Committee to please be present here in Room 2100 so we can establish our quorum and begin our hearing. I see that we have three Members present. We're missing the extra one to make it a quorum. So we're going to hold the roll until we get a quorum. Let me, on behalf of the Committee, welcome our new Committee secretary, Claire Rosinos. Am I pronouncing that right?

Yes. Thank you.

We have a new Committee secretary. Welcome to the Committee. Great to have you here with us. Along with Scott Matsumoto, our principal consultant, and Karen French, who's been assisting. We have a great Committee staff. We are going to be reviewing our Committee rules in a few minutes. So when we get a quorum. Expect to see if there's any issues with the Committee rules. So we have 13 bills on our agenda today. Please note that file item number four, SB 518, by Senator Wilk, and file item number eight, SB 248, by Senator Newman, have been pulled.

We'll hear those bills at a future hearing. I will be presenting file item number five, SB 718, on behalf of Senator Wilk today. And there are two bills on consent on our consent calendar. Those items are file item number three, SB 437, by Senator Dodd. And file item number 12, SB 29, by Senator Glazer. That's me. And we'll take up the consent calendar as soon as we've established a quorum.

So with that, Members, perhaps what I should do is present Senator Wilk's bill if that's okay. I'll turn the gavel over to Senator Nguyen and I will go present Senator Wilk's bill as a Committee of the whole.

Yeah. Madam Secretary, can we establish the Committee? Roll call, please?

All right, we are establishing a quorum. [Roll call]. A quorum has been established.

Thank you. At this time, Mr. Chairman, you may present SB 718 for Senator Wilk.

Thank you very much. And on behalf of Senator Wilk. He wasn't able to make it here today, but he has a good bill that I wanted to present on his behalf. It's SB 718. It will require that unprocessed ballot reports that are sent from county elections officials to the Secretary of State's Office include the number of vote-by-mail ballots with missing or mismatched signatures.

The author will be adding a clarifying amendment that states that the Secretary of State must publicly post the vote-by-mails with missing or mismatched signatures on their unprocessed ballot reports that are available to the public. As Senator Wilks writes here, SB 718 will ensure that the public and voters are aware of how many completed ballots were not included in the final vote tally. Overall, this Bill will help to pave the way for making progress on ensuring every vote in California matters.

On behalf of Senator Wilk, I respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Thank you. Now we'll move on to any lead witnesses in support. We'll hear from any other support witnesses here in the room. We'll move on to any lead opposition. Don't jump. It's okay. Any support in opposition of the Bill? Seeing none. Are you accepting the amendments?

I believe on behalf of Senator Wilk, he's accepting the Committee Amendments.

Thank you. We will now move on to the witnesses waiting to testify via teleconference services.

Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, the phone line. If you would like to testify on SB 718 please press one followed by zero at this time. One followed by zero. I'll give one more reminder. One zero if you would like to testify on SB 718. And nobody is queuing up Madam Chair.

Thank you. Thank you. Moderator. Thank you all. So at this time, any questions from Members? Or comments?

I don't know if you'll have the answer for this, but I just need some clarification I guess for my understanding. Currently candidates have access to these ballots. That's how we cure ballots. Is this Bill just asking for the public to know?

Thank you, Senator. I think what the Senator Wilk is trying to accomplish is that election day comes and goes, and then a report is prepared by each county elections official of how many ballots have not been counted. They call it an unprocessed ballot statement that they then feed into the Secretary of State. And on the Secretary of State's website, you'll see all 58 counties and the numbers of unprocessed ballots in different categories.

And so Senator Wilk is asking that there be a category set aside for unprocessed ballots that are in that standing because of the fact that there's a missing signature or a mismatched signature that's going for verification. He's trying to create transparency in that follow-up count that occurs on those 30 days after the election day is done, when they're preparing the final counts that then are submitted to the Secretary of State.

He's trying to create some transparency in that 30-day window for ballots that have not been counted and why.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Seeing none. Senator Glazer, would you like to close?

Thank you for the opportunity to present on behalf of Senator Wilk. I think his desire for transparency so the public can have confidence in the work that's being done by our wonderful county registrars is appropriate. And with that, I respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Thank you. Any motion? There's a motion. This motion is do pass as amended, to the Committee on Appropriations. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

This is file item five, SB 718, with the motion. [Roll call]. That Bill is on call.

Thank you.

Okay, so we're looking for authors, Members. Oh, Senator Allen has a Bill. He has two bills. Are you prepared to present? Okay, so let's move to item number nine, SB 297, by Senator Allen. And while he's getting prepared to do that, we do have some Committee rules that we adopt every two years. Members, if you've had a chance to look at them. Without objection. Without objection. I see none. The Committee rules will be adopted. Okay. All right, so we're going to go to item nine.

Senator Allen, SB 297. Welcome, sir.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. So this Bill updates the process for withdrawing initiatives from the ballot by expanding the ability of initiative proponents in the Legislature to collaborate on a legislative solution, thereby allowing for increased stakeholder engagement and policy deliberation. Folks may remember Darryl Steinberg, back in 2014, created through a Bill passed by the Legislature, a mechanism for initiative proponents to remove their measure from the ballot before the Secretary of State officially qualifies it to appear before the voters.

This was important because back in the day, you put a measure forward, you couldn't make a single change. Sometimes, once it qualified, it was going to be on the ballot, and even if the Legislature acted. And so we decided together, if it would make more sense for us to create an avenue, a mechanism for the Legislature to come up with some sort of solution that would be responsive to the ballot measure.

And if the ballot measure proponents feel as though it's responsive, they can pull it back. This is what happened with our plastics bill last year, SB 54. Having been in that experience, I saw some challenges associated with the system. So under current law, there's no limit to the number of proponents that an initiative may have. And in order for a measure to be removed from the ballot, the Secretary of State must receive a notice from all of the proponents confirming that they agreed to do so.

There have been some cases of 25 people signing on to the ballot measure, and it would be just crazy for 24 people to. Sometimes it's hard to track people down. They may be out of state. There's oftentimes a really tight time frame between when a deal may be struck and the deadline.

You could have a strong majority of the proponents agreeing to remove the measure, and yet, if they can't get one final signature, that can force the measure into a statewide election, even if a deal has been struck. So this Bill reforms this process to instead allow a majority proponents to agree to remove the measure from the ballot. It also establishes an escrow process.

It's something we came up with over at the Secretary of State's Office, through which initiative proponents can pre-file a notice of intent to withdraw their measure on the condition that the Legislature and Governor approve a specific Bill that proponents believes solves the problem that they sought to address just so that the paperwork can be there and nobody's. We're not going to ballot just because the clock ran out, even if all of the substantive steps were in place.

So with that, I respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Thank you. Senator Allen, do you have any lead witnesses on your behalf?

I don't think so. I think we're supported by League of Women Voters, but I don't think they were going to testify.

Okay, let me ask, we've kind of changed our rules where we're letting the supporters and opponents kind of come up and testify at the same time. So we're going to go now to lead opposition witnesses and hear from them, and then we're going to open up to those in the room on either side and then those on the teleconference side from either side. So is there any lead opposition to our consultant? Are we aware of any?

Okay, so then we're going to open it up here in the room for those who want to speak in favor or against. And typically this would just be an identification of your name and association and your position since the lead witnesses have already concluded that segment. So please, you may begin.

Morning. Dora Rose, League of Women Voters of California, in strong support. It's a really good idea. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else here in support or opposition to SB 297? All right, seeing none. We'll go to the teleconference line. Operator, would you ask anyone who wishes to speak in favor or against 297 to please so indicate?

Thank you very much. If you are in favor or opposition to SB 297 please press. One followed by zero. One followed by zero. Mr. Chair, nobody is queuing up this time.

Okay, so we're going to bring the matter back to the Committee for questions or comments. Members, any questions or comments? Senator Allen, thank you for your thoughtfulness in this space. I know it comes out of your experience and the challenges that you've faced. And, of course, that's what we like to have. And we're making good laws and smart laws that take into account those kinds of pragmatic elements. And with that, I'm happy to support your Bill.

Members, before we entertain a motion, would you like to close?

No, I appreciate the thoughtful analysis and certainly look forward to working together with the Committee as we make this whole mechanism by which people can, by which the Legislature can help to solve problems before measures go to the ballot real. And it's a wonderful thing. It's an important reform, and this is part of that broader effort.

Thank you for your close. Is there a motion, Members? Senator Menjivar has moved the Bill. And with that, Secretary, call the roll.

This is file item nine, SB 297, with a motion do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call].

All right, that Bill currently has the votes to get out, but we're going to hold it open for. Actually, it doesn't have the votes to get out yet. We're going to hold it open for absent Members. Senator Allen, before we get to your next measure, we do have a consent calendar. It's made up of two items. Item three, SB 437, by Dodd, and item 12, SB 29 by Glazer. Is there a motion on the consent calendar? Moved by Senator Nguyen. With that, the secretary call the roll on the consent calendar.

[Roll call].

All right, we're going to hold the roll open for absent Members. Now we'll go to file item number 10, SB 681, by Senator Allen. You may proceed.

Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let me thank the Committee staff for working closely with my office on this Bill. We are accepting the amendments. I think they're outlined on page three of the analysis.

So since the Political Reform act was passed by the voters back in 1974, the Legislature has enacted a number of significant PRA amendments to improve government accountability and election transparency, including expanded financial contribution restrictions to more public officials, implementation of a one year revolving door ban on lobbying for former elected officials, increasing transparency in lobbying and political advertising. This is an area that this Committee knows well.

Now, the Committee also knows that bills amending the PRA must be available for public review in their final form for 12 days before being approved by either house of the Legislature. And this has actually caused some challenges. I'm very supportive of the fact that we now require 72 hours of print. It didn't used to be that way. We were handed things and told to vote for them with no review time.

But the 12 day requirement has been causing some challenges and there have been some important PRA reforms that have been impeded by timing conflicts between end of session legislative deadlines and the 12 day final form requirement. I mean, just to give you one example, Appropriations Committee suspends file hearings currently leave basically no time for critical amendments to be made on the floor.

So this 12 day requirement, our system is structured around the 72 hours requirement, and the 12 day requirement has caused a lot of challenges with our legislative calendar. So the Legislature has twice shortened the final form requirement from the PRA's original 40 down to the 12 that we have today. The current timeline dates back to 1982, when bills were distributed through the postal service and before the advent of the modern Internet, which enables immediate access to legislation.

And with the Committee amendments, this Bill will help to facilitate updates to the Republican Reform Act by shortening the final form requirements to seven days, retaining 12 days for gut and amend bills. So if you really are just coming out with a brand new Bill, we're going to retain that 12 day requirement. But if it's a Bill that's been in the mix getting discussed for a long time, people have had notice. And so the idea is to shorten the final form requirement to seven days.

But for those that are worried about last minute efforts to subvert the PRA, gut and amends will still be 12. So this change would maintain a public review period that's much longer than required for all other legislation, while making a little bit easier for us to make critical amendments to the PRA Bill. So here with me today to testify in support of the Bill is Trent Lang, who's President Executive Director of the California Clean Money Campaign, and respectfully, Australia vote.

Thank you, Senator Allen, Mr. Lang, please go ahead. We're going to set 2 minutes for each proponent and opponent as we go forward in our hearing today. So you have 2 minutes.

Great, thank you. Good morning chair Glacier and Members, I'm Trent Lange, President of the California Clean Money Campaign. We're proud to sponsor SB 681. Very grateful to Senator Allen for authoring it. The PRA's Bill requiring the bills be in final form for 12 days is an important and has been an important protection against major changes in the Political Reform act, making sure that the public has the time to find out about them and review them and engage.

But as Senator Allen said, in modern years there have been real problems with timing. The California money campaign has sponsored many PRA bills. We supported many PRA bills, and they've often had these kind of problems that Senator Allen has described because you literally cannot make amendments in some years with the 12 days after they get off the appropriation suspense file.

So the goal here is to ensure that there is plenty of time to negotiate with all parties amendments as necessary to get them written correctly and through Ledge Council and everything while still having the remaining, while still providing the public enough time to find out about engage them.

That's why another key part of this Bill is to require Litch Council to have an automatic email sign up for any interested parties so they get notifications of whenever there's any amendment to a PRA Bill so they can find out instantly. We believe with the Internet and with those sorts of notifications, having seven days strikes a good balance as long as there is, especially the 12 days with the gut amend as the Committee recommended. So we respectfully ask for your I vote.

Thank you, sir. Is there another lead and support witness you have, Senator Allen?

I don't believe so.

Okay, is there any lead opposition witnesses here in the room? All right, see none. Then we'll open it up now to those who wish to indicate support or opposition here in the room, and then we'll go to our teleconference service. So if you want to indicate your support or opposition, please come up to the microphone. See no one here in our hearing room will go to the teleconference line.

Operator, would you ask if there's anyone that wishes to speak in opposition of 681 or in support to please so.

Indicate if you are in support or opposition to SB 681, please press 10 at this time. One followed by zero. And nobody is queuing up, Mr. Chair.

Okay, we'll bring the matter back to the Committee for questions or comments. Members, any questions or comments? Senator Allen, thank you for again being pragmatic about the work that we do here in the Legislature supportive of this change. I would note that the Committee is considering doing a Committee Bill in the PRA space.

So for Members who are hearing this or visitors or guests or interested parties, if there are things that you think are non controversial changes in the political Reform act, the Committee is considering that. And to please let us get your comments as a side note with that. All right. Seeing nothing further. Senator Alan, would you like to close?

Yeah.

Thanks to the Committee. Thank you. To the clean money campaign. Respectfully ask for that vote.

Okay, is there a motion? Senator Menjivar moves SB 681 do pass, as amended. Secretary, please call the roll.

File item number 10, SB 681, with a motion. Do pass, as amended, to the Committee on Appropriation. Senators Glazer.

Glazer aye. Nguyen. Nguyen no. Allen. Allen aye. McGuire. Menjivar. Menjivar aye. Newman. Umberg.

Aye.

Okay, so we're going to put that Bill on call for absent Members. All right. I want to make a request for authors to come to our hearing room. Senators Ashby, Dodd, Limone, Umberg, and Mcguire. Seeing that they are not here yet, I'm going to pass the gavel to the Vice Chair and hear one of my bills that is set to be heard in this Committee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Please present your bill. SB 724.

Thank you, Madam Vice Chair and Members. Well, this bill comes out of an unusual circumstance, at least in my experience. We have rules in our state that require disclosure when you're trying to influence an election, and we have rules that require disclosure when you're lobbying. But what we found this past year is there's a gap in that disclosure requirement.

And it occurred because in the summer, this past summer, some interest group spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to try to influence either legislation or the election, but never had to disclose it because it didn't happen within the time periods that the state establishes for that disclosure. In the case of elections communication, it's 45 days before an election. So this is a measure that tries to close that gap.

And basically it says that if you are expending $25,000 or more, where you clearly identify an elected state officer with the attempt to influence that person or influence the election within 150 days, you have to disclose it. That's all it does. It's a disclosure requirement. I think that Californians deserve to know who's trying to influence Members of the Legislature or candidates for office. This measure proposes to close that gap with that I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have any lead witnesses in support?

No.

Any individuals who would like to support? Any lead opposition? Anyone in the room who would like to oppose hearing? None. Anybody in teleconference support or oppose?

Ladies and gentlemen, the phone lines. If you are in support or opposition to SB 724, please press one filed by zero. One filed by zero. And nobody is queuing up.

Thank you, Members. Any questions or comments? Seeing none. Senator Glazer, would you like to close?

Yeah. Just as we discussed earlier with Senator Allen, the pragmatic side of our work sometimes reveals things that we didn't know and gaps that we think can be improved upon and closed. And this measure attempts to do that. With that, respectfully asks for an aye vote.

Thank you. And there's a motion by Senator Allen. The motion is do passed to the Committee on Appropriations. Madam Secretary, please call roll.

[Roll Call]. That bill is on call.

Did you get Allen?

[Roll Call]. That bill is on call.

Thank you.

Okay. Still not seeing authors here. I know we have other Committee hearings occurring at this time, but hopefully, Members of their staff can let them know that we're waiting for them. Senators Ashby, Dodd, Limón, Umberg and McGuire. And with that, we'll take a short recess while we wait for authors.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair and Committee Members, and apologize. I've been in Energy Committee and we are just about to vote, so I apologize about keeping you waiting. And I send regards from Senator Ashby, who is on her way as well, who is also in Energy. And. Mr. Chair, I want to take a moment to say thank you to you, to your fantastic staff team, for the work on this bill. 658 is a cleanup bill from a previous iteration of a piece of legislation that we advanced, and we're working in coordination with the Secretary of State's office. And I want to say thank you to Dr. Weber for her fantastic partnership.

I think that we can all agree that transparency is a nonpartisan issue, and that's why we advanced this original bill. SB 27 was the original bill back in 2019, and it established a framework for Governor candidates in the State of California to make public their income tax returns as a provision for inclusion on the primary election ballot.

And reason for that is we believe, I think we all believe, that California voters should get essential information regarding potential conflicts of interest, domestic and international business dealings, financial status, as well as charitable donations. So 658 provides minor cleanup changes to the election code to simplify and improve the process for Governor candidates to submit their tax returns, such as clarifying definitions, cleaning up deadlines, and also to be able to additional language to ensure a fair and transparent election process.

658 is supported by the Secretary of State, Dr. Weber. And I'm grateful that we have Ted Muhlhauser here today. He's a legislative liaison for the Secretary of State's office. And Mr. Chair, again, thank you for your work on this bill.

Thank you, Senator McGuire. So we're going to provide opportunities for two lead witnesses in support. 2 minutes each. Sir, you may go for. Go ahead.

Good morning, Senator Glazer, Mr. Chair, and Members Ted Muhlhauserr. On behalf of Secretary of State Shirley Ann Weber, PhD, Secretary Weber supports SB 658. We thank Senator McGuire for his ongoing leadership in this area. This bill does clarify statutory provisions regarding disclosure of income tax returns for governor's candidates. And on behalf of Secretary Weber, again, thank you. Respectfully request support for this bill.

Thank you, sir. And I'm going to have a question for you in a second, but let's finish our witnesses first. Any other lead witness in support? Seeing none are there any lead witnesses in opposition? Seeing none here in the room. We're going to go to those who would wish to testify in favor or in opposition, just giving your name and affiliation. Anyone here in the hearing room? Seeing none, we'll go to the teleconference line. Operator, if you can ask anyone who wishes to identify themselves in favor or against SB 658 to please so indicate.

Please go ahead and hit one followed by zero. If you are in support or opposition to SB 658, and nobody's queuing up Mr. Chair.

Great. Thank you, operator. We'll bring the matter back to the Committee for comments or questions. Members, are there comments or questions? Seeing none, I'll go to my question, if I may, to Mr. Muhlhauser. You can come back to the microphone. I know the Secretary of State is a supporter of the bill or sponsor of the bill.

My question is that we just went through a special election for Governor where this issue, I know, became a lot more understandable and in the pragmatic sense, but this measure doesn't affect any type of special election. Could you speak to that?

Sure. Thank you, Chairman Glazer, for the question. I think we would be interested in a clarification about what we mean when we're talking about special elections for Governor. With respect to recalls, this bill is only recently begun to be implemented.

I think we'd like to understand how that intersects with the situation where in recall elections, you have a proliferation of candidates and some key deadlines in order to move forward to get everything set up for an election. So I think that's an issue we'd like to look at a little bit further. So I'm certainly happy, Senator Glazer, with your direction, to communicate further with Committee staff and through Senator McGuire's office and discuss this a little bit more closely.

Thank you, sir. Senator McGuire, I'm very supportive of your bill. My only observation will be that if we're going to clean up, we should try to clean up everything. And I think that the absence of resolving this little gap there in terms of special elections, recall elections, nobody wants to see them or expect them happening tomorrow.

But it's like, if we're going to do this, you and I are only here for a short period of time, and given your interest in this and industrious work in this space, why not try to do it comprehensively? So that would be my only observation going forward as the bill moves.

Absolutely. And, Mr. Chair, if it's all right for the close on this issue.

Sure.

Look, personally, I think you're absolutely correct. We've recently gone through a recall election. Think it is absolutely critical to be able to see this information, whether it's a General election, special recall, and it's something that we're working collaboratively with the Secretary of State's office. I do want to take a moment to say thank you to the Secretary of State's office. This is an issue that was a bit complicated, and they have moved forward robustly on this. And it is something that we are very focused in on and having collaborative conversations with the Secretary of State's office.

I want to say thank you to them and would love to be able to keep you in the loop on those conversations, because I know that's a priority for you as well, Mr. Chair. And we respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Great that thank you for your close and my staff is always available to help and work with you as you move forward. Can I ask for a motion from the Committee? Senator Menjivar moves SB 658. There are no amendments, is that correct? As presented with that of the Secretary. Please call the roll.

This is file item 11, SB 658. With the motion do pass to the Committee on Judiciary. [Roll Call].

All right, that bill will remain on call for absent Members, if it's okay, since we have Senator McGuire here, if you're ready, we're going to go through the role, the bills that we've already heard. So, Secretary, if we could start with the consent calendar first, and then we'll go through the others. This would be consent calendar. This is file item number three and number 12, consent calendar. Please call the role.

[Roll Call].

Okay, that Bill will be put back on call. Next up, we have SB 718 by Wilk I. File item five. Please open the roll.

[Roll Call]

We'll put that one back on call. Next up, file item number nine by Senator Allen. SB 297 please open the roll.

[Roll Call]

We'll put that back on call. File item number 10 by Senator Allen. SB 681 please open the roll.

[Roll Call]

We'll put that matter back on call. And finally, file item number 13. SB 724 by Glazer. Please open the roll.

[Roll Call]

We'll put that one back on call. Okay, so we're looking for authors. Are you here to author another forever. I know. I do know. I just talked to Ms. Ashby. Ms. Ashby is. They're about to vote. Okay. All right, so we're waiting for authors now. We're looking for Senators Ashby, Dodd, Limon and Umberg. The Committee awaits your arrival, so please come on over, Mr. Chair. I'm going to go vote in energy and come back. Thank you so much. How's it going?

Okay, we're back from recess. We have an author present. Want to welcome to the podium, Senator Ashby. File item number one, SB 314. I know you've been in other hearings. We thank you for coming to our Committee. And the floor is yours.

I need to run those stairs more often, so I can get in shape to get from one to the other. So, thank you for waiting. I'm so sorry to be late, Mr. Chair. I arise today to present SB 3114, which would create an independent redistricting Commission to draw the district boundaries for Sacramento county in California, existing law allows counties to establish advisory or independent redistricting commissions, which, you know, in the City of Sacramento.

When I was a Council Member, I worked to pass similar reforms and create an independent redistricting Commission for the city. Many other jurisdictions across our state have done the same, including Los Angeles, San Diego, Riverside, Fresno and Kern counties. Studies of this past cycle of redistricting showed that independent redistricting commissions are more transparent, that they promote more public participation and draw maps that are more reflective of the community by contrast, in 2021, the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors drew their own district lines.

They held hearings and they took public comment, but ultimately the elected officials drew their lines themselves. Many groups felt that their voices were silenced and their communities were split between districts. In particular, the API community and the LGBTQ communities were vocal about the process being less than transparent and exclusionary.

SB 314 lays out eligibility requirements and a selection process for the Commission that are modeled after legislation that was established in Los Angeles, San Diego, and Riverside and has some components similar to that which we implemented in Sacramento as well. These align with the statewide California Citizens Redistricting Commission goals as well. Today I am joined by Andreas Ramos. Andreas works for organize Sacramento, a group that works on safe and fair transitional elections. Thank you, colleague.

Andreas is also a leader in the LGBTQ community and was very involved in Sacramento County's redistricting process. I respectfully ask for your I vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Ashby. For newer Members, we do allow two witnesses in favor and against. 2 minutes each. Mr. Ramos, the floor is yours.

Thank you. Good morning, chair and Members. I'm Andres Ramos, a board Member with organized Sacramento. We're a local nonprofit in Sacramento county that works to promote community engagement in local government. Through training, education, and advocacy, we have worked to increase voter participation and engagement, including in local redistricting. Redistricting is a once in a decade process that shapes our community's future. It's essential that community voices are centered in that process to ensure that communities of interest are kept together for purposes of fair and effective representation.

When decision makers draw their own district lines, too often the community's needs become secondary to other factors. During Sacramento County's 2021 redistricting, community Members provided extensive public testimony about the need to keep certain diverse communities together in the redistricting process. However, the Board of Supervisors prioritized other considerations and did not incorporate that extensive community input, which left the community feeling that their voices were not heard.

By contrast, as the Senator noted, the City of Sacramento undertook an independent redistricting process led by a Citizen Commission that held numerous hearings and worked diligently to incorporate as much community input as possible. It has worked for the City of Sacramento and will work for the County of Sacramento. While no process is perfect, Commission led processes both at the local level and state level have led to greater public participation and maps that are drawn to best reflect communities of interest.

SB 314 will create an independent redistricting Commission for Sacramento county and ensure that community needs and input will drive our local redistricting process. We thank Senator Ashby for authoring this important local Bill, and we respectfully urge, and I vote on SB 314.

Terrific. Thank you, sir. Do you have another lead support witness here?

I believe that's all.

Terrific. Are there lead opposition witnesses present here in the room? Lead opposition witness. All right, seeing none, we're going to go to just testimony and supporter or opposition here in the room, just to give your name and affiliation. Anyone here who wishes to speak in support or opposition? All right, seeing none, we're going to go to the phone lines.

Operator, do you ask if there's any individuals who are in support or opposition to SB 3114 to so indicate.

If you are in opposition or in support of SB 3114, please press one file by zero. One filed by zero at this time. And nobody is queuing up, Mr. Chair.

All right, thank you, operator. We'll bring the matter back to the Committee for comments or questions. Members, any comments or questions for the author? All right, seeing none.

Senator Ashby, thank you for your work and for paying such close attention to your district and their needs, and it's certainly a measure that I'm happy to support today. Would you like to close?

Sure. First of all, thank you for letting me present breathless. I appreciate it. I would just close by saying this as a very recent local elected official. Like three months ago, I lived through two redistricting processes with the City of Sacramento, one with an independent redistricting Commission and one without.

And so I think that I can tell you safely that the one that was in the hands of independent folks felt a lot more transparent and provided a lot more inclusivity to the citizens that we all represent. I think this would be a good move for Sacramento County. I urge. aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Ashby, is there a motion. Is there a motion on this Bill? Senator Menjivar moves SB 3114. The secretary, please call the roll.

This is file item one, SD 314. With the motion do pass to the Committee on Government and Finance. [Roll Call]

We're going to hold the roll open for absent Members. Thank you very much, Senator Ashby.

Thank you all.

You can go get a breath. I see another author here in the room. Senator Dodd. Welcome to the Committee. Be happy to know that one of your bills is on call with a lot of support. So you've gotten a good hitting percentage before you begin today, but we're going to now hear your file item number two, SB 328 and the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. First, I'd like to thank the Chairman and Committee staff for their work on the bill. And I'll be accepting the amendments recommended amendments, detailed on pages 5 and 6 of the analysis. SB 328 addresses a hole in the current campaign finance system that allows unlimited donations for local offices like school boards, community college boards, county boards of education, and special districts. This bill sets contribution limits for those local offices at the same for a legislative candidate.

Simply put, you shouldn't need more money than a state Senator to run for these offices. This Bill also allows contribution limits to be modified by the governing boards or by voters. Establishing these limits puts all local elections on an even playing field and will help restore the public trust. I'd like to introduce Dora Rose, the Deputy Director of the League of Women Voters of California, to speak in support of this bill. Thank you.

All right, so we'll have two lead witnesses in favor. 2 minutes each. Ms. Rose, the floor is yours.

Good morning. The league fights every day to build the public's trust and faith in the democratic process to combat the cynicism that's caused by the perception and sometimes the reality, that politicians will put the interests of the donor class ahead of the public interests. Money presents one of the greatest threats to representative democracy today. It distorts incentives, it makes the competition inequitable, and it drowns out the voices of ordinary voters.

Placing reasonable limits will help uplift voices, in particular, black and brown voices, that have been historically underrepresented in our electorate. And it'll also promote a more diverse field of candidates that reflect the diversity of our communities. The rationale behind limiting contributions to city and county election candidates, which was accomplished through legislation several years ago, is equally applicable to district contests. The vast majority of California's local offices, such as school boards and special districts, have no campaign contribution limits.

As a result, local contributions may be actually larger than the ones state elected are permitted. At times, local candidates rely on just a few large donors to fund their campaigns. It makes sense to establish a realistic default limit on all local campaign contributions set at the same level as for state legislative campaigns. SB 328 curbs the influence of money in politics. It strengthens representative democracy while simultaneously preserving local governments flexibility to set limits that suit their communities. So the League of Women Voters of California is in strong support. We urge its passage. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there another lead support witness? All right, seeing none, we'll go to lead opposition witness. Is there anyone here to speak in opposition as a lead witness? All right, seeing no one coming forward. We're now going to open it up to support in opposition. To give your name and affiliation in support or opposition. First here in the hearing room. Anyone wishes to come to the microphone.

Hi. Laurel Brodzinsky with California Common Cause in support.

Thank you very much. Anyone else? Seeing none will go to the phone lines. Operator. Ask if there's anyone who wishes to identify themselves in support or opposition to SB 328 by Senator Dodd.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If you would like to express support or opposition to SB 328, please press 1 then 0. Nobody is queuing up.

All right, we'll bring the matter back to the Committee for questions or comments. Members, questions or comments, Senator Newman. Okay. At the appropriate time. Very good, Senator Dodd would you like to close.

Respectfully, ask for your aye vote.

Great. We have a motion from Senator Newman. Do pass. With the amendments accepted recommended by the Committee, SB 328. If the secretary recall the role.

File item number two. SB 328, with the motion due, pass as amended, to the Committee on Education. [Roll Call].

We're going to put that matter on call for absent Members. Okay. We have two remaining authors looking for these two authors. Senator, Senators Limón is here. Wow. Well, we're so blessed to haveSenator.

Yes.

Senator Limon here, who's here to present file item number six, SB 846. Senator Limon, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Chair and senators. California is home to 4.6 million eligible but unregistered voters. SB 846 is an opportunity to welcome nearly all Californians into our democracy and make their voices heard at the ballot box. While we have made great strides to expand voter registration, many continue to be left out of our process. SB 846 will create a back-end automatic voter registration system. If someone brings in a form of identification that shows citizenship, like a US passport or a birth certificate, their information will be sent to the Secretary of State and automatically registered to vote. This new system will also help those who are not eligible to vote.

If a person presents a form of identification that shows that they are not a US citizen, such as a green card or a foreign passport, they will not be asked if they are a citizen or if they would like to register to vote, which is the practice today. We are seeing the success of policies like this in states like Colorado, Oregon, Nevada, Delaware, Alaska, Massachusetts, as well as the District of Columbia.

In Oregon's back-end system, only 6% of unregistered eligible voters decline registration, while declining rates in Colorado are as low as 1%. By contrast, in California's hard stop system, 50% of DMV customers decline registering or updating. SB 846 ensures that voter roles reflect the population of the state, and research indicates that people of color comprise a large share of the eligible but unregistered Californians. Back-end AVR registers people left out by traditional methods. Today we have Jackie Wu, on behalf of the California Grassroots Democracy Coalition, and Josh Rosenthal, legal director of the Public Rights Project, to speak in support of the bill.

Thank you, Senator Limon. Okay, so for those new to the committee, we allow two support witnesses and two opposition witnesses. Beginning of our hearing, 2 minutes each. And with that, we'll start with our support witnesses. Jackie Wu first up. Welcome to the committee.

Thank you. Good morning Chair Glazer and members of the Senate Elections Committee. My name is Jackie Wu, speaking on behalf of the coalition. I'm also a former election official from Orange County, where I worked under former registrar Neal Kelley and helped manage elections for nearly 2 million voters.

During my time, I helped implement some of California's recent major election reforms, including partial automatic voter registration, vote centers, universal vote by mail, and changes in response to COVID-19. When we hear of wait times of over 3 hours at the polls, it's usually individuals who are registering to vote through same-day registration or casting a provisional ballot. While some can wait, many cannot afford to choose between registering, caretaking, and making ends meet.

Moreover, there are millions of voters who stay at home each election because they're not registered to vote. The coalition believes that 4.6 million eligible but unregistered voters in California is a crisis we need to urgently address. Voter registration was created in the 1800s in part as a way to suppress the vote by making voting a two-step process. Its legacy still holds our most vulnerable communities back to this day.

Eligible but unregistered voters are disproportionately people of color, young people, working-class individuals and families, those living below the poverty line, and those suffering from systemic racism. These are the voices we are missing most in our democracy. If voter rolls were updated as often as CMV records, we'd see less undeliverable ballots, more ballots mailed to the correct address, and more voters receiving their ballots on time. More accurate voter rolls and more complete voter rolls establish more trust in our democracy. Secure automatic voter registration can improve election administration and increase access to voting for California's least empowered communities. For these reasons, we strongly urge your support for SB 846. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Ms. Wu. Next up, Mr. Rosenthal

Good morning, Chair Glazer, Vice Chair Nguyen, members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Josh Rosenthal. I'm the legal director at Public Rights Project and a civil rights litigator with substantial experience in immigration law. Prior to joining Public Rights project, I was an attorney at the National Immigration Law Center, where I pursued impact litigation in support of immigrant rights.

And I'm here today in support of SB 846 because this bill would substantially improve protections for noncitizens in California's AVR system. With any AVR system, it's extremely important to ensure that noncitizens are filtered out and are not accidentally swept up into the voter registration process without protection. If a noncitizen falsely attests to citizenship and registers to vote, the legal consequences can be dire, ranging from denial of a naturalization application to deportation to criminal prosecution. On this count, California's current AVR system contains a crucial flaw.

Under the current system, even if a DMV applicant provides a document that conclusively establishes that they are not a citizen like a green card, the AVR system still asks that person if they are a us citizen and would like to register to vote. This creates a needless trap for non-citizens. If a green card holder completing the DMV transaction is inattentive, if they're confused, if they have limited English proficiency, they could answer the citizenship and registration questions incorrectly.

The result would be a false claim of citizenship and an illegal request to register. Federal immigration law is unforgiving when non-citizens attest to US citizenship, even if it was just an innocent mistake. Secure back-end AVR solves this issue. When a person provides the DMV with a document that conclusively establishes that they are not a citizen, they are automatically filtered out of AVR and are not offered the opportunity to accidentally indicate citizenship or accidentally register to vote.

Moreover, even if a DMV error were somehow to result in the registration of a green card holder under such a secure AVR back-end system, and I want to be clear, that hasn't happened in any of the states where similar back-end AVR systems have been put into place, the non-citizen is still protected, and that's because the non-citizen has still not actually falsely claimed citizenship and they haven't requested registration. Federal case law and USCIS policy a non-citizen is not legally responsible for a DMV error. And that's true even if they were ultimately to vote in a California election after the erroneous registration ultimately secure back into AVR, add significant protections for non-citizens, while simultaneously registering millions more eligible voters. And I urge you to support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We're now going to go to lead opposition witnesses and we'll adjust the time clock for the excess time that was provided there. So if you could identify yourself.

Thank you. Still, Dora Rose, deputy director with the League of Women Voters of California. This is a very hard bill to oppose because we share the concern of the authors and the proponents, and we agree that it's absolutely critical to do more to shrink the participation gap in California, which we consider to be one of the critical problems of democracy in California. But we believe that SB 846's back-end approach is simply too high of a risk and too low of a reward.

The league's experience, after many years of litigation, of monitoring and advocacy to make sure that our front-end AVR system is being administered properly, is that it's very important to consider the DMV's capacity to manage a complicated system, the unique size of California's DMV and the diversity of the people using it. For example, while the proponents point to the success of Colorado's back-end system, Colorado is home to only 160,000 undocumented people, while California is home to 2.8 million undocumented people.

We're very concerned about the repercussions of the proportionally increased risk of erroneous voter eligibility determinations by the DMV, an agency that has explicitly stated it does not determine citizenship or have a system to do so and has no infrastructure in place to determine voter eligibility. Backend registration would also erode the progress that we have made to get language and party preference so that voters get election materials in the language they need and get primary ballots for the political party of their choosing.

Under the current system, California has made significant advances in voter registration accessibility in recent years. The 2020 November election saw the highest rate in 80 years at 88%. And according to experts like the Brennan Center, there's simply no evidence that this back-end system is going to be more effective at increasing registration. The key is to have some form of AVR.

So while we agree that more can be done, like expanding automated opt out registration to more agencies, we're concerned that back-end voter registration is simply too high of a risk. While our colleagues with the NALEO Educational Fund couldn't be here today, they have extensive voter engagement experience with the Latino community and outreach experience with immigrants and asked us specifically to relay their strong opposition as well. With great respect to the authors and the sponsors of this legislation, the League of Women Voters of California must regretfully urge a strong no vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there an additional opposition witness?

Good morning. My name is Brittany Stonesiferr for ACLU California Action. Like the league, we share the goals behind this bill of increasing registration among eligible voters and protecting non-citizens. ACLU has spent many years advocating to increase the fairness and efficiency of the motor voter system in California, from litigating against the DMV and codifying settlement terms from that litigation to serving on the state motor voter task force. It's this robust experience that forms the basis for our concerns about SB 846.

Contrary to the bill's goals, SB 846 is likely to increase legal risks for the millions of non-citizens who use the California DMV. Despite years of work to transform the current AVR system into the success that it is today, well-publicized troubles with the initial rollout of the system show that this state's DMV is not equipped to build and operate yet another, far more complicated voter registration system with stakes this high.

It's not a question of if California's DMV would make an error in determining customers citizenship, but when proponents claim that SB 846 would be more protective for immigrants because instead of presenting a form that asks whether they are US citizens, the DMV would decide for them, supporters point to a USCIS letter stating that applicants for citizenship have an affirmative defense to rejection if they unknowingly register to vote.

However, this overlooks the increased likelihood that the SB 846 model would place more people in precarious legal situations where this defense is needed at all. This also overlooks the fact that noncitizens who are improperly registered to vote by the DMV could face severe immigration or criminal consequences if they actually end up voting.

Because voters are automatically mailed a ballot and voter information guides before each election, it's likely that a non-citizen who has mailed a ballot by the government would believe that the state is telling them that they are eligible to vote. USCIS's defense does not apply to unlawful voting, and multiple federal cases have held that immigrants are liable for voting even if they didn't check a box on a form claiming to be a citizen. California law cannot protect against these federal consequences. For these reasons, I respectfully ask for your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay, we've heard from lead support and lead opposition witnesses. We'll now go for those who wish to indicate support or opposition just for their name and affiliation. We'll start first here in the hearing room. Please come up to the microphone.

Neal Ubriani from the Institute for Responsive Government in support. And I'm happy to answer any questions on behalf of the bill as well. Thank you.

Andrea Amavisca, on behalf of the California Immigrant Policy Center, in support.

Thank you.

Alejandra Ramírez-Zárate for OC Action in Orange County, in support.

Thank you.

Laiseng Saechao on behalf of California Calls, in strong support of SB 846.

Rita Medina, on behalf of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, CHIRLA, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Tim Valderrama with the Weideman Group on behalf of NextGen California, in support.

Gabe Gonzalez with the Center for Secure and Modern Elections, in support.

Thank you.

With Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders for Civic Empowerment Education Fund, in support.

Thank you. Anyone else here in the hearing room wishes to indicate support or opposition. Seeing none, we'll go to the phone lines. Operator, if you can ask if there's anyone who wishes to put their name on the record in support or opposition on SB 846.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If you would like to express support or opposition for SB 846, please press one zero at this time. We will begin today with line 41.

Morning, Mr. Chair and members. Christopher Sanchez with the Western Center on Law and Poverty, in strong support.

Thank you. Next.

Line 48, please go ahead.

Good morning, distinguished senators. Executive director of Hope and with Cali Calls, in support. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Next caller.

Line 32, please go ahead. Line 32, you are open. One more shot. Line 32, please go ahead. I'm moving along. We'll go to line 43. Please go ahead. Go ahead. We can.

Good morning, Chair. Can you hear me now?

Yes. Go ahead.

Hello, my name is David Nguyen and I am calling in very strong support of SD 846 on behalf of Community Coalition. Thank you.

Thank you. Next caller, please.

Line 43, you are open.

Hi, my name is Lucila Ortiz and I'm calling on behalf of Working Partnerships USA, strong support.

Please go ahead, line 49.

Hi, my name is Bryan Minor and I'm calling in strong support of SB 846 on behalf of SCOPE. Thank you.

Line 33, you are open.

Good morning. My name is Jacqueline Coto with the National Association of Latino and Elected Officials, NALEO Education Fund. We vote in opposition to the bill. Thank you.

Line 29, please go ahead.

Good morning. My name is Kristin Nimmers. I'm calling on behalf of the California Black Power Network in strong support of the bill. Thank you.

Line 38, you are up.

Line 38.

Hello?

Yes, we can hear you. Go ahead, please.

Good morning. My name is Erica Maria Cheung. I'm calling on behalf of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders for Civic Empowerment Education Fund in support of the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Please go ahead, line 39.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Eliana Honeycutt, calling on behalf of the Dolores Huerta Foundation in strong support of SB 846. Thank you.

Line 20, you are open.

Good morning, everybody. My name is Ted Womack, and I'm calling in strong support of SB 846 on behalf of Alliance San Diego Mobilization Fund.

Line 46, please go ahead.

Good morning. My name is Michael Lok from OCA Asian Pacific American Advocates. On behalf of the East Bay chapter as well as the national center, we support SB 846.

Line 36, please go ahead.

Hi, good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Itzel Maganda Chavez, and I'm calling in strong support of SD 846 on behalf of Alliance San Diego Mobilization Fund. Thank you.

Line 40, you are open.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Cassandra Gutierrez, and I am calling in strong support of SB 846 on behalf of Communities for a New California Education Fund. Thank you.

We'll give a quick final reminder. One, followed by zero. If you are in support or opposition to SB 846, please go ahead. Line 55.

Good morning. Amy Hamblin with NextGen California in strong support.

Line 45, please go ahead.

Good morning. Rozlind Silva from AAPI Civic Empowerment Education Fund in support of the bill. Thank you.

Line 31, please go ahead.

Good morning. Juan Carlos Hernandez on behalf of InnerCity Struggle in support.

Line 57, you are open.

Hello, Kayla Asato with Orange County Environmental Justice, part of the Orange County Civic Engagement Table, and I'm calling in support of SB 846. This is an organizational priority and one of the most important.

Thank you. Next caller, please.

Mr. Chair, we do have one with an operator. One moment, please. We'll go to line 47. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Victor Valladares with Resilience Orange County. I'm calling in support of SB 846. This is an organizational priority and one of the most important in Orange County.

Thank you very much, sir. Next caller, please.

And Mr. Chair, we have exhausted the queue.

Great. Thank you very much, Operator. Okay, having heard from witnesses in favor and against, we'll bring the matter back to the Committee for comments and questions. Members? Senator Nguyen, would you like to go ahead?

Yeah. Thank you, Senator, for bringing the bill up. Like you, I would like to make sure that everybody who's eligible gets to vote. I do share concerns with the opposition. Is that, I'm sorry, but the DMV should not replace the Registrar of Voters or the Secretary of State. They've got the capacity, the experience, and the DMV processing in the last few years just has been, quite frankly, I think it's just been a mess, and it's been difficult for some of us.

We get lots of phone calls on all sorts of things about the DMV, and the DMV, in itself, they should really stick to just a DMV job, which they're not doing the best. I think there's been some areas that could use that attention instead of steering them into another direction. And so for those reasons, I'm going to be opposing the bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Nguyen. Senator Allen and then Senator Newman.

Well, it seems that there's good news here, there's bad news here. The good news is that the author and the core sponsors, I think, shared the same core values on this issue. So it's my hope that if the bill moves out today, and as it goes along, you guys will be able to figure out some way to get some of these issues addressed.

And I think the concern that exists out there amongst the good government groups is that, you look at things like motor voter, for example. You look at the Unemployment Insurance debacles that we ran into. You're asking for a massive IT expansion under this bill. And we haven't really shown ourselves. The track record is not great. There's funding issues. There's also just basic logistical issues. I know there's some technical issues that the Registrar Recorders still have as well with regards to the bill.

But I think what we're hearing from folks is that this is a great idea conceptually, but they're really worried about implementation. And I'm kind of building, I think, on a bit on Senator Nguyen's comments about the extent to which the DMV really is ready to handle this sort of brand new set of protocols.

And could it end up leading to unintended consequences such that we've heard described, especially with an unfriendly federal administration applying immigration law in an aggressive way that immigrants who might have, through no fault of their own, gotten registered because of some error at the DMV, all of a sudden they're on the hook for violating federal crime and used as a whipping boy or as an example of electoral fraud. So that's the concerns that I'm bringing to this.

I have a lot of confidence in you, Senator, and know that I can only imagine that you wouldn't want to do anything that would be a mess or create these kinds of problems. So I'm happy to support your bill today for the purposes of you being able to work on these issues. But I read the letter carefully from the ACLU and LAO and League of Women Voters, and I can't help but be nervous about voting for this bill today. I don't know if you have thoughts or comments, but that's where I am.

Thank you. So I appreciate that. And I think has been said, we all share collectively the same objective. I think when any of our agencies have implementation issues, and certainly the Department of Motor Vehicles is not the only one, I believe that it is government's responsibility to try to address those. And without a process that forces some addressing, the idea that we would do nothing because we don't have trust in our agency, I'm not sure is the right direction to go for Californians.

I think that if we don't have trust in an agency, we have to address that while we simultaneously do more. There are 4.6 million eligible voters. What I read in the nine pages of the opposition letter was also quite a bit of concerns without a mechanism to really work. I didn't read one potential amendment. I didn't read one potential idea of how we can work this through.

There have been other legislators who have moved this forward who want to have a conversation about what it would mean to address the fact that 4.6 million eligible voters aren't registered. I think there are different opinions on the piece related to undocumented individuals and non-citizen individuals.

There are definitely coalitions, I think, as was expressed in the support group, that believe that this would be a much safer and better way to address the errors that happen in individuals who are registered to vote. I think that, also, the current system we have in place has its own errors, and that is something that, even the system we have in place, we are still having to kind of think about the issues that we need to address.

So I'm not sure that, that piece will always be the case. And I think it's government's responsibility to try to improve and not just settle because we have a lack of confidence. I mean, if we have a lack of confidence in an agency, it's my hope that we would actually try to address it as opposed to saying, well, we're not going to do anything to move this forward.

I think that overall this bill has significantly more support from folks who care about all of our community at large who care about trying to move this forward. And when I was posed with the question of like well, this bill has been tried in the past. Do you want to carry it or not? I said, well, if there's not a bill, there's not a policy conversation.

So if we all agree that there shouldn't be a policy conversation about how we expand that voter registration to 4.6 million voters, then we stop it here. But if we want to have a policy conversation recognizing that this is an issue, that there are other states who have implemented, and I want to be clear, too, that the opposition did not have the opposition for the other states. Yes, this is a bigger state, but we don't stop advancing policy work because it is a bigger state.

That's just not something that necessarily sits well with me. Do we do it differently? Absolutely. And I look forward to a time where we can have a conversation about how to address some of the specific concerns. What would a technology look like to be able to address it? What would be the needs? And so that's something that I look forward to.

And I saw somewhere about how we actually have lower, sorry, we have higher registration rates right now than Colorado, even though Colorado's implemented the system.

We can talk just about percentages. And sure, one time November elections for a presidential turnout turned out 80% registered voters, but we still have 4.6 million who are unregistered. So we can have a conversation that looks at percentages, but we can also have a conversation about the raw numbers. And so I think a one time increase in registered voters is not the same as having consistent increases. And also recognizing that there's still 4.6 million, even with the percentage you read that was cited in the opposition letter of 88%, that still leaves 4.6 that are unregistered and eligible.

Do these folks have, do you want to respond to that?

I just want to underscore that the opposition also strongly agrees that we need to close voter registration gaps and to register those 4.8 million people. But the problem is that there is literally no data to support the idea that switching from a front end to a back end system will actually close those registration disparities. The only state that we have as an example that switched from front end to backend is Colorado.

And as has already been referenced, Colorado got up to about the same rate that the current front end opt out system in California is getting when it switched to back end. And again, there's, it's a very different state for all the reasons that have been highlighted.

So we think that the likelihood of having any increase in voter registration, certainly the likelihood of closing disparities, is not borne out by the data, but the risks, based on our experience with the DMV, are very high and simply not worth it. But translating front end opt out very carefully to additional agencies where people who are not using the DMV can be reached. Very, very low-income people who don't have driver's licenses or don't have access to the DMV, are using Covered California and other agencies where we could be reaching people by using front end opt out AVR. Thank you.

Senator Allen, anything further?

Not for now. Not for now.

Very good. Senator Newman.

I think he expressed his concern very well at the end. So I am actually one of those legislators that tried to move a very similar bill prior. And I will say you're doing a much better job than I did. And I do appreciate all of the testimony. And it's interesting.

I mean, it's hard to square the sort of support testimony from so many groups that have a direct interest in registering underrepresented communities and the concerns of groups like the League, a group that I respect immensely.

So I think it would be helpful to perhaps the witness from the Institute for Responsive Government to talk specifically about the differences in how AVR and front end voter registration works, backend versus front end, particularly in an area that probably hasn't gotten much attention here, which is the post registration management of data and the updating of records, where my understanding is backend AVR can be really helpful in ensuring that we keep people properly updated so that they can fully participate. So if you wouldn't mind, I think that'd be helpful.

Thank you, Senator Newman. And again, Neal Ubriani from the Institute for Responsive Government. We work on automatic voter registration policy around the country. We've helped set up similar systems in a number of states that Senator Limon mentioned. To sort of use an analogy that may be helpful here. It's almost like a traffic light at the DMV, the current AVR process. When people are going through the process, everybody's kind of getting a yellow light right now.

Regardless of the documents you provide to the DMV, you're getting asked questions, would you like to register to vote? Are you a US citizen? And so some people are slowing down through that process. There's about a 50% declination rate under that current system. But half of people are saying, no, I don't want to deal with this right now, or they think they're already registered to vote, or they think their registration is current, and they're saying, I'll deal with this later.

The other issue with the current system is some people are going through it too fast. That's non-citizens who may be unaware or inattentive in the moment, or limited English proficient. And even though they've shown a green card to the DMV and that's recorded in the DMV system, they, you know, in a moment of inattention, say, yes, I'm a US citizen and I would like to register to vote.

And they have made a false claim of citizenship, as Mr. Rosenthal mentioned, and illegally registered to vote, which is something that can have catastrophic immigration consequences. So what this system does is it adds sort of a red light and a green light to that system. So if you are presenting a green card to the DMV, as part of the DMV's routine competence, you have to provide certain documents when you get your license.

They have to see a checklist of documents to make sure that you provided one of the applicable documents. They log that into their system. That's already being logged in. What this would say is, when that document is logged in, somebody's provided a green card. Just create a hard coded stop in the system. Don't ask that person if they want to register to vote. Don't ask them if they're a US citizen because that's a needless trap for a non-citizen.

The flip side of that is, if somebody comes into the DMV and when they are getting their driver's license, they're providing a document like a US passport, as I mentioned, that's already being recorded and logged into the DMV system. This is not creating a new project for the DMV. It's simply leveraging the information that's already being recorded as part of the system.

And so if somebody provides a passport, they've established their eligibility to vote at that point, and their information would be shared with the Secretary of State for purposes of voter registration. Rather than slowing down the transaction, asking them, would you like to register to vote? Are you a US citizen? They would get a letter in the mail that says, based on the information you've provided in your DMV transaction, we have confirmed that you are demonstrably eligible to register to vote in California.

If you don't want to be registered to vote, that's fine. You can send back this notice, you can call us, we'll take you off the rolls. But this is meant to make your life easier. And I want to note the data from Colorado is extremely strong in how many additional people this is registered.

There's a study by two professors at Stanford that showed when Colorado switched from sort of the front end system to this secure back end system, the number of people registered to vote at the DMV doubled. Right now, California has a 50% declination rate at the DMV for people who receive this mailer. In Colorado, it's 1% of people who decline. In Oregon, it's 6% of people.

There's similar research from Berkeley that found an 8.1% increase in registration rates from secure AVR compared to a 0.5% increase from California's current system. And I want to note the Brennan Center study cited by the opposition is from 2019, when there were only two states with the system, And there's a major methodological flaw in the study.

I'm going to ask you to wrap up. I think that there was just a clarification. Mr. Newman. Senator Newman. Like to do a follow up there?

No, actually, no. This is, I will say this is all very helpful, but we are pressed for time.

Of course. Thank you.

I will say, appreciate that context, I think the author's made two very good points. One is rates of participation are less important than the absolute participation levels. Close to 5 million voters is really meaningful. It can have a huge impact on the public discourse, whom we choose to represent us, the policies we make.

And secondly, that point, just because California is big doesn't mean we shouldn't aspire to these sorts of improvements. Glad it support the bill. I do appreciate the concerns. This is obviously a dynamic process, and I look forward to participating as we move forward.

Thank you, Senator Newman. Senator Menjivar.

Thank you, Chair. I know there's some concerns around giving additional responsibility to DMV clerks, but I did want to note, I am a joint author on this, that the DMV clerks are not going to be making voter eligibility determinations. I would never be in favor of that. They're simply going to perform their existing routine procedures, logging in the type of documents that the individual is going to bring forward to them.

And if a person does provide one of these predefined documents, the system is hard coded to automatically share that information with the Secretary of State. And I know we've been talking about Colorado, but there are other states that have implemented secure AVR systems that the League of Women Voters in ACLU outside of California have strongly supported. States like Alaska, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington, and Washington DC.

And I just want to echo the author here in saying that, again, just because we're a bigger state doesn't mean that we shouldn't move forward with this. I think that gives it even more of a response to move forward with it, because, again, my colleague here to the right said 5 million people makes a big difference. So I do have a question to the author, of the witnesses. A couple of questions. How would this proposal interact with our current vote by mail system?

And then second, can you speak about, I know you said there wasn't a lot of data, but how this can help close the gaps in how we can expand that voter access to the underrepresented populations.

Did you want that for the opposition or the support?

The support.

Well, is that directed to Senator Limon, perhaps? Senator Limon?

Senator, if you can answer, if you want to...

Can I direct it to my supporters? Thank you.

The first question was vote by mail. How would it interact? I want to be very specific here so we don't just keep going.

Of course.

Offline. Okay.

One thing that this bill would do is if somebody provides a name or address to the DMV or to another covered agency like Medi-Cal, that differs from their voter registration record, the name and address in their voter registration record would be automatically updated to reflect the change. That improves the quality of California's voter rules, and it improves the...

Okay, just in response is that it gets updated. Just to be direct here. And Senator Menjivar, your second question.

Second question is regarding if you have any more information regarding how it's going to close the gaps related to underrepresented populations.

Sure. A Center for American Progress study of Oregon found that people who were registered to vote when Oregon implemented this backend secure AVR system were more lower income, they were communities of color, they were rural, they were less educated. It's a real way to bring people onto the roles who are traditionally left out.

All right. Anything further, Senator? Okay, I'm going to, if they wish, allow the League and ACLU to respond to this concern that was raised is that you have supported the measures in other states. If you wish to answer that specific assertion.

Sure. I can answer that specifically. So ACLU of California has been in constant contact with ACLU National about this bill, and the position is that it's extremely state specific. So it depends on the capacity of the DMV in that state, depends on the size of the state. It depends on the non-citizen population with that state. And so ACLU National is supportive of California and opposing this measure.

Great. Thank you. And the League, do you wish to share any insight on why the League has supported it in other states?

Precisely the same circumstance with League of Women Voters in the United States. There were a few things that we really feel that we need to address that were stated that are factually of concern.

What is it, regarding what?

So I wanted to clarify how the front end system works. Right now there's a bit of a conflation. It's a hard stop system right now where it's completed in 10 potential languages. So the very first question, before you even start answering questions, is which language would you like to complete your transaction in? And when you get to the voter registration questions, it's broken up into multiple questions that are each hard stop. It's us citizen, yes, no, decline to state.

Only if you say yes, do you move on. And then do you meet all of these voter eligibility criteria? Again, the citizenship one, yes, no, decline to state. Only if you say yes do you progress. The next one that says, do you want to register to vote? Again, you have to say yes. That's three yeses in your preferred language. And there's, again, no data that a large number of people are falsely attesting to their citizenship right now.

And there's also, we haven't seen the data that was referenced saying that there's closing and disparities. The data that's available about the AVR system in California is that it's dramatically increased registration, and there's not enough data available yet based on how California works to be able to say that it's closed disparities along race, but it has closed disparities according to income and age.

Great. Thank you very much. And I'll let the author in her close address any of those issues that have been raised. Questions or you have?

Well, yeah, I was just going to mean, I suppose part of the analysis probably also comes down to the fact that in California we allow same day registration and all those kinds of things, so people do have access, which is not the case in other places, so that at least there's a form of remediation if someone's not registered to vote day of, if they're motivated to do so.

Senator Menjivar.

Just a quick comment to that, and this might be anecdotally, but imagine you're a green card holder like many of my family members are. Even if the questions are in your own language, how scared you potentially could be. You're at a state organization, and even if it's in your language, right there, it's asking you if you're a citizen, you could, by fear, just say yes because you're worried. Right. So I just wanted to put that even if it might be anecdotally.

Great. Thank you. Senator Limon, thank you for your work in this area. Senator Newman, thank you for setting the foundation for this continued conversation. So what surprises me at this point in time, given this robust conversation that we've had this morning, is that it's the person that's not here in the room, which is the Secretary of State. I'm sure that she joins with you and all of us about trying to get as many people registered.

She's been a great advocate and leader in that space, but we haven't heard anything from her about this bill and the potential, good or not, to add 4.6 million people to the roles. And I know you can't speak for her. I don't know if her representative is here in the room and could speak to her concerns or not on this matter, but I don't think it's a reason not to move your bill forward.

But I just want to flag it as a significant blind spot here in having us have the value, the benefit of her office's expertise in this area, because we all want to make sure we do the right thing. The second thing that is missing in this conversation, although it has been raised appropriately by a number of members, is the ability of us to operationalize this, and that will be ultimately an Administration responsibility with this bill to move forward.

And so in some ways, I don't want to abdicate responsibility for that important question. But it is true that for this bill to go into effect, the Governor has to sign it. And by signing it, I think it creates a very clear obligation on his Administration to implement it correctly and effectively. So in some ways, it allows me to give your bill a pass in that regard, because I see it as a serious problem.

We've had hearings, a special hearing on CAL-ACCESS, the fact that we've not been able to do a technology project of much smaller scale for the last 10 years at enormous costs through the Secretary of State's office and previous secretary of states, not just this current one, who I think is working very hard on it. And we could go through all of state government and find a lot of examples of our operational problems.

So I don't think it's as simple as some of the witnesses project, but yet I don't think that's a reason to stop this bill here in this Committee and stop this important conversation, because we all have the same goals. We want to register as many citizens as possible to participate in our wonderful democracy. So with that, I'm happy to support the bill today, and I've not seen any hands from my colleague? I'll allow the author to close.

Thank you. And I appreciate the robust discussion on this particular bill. I think I made the comment earlier. If there's not a bill, there's not a conversation. So if we don't move this forward, we won't have the conversations with the Secretary of State, we won't have the conversations with the Governor's office. If our belief is that because we have an agency that cannot operationalize a policy issue, then we stop every single issue that comes forward.

I would regret to say that a lot of policy would not move forward. We need to have that conversation. What will it take in order for us to do something like this? What will it cost? What could be a timeline? And I'm looking forward to working with the opposition, who I've had a great working relationship with, to try to address some of this. This bill, whether it moves forward this legislative year or not, will continue to come up.

There are other states who are moving forward with automatic voter registration. And so when we are prepared to have this conversation, I think we will have it. I believe the time is now. I think there's a lot of things that we do that require years in advance of having to raise the issue over and over. So I'm grateful to Senators who have brought this forward previously who are saying we need to do something to close that gap for 4.6 million eligible but non-registered voters. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay. Thank you very much. Senator Limon. Looking for a motion. Senator Newman moves the bill. No amendments? No amendments. Okay. Move the bill as presented. The Secretary would call the roll.

This is file item six, SB 846. With the motion do pass to the Committee on Transportation. [Roll Call]

Okay, we're going to put that Bill on call for absent Members. And that brings us to our last Bill of the morning. That's file item number seven, SB 77 by Senator Umberg. Senator Umberg, welcome to the Committee, your Committee. And we await your presentation. You can't go that way. You have to go the other way. It's a freshman mistake.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right, Mr. Chair. And Members, first of all, I want to thank the Chair and the most talented, Mr. Scott Matsumoto, for their assistance and hard work on this Bill. What this Bill does is this improves the system in California when a ballot is rejected because of some deficiency, and it requires that the voter be contacted by text message.

Although we are amenable to amending the Bill to also make it a call, so long as we define what a telephone call is, to let that voter know that there's a deficiency and the voter has an opportunity to correct that deficiency.

As Chair and Members know that oftentimes in elections, particularly close elections, individual candidates and their team go out and let people know that there are deficiencies and that they have the opportunity to correct. Simply expedites and makes the process more efficient so that folks who intend to vote aren't disenfranchised because of some inadvertent error.

Great. Thank you. Senator Umberg, do you have lead witnesses in support?

I do. Mr. or Dora Rose of the League of Women Voters is here in support. Thank you, Ms. Rose.

No stranger to our Committee. Ms. Rose, welcome. And we welcome your testimony.

I am still Dora Rose. I'm still with the League of Women Voters of California and here today in support of SB 77. It makes a huge amount of sense to require notification of missing or non-comparing signatures through email or text. California now mails a ballot to every voter, I'm getting feedback, which is a critical innovation to expand access, and expanding access is absolutely vital to addressing California's participation gap, which we have spoken about already today.

For the November 2020 election, despite record registration rates, the voter turnout rates of eligible Asian American, Black, and Latino Californians was between 11 to 20 percentage points, lower than comparable rates for eligible non-Hispanic White Californians. And this trend has persisted over many presidential elections. But the expansion of vote-by-mail is really not without some risk. Studies show that voters who are already underrepresented in the electorate experience higher mail ballot rejection rates.

In the November 2020 election, over 80,000 vote-by-mail ballots were rejected primarily because of a non-comparing or missing signature or for being late. And those numbers, unfortunately, are higher for Latinos, young voters, first-time voters, and previous polling place voters. Furthermore, this is a very important innovation to address the needs of our unhoused housing insecure and geographically mobile neighbors.

As a matter of equity, and to help close that participation gap, it is critically important to expand opportunities for voters to correct signature issues and guarantee that we can count those ballots. By delivering the notice on devices checked frequently, SB 77 would help expedite the notice and cure process. In all, more voters would be able to ensure that their ballot can be counted. So the League of Women Voters of California urges an Aye vote. We're in strong support.

Thank you very much, Ms. Rose. Any other speakers in support. Are there speakers in opposition here in the room? All right, anyone wishes to indicate their voice in support or opposition before we go to the phone lines?

Laurel Brodzinsky, California Common Cause, in support.

Thank you.

Jessica Hay, California School Employees Association, in support.

Great. Thank you very much. Anyone else here in the hearing room? Seeing none. We'll go to the phone lines. Operator, if you could ask anyone who wishes to indicate their position on SB 77 to do so now.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If you are in support or opposition to SB 77, please press one zero. One followed by zero, and one is queuing up. Give us one moment as we get their line number, please. Actually, a couple now. For anybody else, go ahead and hit one, followed by zero to testify in support or opposition for SB 77. Line 61, you are open.

Hi, this is Jenny Olsen with Disability Rights California, calling in support.

Thank you.

And we have one more. One moment, please. Line 59, you are open.

I am not in support of this measure.

Great. Thank you. Next caller, please.

And there are no other participants queued up at this time.

Thank you, Operator. Thanks for all your help today. I appreciate it very much. We'll bring the matter back to the Committee for questions or comments. Questions or comments, Members? All right, seeing none. Senator Umberg, thank you for your work in this area.

Continuing to try to make sure we can get every vote to count. As I understand it, you're going to continue to work on this issue of a phone call as the Bill moves forward, if it moves out today. Would you like to close?

Only that, yes, we are. And we need to define what a call is so that we don't present a circumstance where someone just calls. And if they don't answer within a second, they hang up. But in any event, I urge an Aye vote.

I see. So you're looking for a little more than a second? That's the compromise space that we'll be working with. Okay, terrific. We do have a motion. Senator Newman excitedly moves the Bill. The secretary would call the roll.

This is file item number seven, SB 77. With the motion do pass as amended, to the Committee on Appropriations. Senators Glazer? Aye. Glazer? [Roll call].

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let me congratulate you on your good judgment and staff hiring.

Claire? Yes? You missed the welcoming cake and ceremony. I'm sorry. You missed that part. Thank you. We're excited to have Claire with our Committee. I know she was not very unhappy. Where she was before. Was that Senator Umberg's Committee?

All right, we're going to leave that on call for absent Members. We want to ask all the Committee Members who are not here to come back to the room. We're going to open the roll one last time on these bills, and with that, we're going to ask the secretary. We'll start with this consent calendar.

[Roll Call].

All right, that's going to back on call one last time. SB 328 by Dodd. Open the roll, please.

It was happy to be here. Happy there, too.

Okay. All right, let's start with the consent calendar. If we can open the roll on the consent calendar, two bills, SB 437 and SB 29. Secretary, call the role.

[Roll Call].

All right, that bill is out seven. The consent calendar is approved 7 to zero. We're going to now move to item number one. Ashby. SB 314. Open the roll.

[Roll Call].

I will put that back on call. We have SB 518 by Wilk. Oh, that was pulled. SB 718 by Wilk. Open the roll, please.

[Roll Call].

That Bill is at 7 to zero. We'll move next to item number six, SB 846 by Limón. Is that just one number absent? Okay, we'll skip that. We just did 77. SB 297 by Allen. File item number nine. Open the roll.

[Roll Call].

That bill is out. Six to one. We'll move next to file item number 10. SB 681 by Allen. Please open the roll.

[Roll Call].

That bill is out. Six to one. We'll next move to item number 11, SB 658 by McGuire. Please open the roll.

[Roll Call]

That bill is out. 7 to zero. And finally, file item number 13. SB 724 by Glazer. Open the roll, please.

[Roll Call].

Are we missing somebody? Okay, that Bill is out. 6 to zero. Okay, we will wait the last Member of our Committee so we can close the hearing today. So we'll be in recess for just a few moments. Thank you. All right, the Committee is back in order. We're going to open the roll on four remaining bills. First one up, SB 314 by Senator Ashby. If the secretary would open the roll.

[Roll Call].

That bill is out. 6 to zero. Next up, SB 228 by Dodd. The secretary would open the roll.

[Roll Call].

That bill is out 6 to zero. Next up, file item number six. SB 846. By Limón. Secretary, open the roll.

[Roll Call].

That bill is out. Six to one. And finally, SB 77 by Senator Umberg. The secretary would open the roll.

[Roll Call].

That Bill is out. Six to zero. Okay, that completes our agenda today. This morning. Thank you to the staff, thank you to the Members and participants for a great hearing in this Committee. And with that, we are adjourned. Thank.