Assembly Standing Committee on Elections

The Committee has 18 bills on its agenda. 18 bills is the most we've had on our agenda in two years, so please be mindful of that as we make our way through today. For each Bill, there will be a maximum of two primary witnesses in support and two primary witnesses in opposition, with a limit of two minutes per witness.

After we have heard from the primary witness, the public will have up to 10 minutes in total time for additional public comment on each Bill, starting with Members who are here in the hearing room. Other witnesses are limited to providing their name, the organization they represent, if any, and their position on the Bill. Any additional comments will be ruled out of order. Again, we have 18 bills on the agenda. We are going to try to move expeditiously.

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. The written testimony will become part of the official record of the Bill. For those who are watching this hearing remotely and who wish to call in to register their position, the call-in number for this hearing is 877-692-8957 and the access code is 1315444 you can also find this number on the Assembly Elections Committee website, as well as on your TV or computer screen.

If you are calling in, please eliminate all background noise. This includes muting your live stream, broadcast, and smart devices to reduce sound distortion. If you're having any problems with the moderated phone service, you can call the Committee directly at 916-319-2094. And the Committee staff, the excellent Committee staff, will be there to try to help you. Thank you for bearing with us as we implement methods to continue to serve all of the people of California.

With those announcements out of the way, we're going to move on to the Committee's agenda. At this point since we don't have a quorum. So we'll take up the. Yeah, not quite at a quorum. So we'll take up the consent calendar later in the hearing.

First item up is.

We'll now move on to the other bills on the Committee's agenda. AB 1004 Ta. Welcome. Good morning.

Good morning Chair and Members of the Committee. Good morning. Good morning Chair. I'm here today to present AB 1004, which would Reserve a loophole in California election law and provide voters an opportunity to verify their signature on initiative referendum and recall petition if election official reject their signature.

I want to begin by thanking Committee staff for working with my office on this Bill and we'll be accepting the Committee proposed amendment to AB 1004 to initiate a referendum or recall, supporters must circulate a petition collecting signature to qualify for the ballot. However, election official can disqualify petition signature if they judicate a mismatch between the petition signature and a voter signature on file. If disqualified, signers are never notified that their signature has been tossed and are given no opportunity to verify their signature.

This is especially problematic because voter signature on file often come from outdated sources, such as decade old voter registration firm. Signers whose signature have changed, many due to OA or ailment, are often disqualified and disenfranchised from the petition process with no opportunity to verify the signature. Signature will also be compared to record from the Department of Motor Vehicles where voters use unfamiliar stylus to record their signature, resulting in this prerequisite that lead to further disqualification. This issue is personal to me in my community.

Signature mass requirement have been filed to pose a unit challenge to Asian Americans with Asian American advancing justice reporting that foreign born Asian American vote by mail ballot were more likely to experience rejection due to signature mismatch than their native born counterpart. In my Committee in northwest on county signature mass requirement have regularly disenfranchised Committee Members who sought to fairly participate in the democratic process.

California law allow voters to verify signature mismatch on ballot and require election official to notify voter when their vote by mail signature is disqualified. AB 1004 would extend this voter protection to initiative and recall petition and confirm petition to the rest of election code. This legislation would require that election official notify voter their signature has been disqualified due to a signature mismatch.

Signer would have until the end of a 30 day verification period to verify their signature, meaning this legislation would not exceed the 30 day period for election official to review the petition. One signature unfairly disenfranchised, one signature too many. Voters must be able to participate in California democratic process instead of current law which allow for signature to be disqualified with no notice and no opportunity to reserve the concerns.

The Legislature must take action to close the signature verification loophole and ensure California can fairly participate in the democratic process. Thank you for your time. I'm proud to introduce my witness, Preston Young from Cal Chamber and so welcome. Any question that you have, I humbly ask for aye vote.

Thank you Mr. Chair and Committee Members, Preston Young from the California Chamber of Commerce here today in support of AB 1004. California law allows voters to verify signature mismatches on vote by mail ballots and requires election officials to notify voters when their vote by mail ballot is disqualified. However, voters cannot verify disqualified signatures on recall or ballot Proposition petitions, nor are they notified that their signature has been disqualified. Considerable evidence exists to demonstrate that signature match requirements can result in voters being disenfranchised unfairly.

A 2020 ACLU report stated that signature match requirements present a barrier to voters who have conditions that make it hard to consistently sign their name. Asian Americans Advancing Justice found that signature mismatches the most common reason for ballot disqualification among Asian American voters, specifically amongst foreign born Asian Americans. The Center for Inclusive Democracy found that non matching signatures comprised the main reason for rejected vote by mail ballots. AB 1004 would extend the same protections currently afforded to vote by mail signatures to petition signatures.

This legislation would close a loophole in California's election law and conform signature integrity for recall and ballot Proposition petitions to the rest of the elections code. For these reasons, we're here today in support of 1004. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Is there a registered opposition on this Bill? Seeing none.

I'm in support with amendments. May I?

Sure.

You want me to speak from here or go up there?

Doesn't matter, whatever makes you feel comfortable.

All right, I'll go up there.

Come on up. Good morning.

My name is Colleen Britton. I'm with the Election Integrity Project California, and we support this Bill with amendments. Signature verification is critical to our mail in ballots and to our petitions and initiatives, referendums, all those things. It's key, and we really applaud this bill's desire to standardize the acceptance between the ballot signatures, the envelope signatures and the petition signatures. That's critical. It's the right thing to do. In California. We would suggest amending the Bill to strengthen the signature verification to three points.

Right now it's varied in different counties. Some counties use a 1.0 some 2.0 some 3.0. We would like to see that strengthened so that that was consistent both for mail in ballots and for petitions. So to make that stronger, we would also, in light of all the extra work required for the curing process, to eliminate the curing process from this Bill, primarily because petitions are done not in private, but with the supervision of a petition of circulator.

So that person is responsible for making sure that the petition is signed correctly. And so I don't think that the need for a hearing is there. So that would be our suggestion that we amend the Bill for that. But generally, we're very supportive of it. So thank you.

Thank you so much. And we're going to pause for a quick second. Madam Secretary, I think a quorum is present. Can we call the roll?

[Roll Call] We have a quorum.

Thank you. And real quickly, we're just going to take up the Committee's consent calendar, because I know folks go in and out. There are two bills on the consent calendar. Those bills are item number 16, AB 1761, by the Assembly Elections Committee, and item number 17, AB 1762, by the Assembly Elections Committee. We have a motion by Ms. Rubio. A second by Mr. Bennett. Does any Member wish to remove an item from the consent calendar? I appreciate, y'all. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

[Roll Call] The consent calendar is out.

5 -0 the consent calendar has been approved. We will now return back to item number nine, AB 1004. Is there anybody in the hearing room who would like to register their support or opposition for this Bill? Seeing none. Operator, can we go to the phone lines? Is there anybody on the phone lines who would like to register their support or opposition to this Bill?

Provide comments in support or opposition for this Bill, please press one, then zero. One moment, please. Line 25. Line 25.

Yes. Am I on? My name is Missy. I'm from LA County. I'd like to on AB 1004. I support, if amended. Thank you.

53. Line 53, you're open. Line 12.

Hello, my name is April Bean. I'm from Sacramento county, and I support this Bill with the amendments as suggested by EIPCA. Thank you.

Line 44.

Hi, my name is Jeanette Felt, Sacramento county, and I would support this Bill, if amended, as recommended by EIPCA.

Line 13.

Hi, my name is Myrna from La County. I support this Bill, if amended. Thank you.

Robert White, Santa Clara County. Election integrity. I support this Bill, if amended.

Line 11.

Line 19.

Line 10.

Yes. Vicky Renkey, Calaveras County. Support, if amended.

This is Chris Foster from Orange County. I support this Bill, if amended. I'm in agreement with election integrity project.

Line 24.

This is Andy Miza, L.A County. I support the Bill if it's amended per the election integrity project.

Line 47.

Lee Mentebari with election integrity Project, California, Placer County. I support, if amended, Bill 1004.

There are no further comments in queue at this time.

Thank you so much. We'll now bring it back to Committee Members. Are there any Members of the Committee who comment, question, concern, thought about this Bill? Beautiful. Motion by Mr. Essayli, second by Mr. Lackey. Would you like to close?

I really want to thank all the Committee staff for dedication to work with my office, and I humbly ask for an aye vote.

And just to confirm, you're accepting the Committee's amendments?

Yes.

Thank you so much. Now, we were happy to work with you. It's an important Bill that will ensure that voters' signatures are not invalid or that have been invalidated. Have an opportunity to rectify that. Thank you for bringing here today. It enjoys an ireco from the chair. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

The motion is do pass as amended and be re referred to the Committee on appropriations. [Roll Call]

Yeah, that Bill is on call. Needs one more.

Thank you.

I feel good about it, though. Item number one. Valencia. Good morning, brother.

How are you doing?

Doing all right. You may begin when ready.

Hey, thank you. Buenos. Yes, Mr.

Chair and members, I want to start by thanking the chair and the committee team for diligently working on AB 34. And I'd also like to acknowledge our Chief of Staff, Aaron Ryberg, and our legislative intern, Kobe Grossman, for their work on this bill. I look forward to continuing to work with the Committee to address the technical issues mentioned in the analysis. Additionally, I am aware that the committee is considering a broader bill that is authored by the chair that includes districts beyond counties.

And I am happy to maintain an open line of communication with the chair and the committee members as both of these bills move through the legislative process. Existing law does allow for counties to establish advisory or independent redistricting commissions. However, if a county does not establish an independent citizen redistricting commission, the incumbent county supervisors draw their own district boundaries. This opens the door for possible partisan conflicts or favoritism.

Independent citizen redistricting commissions help to help with fairness in the redistricting process and prevent the manipulation of district boundaries for political gain by elected officials. It directly increases transparency and accountability in the redistricting process by prioritizing local public input and ensuring that the process is conducted in an open and transparent manner. AB 34 is modeled after recent legislation and would similarly create an independent redistricting commission that would draw district boundaries for the County of Orange Board of Supervisors.

However, AB 34 goes a step further and adds additional elements not seen in provisions related to the legislation that I just mentioned. These include a process for the removal of commissioners, appointing alternates, requiring outreach materials to be translated into applicable languages, and additional provisions that would better clarify the makeup of this commission. In the last 20 years, Orange County has changed in its demographic and political makeup, a trend that is expected to continue.

The use of an independent redistricting commission would impact political fairness in representation of the diversity and interests of the community. With me to provide testimony, I have Mr. Paul Mitchell, president and owner of Eedistricting Partners, and Alejandra Ramirez-Zarate, political director for OC Action.

Thank you. Good morning Chair Bryan and members of the Assembly Elections Committee. My name is Alejandra Ramirez-Zarate, and I'm policy director with OC Action. OC Action is an AAPI Latinx labor environmental justice progressive alliance in Orange County responsible for collective community and power building in the region. The seven organizations that anchor our alliance serve the emergent majority of the county's low income, immigrant, Latinx and Asian communities.

During the 2021 redistricting cycle, OC Action convened the People's Redistricting Alliance, a coordinated effort comprising 16 community based organizations to maximize opportunities for marginalized communities in Orange County that drove the work around community participation in redistricting with the Orange County Board of Supervisors. Orange County is passed through for an independent redistricting commission that politically empowers people from historically disenfranchised communities and ensures more representative districts.

For at least the last two redistricting cycle, a majority Republican Board of Supervisors has used their power to draw legislative districts to maintain their party's control over critical policy decisions in what stands today as a nearly $9 billion county budget. During the 2021 redistricting cycle, the California Independent Redistricting Commission drew fair maps that respected Orange County's communities of interest. In contrast, the map drawn by the Board of Supervisors divided key communities of interest intended to benefit a single political party.

Despite Democrats outnumbering Republicans among registered voters county wide, the board approved a gerrymandered map that led to a Republican advantage in three of its five districts, and to achieve that partisan goal, the City of Irvine was split into two districts, breaking apart growing Low income immigrant and Asian American communities and thus diluting their collective voting power. The creation of Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission will enhance the public's trust in the integrity of the redistricting process by ensuring that it's conducted in a nonpartisan and transparent manner.

AB 34 promotes civic participation and community leadership in the redistricting process by allowing community residents, especially those from historically marginalized communities, to have a greater voice in the redistricting process and to ensure that community voices are centered first in neighborhood representation, not special interests, as we've often seen. And lastly, through AB 34, Orange County can secure a future for greater political empowerment for growing majority minority populations throughout the region and build a legacy founded on fair representation for all.

For these reasons, we strongly urge your support of AB 34.

I appreciate that we let you go 30 seconds over because you were dropping some fire over there, but because we have 18 bills on the agenda, really hoping we can stay to the two minutes. I'll give you a warning if you get close.

I'll be brief.

Chair Bryan, thank you very much, Chair and members, thanks for having me here today. My name is Paul Mitchell. I'm the owner of Redistricting Partners. We're a firm that has worked with over 100 municipalities around the state and the country, and we've worked with a variety of different agencies, some cities, counties, school boards that are doing their own redistricting, some under the Fair Maps Act, some not. And then even around the country, we've worked with advisory commissions or full independent commissions.

And the punchline is that independent commissions are better everywhere we've worked. Those independent commissions provide a better, more community focused redistricting, taking the politics and incumbency and those issues off the table and making the districts about the residents and about the voters. Before the Fair Maps Act, redistricting the local level was the Wild West. I literally know of a redistricting for a county supervisors that was drawn on a napkin at chops.

So that is the kind of norm that we were facing when the Fair Maps Act came in. The Fair Maps Act has made huge improvements. The Orange County redistricting, even with its faults, was more transparent and at least tried to ostensibly follow a process that had more of the drawing districts based on rank criteria and having community engagement. It wasn't done, as in the past, completely behind closed doors. That's not to say that it wasn't perfect.

Counties around the state and cities still had a lot of shenanigans going on. There were still a lot of lines drawn where you knew there were political motives being done, you knew that incumbency was a primary criteria in some of these redistrictings, even if they tried to use catchy phrases like we're just preserving the core of the district or we're just preserving the voter interests, when really they were trying to protect incumbents.

Common Cause has a great lengthy report on the Fair Maps Act implementation, which I'd encourage you and anybody interested in reading, I think they go through and really evaluate the range of experiences we had this redistricting cycle as a practitioner. As a practitioner, I support independent redistricting commissions.

Really appreciate you. Are there any primary witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, we'll return it back to the hearing room. Are there any persons in the hearing room who would like to register their support or opposition for this bill? Store rose tweener is good.

All right, California, huge fan of district commissioners of the Fair Maps Act, co authors of that report that was mentioned. We do have a supportive amended letter in with some recommendations for friendly recommendations for improvements, and we look forward to continuing discussion.

Oh, sorry. Good morning. Chair, committee members, and staff, Christophe Mayer with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees in support, but look forward to the continuing conversations around all the different redistricting bills.

Thanks.

Laurel Brodzinsky with California Common Cause, also a tweener, strongly support the establishment of independent redistricting commissions, but have some amendments regarding the technical composition of the commission. Thank you.

Thanks so much. We'll now head to the phone lines. Is there anybody on the phone lines operator in support or opposition for this bill?

Provide comment in support or opposition for AB 34, please press one, then zero. Line 41. 41, please go ahead and line 55. 55, your line is open. Line 25.

This is Missy from Los Angeles County. I vehemently oppose AB 34.

Thank you.

Operator, is that it? Great. We're going to turn-

No further comments. Thank you at this time.

Thank you so much. We're going to turn it back to Committee Members, any members of the Committee who wish to comment, questions, thoughts on this bill? Ms. Pellerin?

This is a great bill, and I definitely support the independent redistricting commissions. I'm just wondering whether you'd consider and whether the county would like to have, like, an elections official also be part of the process because they really know the lines of the county.

Really appreciate that feedback. We're definitely open to continued communication on how to better improve our electoral process. Thank you.

Something to explore?

Sure. Thank you.

Mr. Essayli.

I just had two questions. Why just Orange County, not all counties?

My experience in Orange County is being reflected through this bill specifically. It's my understanding that there are other bills, movements in the legislative process that address this particular topic in a much larger scope across the state. But again, with my experience in Orange County, and just as a proactive measure, I felt it appropriate as Orange County Legislator to move this bill.

Okay. And then I think we all like the concept of the independent commission, and I think the way it's done now for our seats is there has to be equal number of Republicans, Democrats and independents, and it requires a majority of each. But my understanding is the way this bill is written, it just requires the composition to be proportional, so there could be more of one party than another and that it only requires nine of the 14's approval.

So theoretically, you could draw these lines without a single Republican vote or a single Democrat vote. So would you guys be willing to make it more parallel, kind of, with what we have for the statewide commissions?

As we addressed in my opening remarks, I'm definitely open to taking continued input on this and see how we can establish the process.

I appreciate that. Thank you.

With that, Mr. Valencia, would you like to close?

Yes, sir. Thank you. AB 34 will put Orange County voters first by removing the inherent conflict of interest when county boards of supervisors are involved in decisions regarding redrawing political district lines. With that, I appreciate your time and respectfully ask for a yes vote. Thank you.

I really appreciate you bringing this. As you know, I'm a huge supporter of independent redistricting commissions.

We've seen success across the states and we've been piecemealing this county by county and pace by pace. As you know, I have a bill to do this statewide, and usually when that's the case, a bill like this would get sidelined. But the reason this is not being sidelined is because I know how important it is for you to represent Orange County and to make sure that whatever process goes forward, there's an independent process in Orange County. So thank you for your leadership.

Thank you for bringing this forward. Thank you for your willingness to work with the Committee staff, not just to get to this point, but going forward. With that, the chair is recommending an aye vote. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll? Do we have a motion? Second. Thank you, Ms. Pellerin and Ms. Rubio.

The motion is due pass and be re-referred to the Committee on Local Government. [Roll call]

Yeah, that Bill is on call. Thank you both. Ms. Rubio, would you like to go? We'll do item number four, AB 334. You can begin when you're ready.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members for the opportunity to present this morning. AB 334 would clarify existing conflict of interest statute, which was written and intended for the situation of public officials who hold a financial interest in any entity attempting to contract with the public agency for which the official is a decision maker. Since the code's inception, courts have expanded 1090 so it may apply to entities that contract with the public agencies under circumstances, in fact patterns that are murky at best.

The state must set clarity for public agencies when contracting with independent contractors on public projects that their normal historical contracting practices will not violate Code Section 1090. This Bill seeks to do so by adopting a two-part test laid out in case law and FPPC guidance, which is useful for determining whether or not a contracted entity performs services that amount to transacting on behalf of a public agency, in which case they are subject to government code 1090, the same as any public official.

Since statute has not kept up with the case law and the FPPC, ambiguity deter public agencies from utilizing contracted entities on more than one portion of the public project out of fear of unknowingly getting it wrong, incurring civil or even criminal penalties for any and all parties involved. For example, design professionals are being denied by public agency, even if they are the best, most qualified professionals for the public works projects.

This is despite the fact that state and local agencies are already required under state and federal statute to competitively select these professionals on the basis of qualifications. AB 334 seeks to restore clarity to public agencies so that these agencies may resume utilizing a contracted entity more than once in a single project without fear of being penalized or prosecuted. Ultimately, the public deserves the best, safest and more cost-effective, most cost-effective public works project.

It is the public who suffers when their projects are not able to be designed by the best, most qualified professionals. I have with me today, John Moffatt on behalf of the American Council of Engineering Companies of California and Matthew Duarte for the Association of Recreation and Park District in support. The FPPC is also here to answer any technical questions you may have. Thank you.

Thank you so much. You may begin. Whatever order works for you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. John Moffatt, on behalf of the American Council of Engineering Companies of California. We appreciate the staff work on this Bill. Appreciate the author bringing this Bill forward. I think the author outlined the current challenge well. A combination of previous case law, appropriate bills passed by the Legislature to increase penalties for 1090 violations have led to a situation where a local entity looking to build a project that has a contract or work on an early phase.

If they are looking to work on a later phase of the project, they've got two paths.

Either go to the FPPC and get an advice letter or kick that contractor out of the future of that project, which leads to, at times, has led to a lack of firms that can work on projects, stalling projects, slowing them down, or delay in moving a project forward because you've got to wait for the FPPCU is obviously very busy doing what they do to get that advice letter back to you so that you can move forward.

As the author stated, the Bill is intended to codify the test that the FPPC has developed through their advice letters and case law. We continue to work with the FPPC on getting this language right as it moves forward and commit to continue doing so as the Bill moves through the process.

Thank you.

Yes. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. My name is Matthew Duarte. I'm the Executive Director for the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts. Our Association includes over 70 government agencies from throughout the state that deliver recreation and park services to Californians from all over. I'm here today to speak in support of Assembly Bill 334 and the much-needed improvements it brings to the public contracting process.

As public agencies, our foremost priority is to deliver infrastructure and public amenities that are of the highest quality and compliance with the exacting safety standards designed to protect the well-being of our constituents. And as a result, it is important that our projects are designed and constructed by the best and brightest professionals that California has to offer. And unfortunately, California law precludes our local government agencies from utilizing the services of the most qualified and most knowledgeable in certain phases of the project.

And I can address a myriad of examples where public sector has had to look to other different types of professionals or perhaps not utilize a firm that they had desired. For example, we had an engineering firm who was investigating erosion in the community on a local stream, and after identifying what would be a resolution, they weren't able to engage them to actually fix it.

So the designs of our public infrastructure are not IKEA step-by-step instructions, and we should not treat them as something that can be thoughtlessly handed off to the next person on the street with a hammer. These designs are highly technical documents and renderings that require the best and brightest to review, plan, and implement. So we appreciate your time and consideration, as well as the authors, and hope that you can continue to support AB 334.

Thank you. Do we have any primary witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. We'll now return it to the hearing room. Are there any persons in the hearing room who would like to register their support or opposition for AB 334?

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Bret Gladfelty, on behalf or with Apex Group, on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of California and the Associated General Contractors of San Diego, in strong support.

Good morning. Alyssa Silhi, on behalf of the cities of Mountain View and Belmont, also in support.

Good morning. Cyrus Stevers, with the Coachella Valley Water District, in strong support.

Good morning, Member and Chairs. Damon Conklin with the League of California Cities, in strong support.

Good morning. David Jones, on behalf of San Marcos, in support.

Okay, operator, we're going to turn to the phone lines. Are there any witnesses on the phone line in support or opposition to this Bill, AB 334?

Press one, then zero to provide comment in support or opposition for AB 334. One then zero. Line 54. Mr. Chair, line 54 has removed themselves from queue. There are no further comments.

Beautiful. We'll turn it to Committee Members, any Members of the Committee who want to speak on this Bill.

Thank you.

Motion by Essayli, second by Mr. Lackey. Ms. Rubio, would you like to close?

Thank you. I respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Beautiful. In the last few years, FPPC has repeatedly been asked to issue advice on whether contractors who worked on preliminary stages of a project can continue to work on the project. The number of inquiries suggest that there's a problem with the law and that it could use more clarity. I trust the author's attempts to bring clarity to this and to continue to work with the opposition, including the FPPC. I have no doubt that you're going to get this right.

And so I am recommending an Aye vote. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

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

That bill is out five-zero. Ms. Pellerin, would you like to go next? We'll move to item number three, AB 292, Pellerin.

Okay, what were we going to start with? 292? Good morning. Voters who register to vote without stating a political party are known as no party preference or NPP voters. When an NPP voter votes in a presidential primary of a political party that has authorized NPP voters to vote in its primary, this is known as crossover voting.

Many NPP voters do not realize that unless they request a partisan ballot, they will receive a ballot without the option to vote for the office of President during a presidential primary election. Despite the fact that county elections officials send notices to NPP voters advising them that they may request a partisan ballot from parties that have authorized it, many voters overlook these notices and do not inform the county elections official that they want a partisan ballot.

Since California now mails ballots to every registered voter, county elections officials are observing that many are waiting until close to or on election day to open that ballot and vote it. And that means that they will not realize that the office of President is missing from their ballot until close to or on election day.

For voters who are unable to go in person to obtain a replacement ballot, have missed the deadline to obtain a replacement ballot to be mailed to them, or cannot access remote voting, their ability and right to vote in the presidential election has been effectively removed. So AB 292 updates the Elections Code in two ways.

The first thing it does is update the prescribed format of the NPP notices and applications for parties and ballots by explicitly requiring that the notices contain a checkbox with the party printed on the card so the voter can easily check which party ballot they want to cross over and vote, and it is clear to the voter which political parties are offering that option.

In the event that an NPP voter does not respond to the mailed ballot notice or otherwise request a partisan ballot for the presidential primary election, AB 292 requires that a write-in space for President in the United States be printed on the NPP ballots. To comply with party rules, these MPP voters will also have to complete a form that will be included with the ballot that is exactly like the application mailed to voters for them to request that crossover ballot.

And when the voter returns those ballots on their ballot, there are best practices in place for ballot extraction that will preserve the secrecy of the voters ballot. AB 292 ensures that MPP voters can cross over vote on the ballot that they were mailed. This means that no voter will be disenfranchised because they forgot to request the partisan ballot and were unable to vote in person.

With me to testify in support today is Dora Rose, the Deputy Director of the League of Women Voters of California.

Morning Chair and Members. I am Dora Rose, Deputy Director with the League of Women Voters of California, here in support of AB 292. Our experience at the League has been that in every presidential primary election, many NPP voters are absolutely shocked to find that their ballot doesn't contain presidential primary candidates. They're not aware that registering without a party preference means that primary candidates won't be on their ballots. They're not aware that they may request a ballot for any party that allows for crossover voting.

The consternation and the confusion of these voters can and does lead to rumor-mongering, and it really feeds the public's trust, distrust in elections. Tweets start appearing that claim ballots have been manipulated. People call the press and they loudly insist that they've been cheated. This hullabaloo plays into a false narrative of election fraud that we need to vigilantly counter. The league does voter education every single cycle through a variety of means to alert voters of the consequences of registering without a party preference.

And we provide them with information as to how to get a ballot that contains the candidates that they want to choose and which parties allow for crossover voting. But education on these matters can only go so far. AB 292 is a proactive fix to the problem. It makes eminent sense for NPP voters to get info right in their ballots that let them vote their preference.

And it makes sense that the fix is coming from assemblymember Pellerin, a deeply respected registrar of voters with direct experience former registrar of voters with direct experience of the problem. One who worked hard during her tenure to improve California elections and continues to do so in her role as an Assembly Member. The League of Women Voters of California is in very strong support of AB 292. It would make our job a lot easier. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Are there any primary witnesses in opposition? Seeing and hearing none. We're going to. Oh, hustle up. We got a tight schedule. Appreciate that.

My name is Colleen Britton with Election Integrity Project California. We believe that AB 292 is unnecessary. There are already several ways that the no party preference voters are notified and to add another one would be an increase in tax and work for the registers.

So particularly troubling is the section of AB 292 that states a voter who writes the name of the presidential candidate pursuant to Subsection B shall mark the box indicating the party's candidate for whom they voted and complete, sign, and return that document with the voter's ballot. This, we believe is a breach of the voter's right to secret ballot. It's not clear the procedures of separation of ballot and identifying information is designated.

The Bill does not do this. So without the assurance that the ballot privacy the state has no right to impose requirement for the voters to disclose their ballot choices on any document that identifies the voter. This is a serious problem with the Bill that we believe. So if the state were to decide to place a right in space for the non-whatever it is. NPP voter, thank you.

Whatever it is, with the ballot accompanying instructions regarding legal crossover voting, then it must also eliminate the redundant multiple mailings of notification and substitute ballots. Streamlining and simplifying the system which is mystifying to voters, time and labor-intensive for election offices, highly costly for the state is so much better than adding another layer of complexity such as more this move would save the tax hundreds and thousands of dollars. Thank you.

Thank you so much. We'll return to the hearing room. Are there any persons in the hearing room who would like to register their support or opposition for this Bill?

Laurel Brodzinsky with California Common Cause in support.

Vanessa Tillis with Indivisible California State Strong in support.

Tricia Weber on behalf of California Association of Clerk and Election Officials. We're in a support, if amended position.

Thank you so much. We're going to turn to the phone lines. Operator, is anybody on the phone lines who would like to register their support or opposition for this Bill?

Provide comment in support or opposition for this Bill, please press one, then zero. Line 17, please go ahead.

Thank you, operator, and thank you Chair Bryan. This is Raj Faye with Change Begins With Me in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Line 19.

Vicky Renkey, Calaveras County, oppose.

Line 25.

Missy from Los Angeles County. I oppose AB 292.

Line 13.

This is Marina Barolo from L.A. County. I strongly oppose this Bill.

Line 44.

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

Line 47. 47, please go ahead.

Lee Mantebury, Placer County Election Integrity Project California, in opposition to 292.

Line 41.

Lawrence Basket in San Francisco, in support.

Line 10.

Chris Foster, Orange County, opposed.

Line 24.

Andy Miza, L.A. County, oppose it.

Line 58.

Chensen Huang, Santa Clara County. I oppose AB 292.

Line 20.

Treg Wright, Los Angeles County with EIPCA. We oppose.

Line 31.

I strongly, my name is Liz Luggy, and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Line number 12.

This is April Bean from Sacramento County, and I oppose AB 292.

Line 26.

This is Nancy Latham from Oakland and Indivisible East Bay, strongly support.

Line 14.

This is Doreen Whitworth, Madera County. I oppose AB 292.

And line 71. 71, please go ahead. Line 71. Mr. Chair, there are no further comments in queue at this time.

Thank you. We're going to return it to Committee Members. Any Members of the Committee wishing to speak on this Bill? Seeing and hearing none. Ms. Pellerin, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you so much. I know that there's a lot of concerns with NPPs, and I know that we want to make sure all voters get the ballots that they need, but also that the party has the things that they need to handle the delegate allocation. I know you're working through all parts of this, and I have complete confidence that you're going to get this right. Would like to see this move on today. It has an Aye recco. from the Chair. Madam Secretary.

Do we have a motion? Moved and seconded. Mr. Lee and Mr. Low. Can we call the roll?

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

That Bill is out five-zero. The Chair is going to take a little bit of personal privilege and move on to item 18, ACA 4, and item five, AB 421. Passing authority to my Vice Chair. Be nice, Mr. Lackey.

It should be announced, too. This is a very important item, and the procedure is going to be unique in that we're going to have a concurrent presentation on both items. And so the callers who are concerned or in support need to be aware. This is probably the time to call in to address either your support or opposition for this very unique presentation. So this has to do about elections eligibility, and especially those who are in custody, in prison to be able to cast their vote.

So you may proceed.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, I come before you today to present ACA 4 jointly with AB 1595. Because of their deeply connected and enactment condition. When we think about the history of disenfranchisement of voters in this country. We see a deep connection with our legacy of slavery. And when we think about felony disenfranchisement or the disenfranchisement of folks who are incarcerated, we saw the rise in states issuing those kinds of conditions in their constitution at the same time as emancipation.

Those same states and that same effort is leading voter suppression across this country right now. We are seeing voter ID laws. We are seeing duly elected, elected officials removed from their posts. We are seeing those same kinds of disenfranchisement mechanisms continue and expand. We are seeing a failure at the federal level to renew the Voting Rights Act, something that John Lewis spent his lifetime fighting for and passed away before we could move it forward.

This is not the way countries around the world do this, or even all of our states. We have states that have moved forward to believe that democracy includes everybody. Our neighbors to the north, Canada, allow everybody, including incarcerated peoples, to vote. We just went to San Quentin, where the Governor announced a new model of rehabilitation similar to the Norway Model. The Norwegian Model includes allowing everybody who's incarcerated to vote. Israel allows everybody who is incarcerated to vote.

On every continent around this world, there are developed countries who are leading and allowing everybody to vote. Incarcerated right now are parents of over 200,000 children in this state who can't vote for their State Superintendent. There are nearly 10,000 veterans who fought for our country, nearly lost their lives, came home, lost their economic instability, and like all who lose their economic instability, found themselves incarcerated and cannot vote in the same country that they fought for.

If we're talking about public safety in the states and places where people do vote incarcerated, and shortly thereafter, the likelihood of ever returning is dropped by 50%. In fact, if we cared about public safety, we would be providing civic engagement and requiring incarcerated people to participate in democracy and be a deep, connected part of the communities they came from and from which they will go back to. Democracy needs everybody.

What's special about this ACA is that we, as legislators, are actually not even making the decision about whether incarcerated people in California should be able to vote. All we are deciding is whether the voters of California who are currently eligible, who have not been disenfranchised, should have the opportunity to allow everybody to participate in our democracy. And I think that's the bare minimum that we can do. With me today is Rahsaan Thomas and Adriana Griffith from Initiate Justice, and I pass it to my expert witnesses.

Yes, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today. As he said, I'm Rahsaan Thomas, and I'm also the producer of Ear Hustle, the Executive Director of Empowerment Avenue, and I'm also the board member of Initiate Justice who came up with the concept of voting system impacted. And that led to Prop 17, which restored voting rights to people on parole. And now I'm back here to support ACA 4.

So that way, everybody in California will have the right to vote, because I think that no one should be taxed without representation. I myself was sentenced to 55 years to life. And I remember being in San Quentin State Prison with Juan Haines from San Quentin News. And we were on a prison yard, and we were holding a mock election in 2016.

And all we were giving out were these ballots for, like, these slips of paper with that, like, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and a write-in candidate on it. And I ran across elderly men with tears in their eyes who never voted in their life and they took the election as so real. And as I sat there dealing with this, I realized how isolation makes us feel, like we're not part of society. I just want to ask.

There's no excuse for our crimes, and I'm truly sorry for all the harm we caused, and I caused personally. But how would you be if decades, after decades, after decades, you were treated like you are not American, like you are not a part of our society? To me, like he said, as an ignorant teen, I fought against my neighbors. And now, as a grown man, I realize I should have been fighting against racism. I should have been fighting against zip codes, zip codeing, redlining, employment discrimination.

My mom was a single parent. She needed gender equality to raise us better. Just all kinds of things through voting. I lost my right to vote at 19, but through a commutation, through Gavin Newsom, I'm home now. I came on February eighth. A week later, I registered to vote. It's one of the proudest moments of my life. And now I'm here to make sure that everybody in California gets that right to vote, too, especially people in prison.

I mean, of course, that's the only people left, because I believe that if everybody's included, we feel united. And if we're united, we're safe and stronger together. So in sum, just please vote Aye for ACA 4. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Committee Members. Thank you so much for having me this morning. My name is Adriana Griffith, and I'm a survivor of domestic violence and human trafficking. I'm also formerly incarcerated, and my experience of incarceration was a direct result of the violence and exploitation that I endured. As a survivor, I am pleased to speak today in support of ACA 4. For me, ACA 4 is about restoring the voices of community members who have been forgotten, silenced, and left behind.

And I knew all too well the feeling of having your voice silenced. The first time my voice was silenced was when I was experiencing abuse. The second time was when the State of California took it away and told me that I could no longer participate in the democratic process or have my voice heard when it came to matters that personally impacted me.

Although I had been a victim, the state labeled me as an inmate and thus took away my right to be viewed as a citizen and a whole person. Opponents of this Bill say it is insensitive to victims and survivors, but in my opinion, that cannot be farther from the truth. In fact, ACA 4 gives a group of survivors like myself, finally the opportunity to have their voices heard and count.

Being a survivor in prison is already hard because you are only seen as someone who caused harm. You're not seen as someone who experienced harm or as someone who cares about your community, but we do. With ACA 4, California has the opportunity to truly get behind all survivors and restore their democratic voice. You cannot claim to support survivors and stand with survivors if you continue to ignore survivor voices inside prison walls.

I respectfully urge this Committee to pass ACA 4 today and demonstrate a continued commitment to include all voices in this important process we call democracy. Thank you.

Thank you. Do you have anybody else in the room that would like to speak in support? Just your name and position. Name and position only. Name of the organization and your position only, please. You may proceed.

League of Women Voters of California, co-sponsor in strong support. Thank you

You need to stand close enough to the microphone so we can hear you, please.

Dora Rose, League of Women Voters of California, co sponsor and in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Taina Vargas, Initiate Justice Action, co-sponsor in strong support of ACA 4 and AB 1595.

Shervin Azami, Initiate Justice Action, co-sponsor in strong support of ACA 4 and AB 1595.

Brittany Stonesifer for ACLU California Action, proud co-sponsor in support. Thank you.

Jay Hockley Sr., Initiate Justice Action, proud co-sponsor in strong support of ACA 4.

Stephanie Mendez, Initiate Justice Action, strong support of ACA 4.

Teresa Markham, a member of Center of Employment of Opportunities. I'm in strong support of both.

Sky Allen with Inland Empire United, in strong support of both. Thank you.

Jamie Carper. I'm a local attorney and a Member of ARC, Anti-Recidivism Coalition, and I'm in strong support of both bills.

Larry Abbott, Initiate Justice Action, strong supporter of both bills.

Yolanda Navaretti, with Initiate Justice Action, in strong support of both bills.

Good morning. Glenn Bacchus. I was asked by Natasha Minsk, Smart Justice, to enter their support. Thank you.

Good morning. Abby Saleem with Empowering Women Impacted by Incarceration, in strong support for both. Thank you.

Angel Rice with Empowering Women Impacted by Incarceration and Initiate Justice, in strong support.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Gregory Fidel with Initiate Justice, proud co-sponsor in strong support.

Good morning. Roberto Ramirez, Initiate Justice Action, proud co-sponsor in strong support.

Good morning. Antoinette Ratcliffe, Executive Director with Initiate Justice. proud co-sponsors in strong support of ACA 4 and its companion bill.

Roy Ballard, Center for Employment Opportunities Advocacy Fellow and member of Initiate Justice in strong support.

Good morning. DeAndre Benson, CEO, in strong support of.

Good morning, everyone. Richard Robinson, a member of CEO, in strong support of both.

Good morning. My name is Emiliano Lopez with Initiate Justice Action and proud co-sponsor in strong support.

Good morning. My name is Veronica Carrizales and I'm with California Calls, in strong support of both.

Okay, thank you. Looks like we have more people, so we'll stand by. Please come to the microphone.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Jeronimo Aguilar, here on behalf of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children. Also here on behalf of All Of Us Or None, in strong support of ACA 4. Thank you for your time.

Good morning. John Vasquez, Policy Manager with Communities United for Restorative Justice, also formerly incarcerated, served 25 years. Strong support of ACA 4. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Tatiana Lewis, with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, in strong support of ACA 4. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Jules Vidania, I'm a Member of ARC, Anti-Recidivism Coalition. I strongly support this Bill.

Good morning. Taneicia Herring, with the California Hawaii NAACP in strong support of ACA 4.

Good morning. Lawrence Cox, with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children in strong support.

Good morning. Barbara Chavez, with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children in strong support. Recently commuted for my LWOP sentence, serving 20 years plus. Thank you.

My name is Daniel, I'm part of the Anti-Recidivism Coalition and I'm in support of ACA 4.

My name is Jack Castello. I'm a Member of Anti-Recidivism Coalition and I'm in strong support of ACA 4.

My name is Lewis Scott. I'm with the Anti-Recidivism Coalition and I'm in strong support of ACA 4.

My name is Kamal Valadez and I'm from ARC and I'm strong support of this Bill.

Good morning, my name is Jose Miranda, I'm with ARC and I strongly support this Bill.

Good morning, my name is Elias Davila and I strongly support this ACA 4. Thank you.

Good morning, everybody. My name is Douglas Rodriguez, member of ARC. I'm here to support this Bill. Thanks.

Good morning, Committee. Michael Mendoza with ARC in strong support.

My name is Marquise Nunez with the Anti-Recidivism Coalition and I strongly support this Bill.

My name is Aldeja Green. I'm from the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and I'm in strong support of this Bill.

Thanh Tran, Policy Associate, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in strong support.

Hi, I'm Lindsey Vogue and I'm also with the Ella Baker Center in strong support of this Bill.

Good morning. Eric Morrison Smith, Executive Director for the Alliance of Boys and Men of Color, in strong support.

Devona Robertson, parent organizers with congregations. Parent organizer, I'm sorry, with Congregations Organized for Prophetic Engagement in strong support.

Michelle with Initiate Justice, directly impacted in strong support.

Hi, I'm Crystal, System Impact with Initiate Justice, in strong support.

Danessa Tillis, with Indivisible California State Strong and For Courage California in strong support.

Kristin Nimmers, California Black Power Network, co-sponsor, in strong support.

Alyssa Moore, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, All of Us or None Oakland Chapter, and survivor of CDC for 25 years, in strong support.

And yes, good morning, my name is Christopher Washington and I'm from Initiate Justice and I'm in strong support of ACA 4 and its companion Bill.

Okay, thank you. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? I think you're aware of the ground rules, so you may proceed.

Okay, thank you.

My name is Colleen Britton. I'm with Election Integrity Project California. Assemblyman Bryan says democracy is for everyone. He says that democracy thrives when everybody has a chance to have their voices heard by allowing those felons in prison the right to vote. EIPCA contends that their voices have been heard loudly and clearly by all society.

And their message was that they have chosen to turn their backs on society, to show contempt and repugnance for their fellow human beings and the social construct by which we all live in harmony with one another. So democracy does not need everybody. It needs everybody who will, believes in democracy, who believes in the concept that everyone's voice is equal.

Not those whose actions show that they believe that they are above the law, that they have the right to deprive others of theirs, including the right to live. Inmates currently in California are there for extremely violent, serious crimes. It's not shoplifting. These crimes include rape, murder, grand theft, threats with guns, human trafficking crimes too unimaginable to be mentioned. These felons will be serving sentences many years, many decades, sometimes life, without the possibility of parole.

These felons have left in their wake poor decisions of antisocial behavior, multitudes of victims, friends, and families who will themselves serve a life sentence, PTSD, lack of trust, fear, haunting memories. Those people can never vote. It is those victims whose rights Election Integrity Project California advocates for in opposing ACA 4. Those are the decisions of voters make for themselves, either directly or through whom they elect and represent. Those are the choices that people who live in society make.

Those whose antisocial behavior has landed them behind prison bars and stripped them of the right to determine their coming and going and their daily lives should never be granted the privilege to have a voice in the lives of law-abiding members of society, particularly their victims, while they're still serving in their sentence. That's part of their sentence. There's justice. Voting is a privilege and not an absolute right of citizenship. Losing the right to vote as an incarcerated felon is part of paying the debt to society.

This is not an issue of disenfranchisement because felons are being treated equally and losing their right to vote while incarcerated. Upon serving their sentence, felons equally can have their rights restored.

In 2010, the 9th Circuit Court of Seattle, they made the following, the Secretary of State made the statement, we absolutely believe in civil rights and will continue to work toward equality in the criminal justice system. But at the same time, we firmly believe that it is appropriate and reasonable for society to deny voting rights to people who commit serious crimes. This has been the law in our state since 1866, and nearly to people who commit serious crimes.

This has been the law. Okay. Whoops. Sorry about that.

Every state in America has this sensible policy. There's clearly no discrimination intent. Also, I would add that adding voting by mail in a prison situation, because it's so controlled, creates additional unintended consequences of creating possibilities for mischievous ballot harvesting, ballot manipulation. They're tightly controlled situation in there, and the privacy of vote may or may not be able to be possible. So Election Integrity Project California recommends a No vote on this and the accompanying Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Do you have any persons in the room that would like to voice their objection? Seeing none. Okay, Committee, it's back to phones. Okay, I guess we can do that now. Okay, we'll now go to the phones. If you'd like to express your support or opposition. Now is your opportunity to do just that. Operator, can we go to the phone lines, please? Operator, are you there?

Please press one, then zero to provide comments in support or opposition. Line 54, please go ahead. Line 36.

Jennifer Tanner, on behalf of Indivisible California State Strong. We support both bills. I'd like to thank Assemblyman Bryan for keeping remote me toos for inclusive democracy and hope all Assembly Committee Chairs follow his great lead. Thank you

Okay. Just please express your name and then support or opposition. No narrative is allowed at this point. Thank you. Please proceed.

Line 25.

Missy from Los Angeles County. I strongly oppose ACA 4 and AB 1539.

84.

Good morning, my name is Taylor Hughes. I'm with Initiate Justice Action and I'm simultaneously a law-abiding citizen. And we strongly support ACA 4 and its companion Bill, AB 1595.

85.

Good morning. This is MJ King with Initiate Justice Action in strong support of ACA 4 and its companion Bill, AB 1595.

86.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Eric Harris, Disability Rights California, strong support.

88.

Sophia Candel with Initiate Justice Action in strong support of ACA 4 and its companion, AB 1595.

90.

Lindburg, on behalf of the Friends Committee on Legislation of California, in strong support.

Line 93.

Hi, my name is Sasha Feldstein with California Immigrant Policy Center. In strong, strong support of ACA Four and its companion Bill, AB 1595. Thank you.

Line 96.

Brett Shears, in strong support. Brett Shears, in strong support of ACA 4.

Line 97.

Hi, I'm Dorothy Cardenas with Initiative Justice Action, in strong support of ACA four and it's companion bill AB 1595.

Line 17.

Thank you, operator. Raj Faye with Change Begins with Me, in strong support for both bills. Thank you.

35.

Hi, Sietse Goffard with Asian America's Advancing Justice Asian Law Caucus, we strongly support ACA four and its companion bill AB 1595. Thank you.

Line 105.

Good morning, this is April Grayson with the Sister Word Freedom Coalition Policy Associate, in strong support of ACA 4 and AB 1595.

79.

Good morning. My name is Efrain Ortiz with Initiate Justice and a formerly incarcerated person, in strong support of ACA 4 and its companion bill AB 1595. Thank you.

Line 54.

my name is Irma Cooper, I'm with Initiate Justice and I strongly support AC 4 and its companion bill AB 1595. Thank you.

line 110.

Hi, my name is Ivana Gonzalez with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, LSBC, and Alafa Sernan, in strong support of ACA 4.

120.

Hello, this is Ahmanise Sanati. I'm calling with NASW, National Association of Social Workers and I am in strong support of ACA 4 and AB 1595. Thank you.

118.

Hello, my name is Kayla Asato. I am with Orange County Environments and Justice and we are in strong support of ACA 4 and AB 1595.

122.

Hi, my name is Jesse Clyde Burleson. I'm the in custody program coordinator at Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, in strong support of ACA four and AB 1595.

124.

Joshua DuBay, on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice and Exonerated Nation in support of both ACA 4 and AB 1595, thank you.

125.

Good morning. My name is Taqwaa Bonner. I'm the housing advocate for All of Us or None, which is the project of Legal Services for Prison with Children. I'm in strong support of ACA 4. Thank you.

Line 19.

Vicky Rankey, Calaveras County, strongly in opposition.

Line 13.

Myrna from LA County. I strongly oppose ACA 4 and AB 1595. Thank you.

Line 98.

Yes, hi, this is Betty Toto from Field of Burn, San Fernando Valley and also an elected member of the LA County Democratic Party Central Committee. I am in strong support of AC 4 and AB 1595. Thank you.

47.

Lee Mantebari in opposition to ACA 4 and 1595.

Hello, this is Linda Hennigan, Palo Alto, Santa Clara, California, in strong support of ACA 4 and AB 1595. Thank you.

75.

Line 26.

Nancy Latham with Indivisible East Bay, strongly, strongly support both bills.

59.

Hello, this is Leah Pressman. I represent the Culver City Democratic Club, who voted in support. Thank you.

24.

This is Andy from LA County. Strongly oppose both ACA 4 and AB 1595.

28.

Yeah, this is Billion Gatson with the Africa Town Coalition and we strongly support ACA 4 and AB 1595.

10.

This is Chris Foster from Orange County, I strongly oppose both bills. ACA 4, AB 1595.

92.

This is Isabel Storey. I am representing Santa Monica Democratic Club and Indivisible West Los Angeles, in strong support of ACA 4 and AB 1595.

16.

This is Lily Katanski with National Association of Social Workers, the California chapter, and we support those bills.

20.

This is Greg Wright, Los Angeles County with EAPCA. We strongly, strongly oppose.

58.

This is Chensen Huang from Santa Carla, County. I strongly oppose ACA 4 and AB 1595.

44.

Jeanette Feltz, Sacramento County, strongly oppose ACA 4 and AB 1595.

Line 12.

This is April Bean from Sacramento County, and I strongly oppose AB 4 and 1595. Thank you.

Line 108.

Good morning, this is Tanisha Cannon with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children and a member of All of Us or None, and I strongly support both bills.

121.

Yes, this is Karen Powers, and I'm calling for Election Integrity Project, and I speak in opposition to those bills.

119.

Hi, my name is Fanny Lee and I strongly oppose ACA 4 and AB 1595.

78.

Hello, I'm Andrew Crockett, resident of San Jose, California, and Member of the California Democratic Central Committee, expressing my personal strong support of ACA 4.

Line 101.

Randy Hicks, California Judiciary Rights in support of both bills. Thank you.

130.

This is Kyokotakayama diva, more indivisible. I strongly support both bill. Thank you.

129.

Hello. This is Jade Coron, and I am with the California Coalition for Women Prisoners, and we strongly support ACA 4 and the companion bill, AB 195. Thank you.

132.

Hi, this is Dana Lura from Fresno, California. I'm with Justice Fuel, and I strongly support ACA 4 and AB 1595. Thank you.

139. 139. Please go ahead. There are no further comments in queue at this time.

Okay, we'll then come back to Committee. Are there any comments that want to be made? Assemblymember Lee.

I think this is of course, a sensible step in achieving universal suffrage and making sure that our democracy looks like everyone. That means everyone needs to be able to vote. I would love to be added as a co author to both measures. Chip Ryan, if possible. And of course, I move to support the bill.

Thank you. Yes, Ms. Pellerin.

So thank you for bringing this forward today. And as a former county clerk, I actually have done a lot of voter outreach in county jails. And I was always very impressed with the desire to vote and the dedication to the folks that were incarcerated to participate and exercise their right to vote. I have to admit, I've had some struggles with this bill.

But I have come to the conclusion that it is unconstitutional to limit a fundamental right on the basis of a criteria that is not relevant to the exercise of that right and which has a discriminatory impact. So I will continue discussions with my colleague, but I am in a place today where I will be supporting this bill. Thank you.

Yes, Senator Essayli, you may go.

Thank you. I respect my colleagues. I'm going to have to respectfully disagree on this one. What I'm concerned about is we live in a society. We have a social contract. And when you break our social contracts, you commit a serious crime that sends you to prison. There are consequences for that. You lose your right to a firearm, to own a firearm. You lose your right to vote. You lose your right to hold office. There are consequences.

And we already allow felons who've completed their debt to society to restore their right to vote. I personally don't believe that if you are still in debt to society and you're not yet reformed, why you should have your ability to vote given back to you. The Supreme Court has upheld this as constitutional. You do lose constitutional rights when you commit serious crimes. So I'm just worried we're going down this path where we are taking consequences away for committing crimes.

I believe there's a lack of respect for the rule of law. You can see that in some of our cities now where crimes on the rise. So I understand where the author is coming from, but I think people should repay their debt before they get their right to vote back. So I'll have to respectfully oppose the bill. But thank you.

I am just grateful that you recognize that voting is a right and not a privilege. Appreciate your comments.

Well, it's a right that you lose when you commit a crime. So you do lose constitutional rights. Do we want to restore felons ability to have the second amendment rights? They're firearms. We have to look at these in context.

Yeah. And you talked about breaking the social contract. And I would argue that there are many components of the social contract that were not designed with everybody at the table to begin with. And as was mentioned by the opposition, this particular part of California's social contract was designed in 1866. So I can tell you many folks who were not included in that construction of this social contract, you lose your liberty, and accountability takes full place in the criminal legal system.

We actually allow for many real privileges that I would argue are also rights, like education, like job training, like skilling up for people who are incarcerated, because we know that well over 95% of the people who are incarcerated are coming home at some point. But what's being shown is that participating in democracy could have an outsized effect over even all of those things. And so I find us quite hypocritical when we talk about rehabilitation, but then play politics with what we've both agreed are rights.

I'd like to talk about something that really isn't politics. It has to do with the silenced voice of victims. When we talk about silenced voice, victims are an important part of a consideration in our judicial process and justice. We talk about a lot of terms relating to justice. What about these people who have lost their life or have their lives altered permanently? Permanently? We don't talk about them. And I think that's an imbalance. I think it's unfair.

For 28 years as a California Highway Patrol person, I was on the front lines rescuing victims from tragedy. Now, here in the state Legislature, I have to fight to make sure victims are not forgotten in this chamber. As Vice Chair of the Assembly Committee on elections, I'm staunchly opposed to this particular measure because prisoners should not be voting from their cells. I believe in the bipartisan way our body has worked together to reform our criminal justice system, like full reintegration and building valuable skills.

But voting from a cell is a step too far in the wrong direction, because it completely, completely ignores the fact that they chose to commit a crime, often a very serious crime, like armed robbery, rape, and even the worst murder. When you're in prison for a felony, you're paying your debt to society. criminal acts should have consequences. Behavior speaks, and that needs not be ignored. Voting is a sacred privilege and not an absolute right of citizenship. That's where we differ on this particular matter.

And I know debate is healthy and disagreement needs to be addressed. But I would just tell you that why should we allow felons the right to make a decision on who the sheriff, District Attorney, and judges who arrested and prosecuted and put these people into custody? Why should violent criminals who have shown a blatant disregard for our laws be part of the decision making process of our society? They have self excluded themselves through their behavior. Behavior speaks Proposition 17.

In 2020, passed with 58% of the vote. People have already weighed in on allowing people on parole for felony convictions to vote. I believe that's where the line should be drawn. We do believe that this is not a permanent thing unless your actions spoke loud enough to deny you that privilege and you self excluded yourself. And that's my position on this. And I won't be able to support this particular proposal.

But I think debate is helpful and we need to not hate people that have differences of opinion. And I hope that we can allow our motion to be tempered and we can have this healthy debate that is void of hate, because, darn it, we're not doing a good job of that. So let's please not hate those who have differing opinions. And this is a very visceral discussion. This is a very, very emotional discussion because people are impacted very, very deeply on this kind of discussion.

So I appreciate everybody's temperament, and I appreciate the good conduct that's been displayed during this very important discussion. So I'll allow the author to continue and close if you wish. I'm sorry, if I might. Yes, you may proceed.

Thank you very much. We are fortunate to have an electionist chair who shares in the recognition of expanding voter access and voter rights just out of the gate. It's important to best recognize, and similarly, with respect to those who have come and come to the state capitol to help exercise your voice, is very important to each and every one of us to see the progress that has been made.

At the same time, I do want to make reference that the Vice Chair of this committee is a decent human being and is a good man. He's an absolute good man with a big heart, and there are elements of his comments to which I also agree with in terms of making sure that we reflect a diverse viewpoint with respect of those who have been impacted in this regard. And this is a challenging time for us. And back to my comments to the chair.

He has forced this conversation for us to acknowledge some of the important things that we need to address with expanding voter access and voter rights in our democracy. I authored legislation and put, along with former assemblymember Kevin Mullen, a constitutional amendment to allow 17 and a half year olds to vote that was on the California ballot for election, and that failed. But that has been in the spirit of expanding voter access and voting rights, too.

Where we are today with the vote before us is to put a measure before the voters to decide. And while I also have similar concerns, this is the policy Committee in which we help to address this issue and hopefully seeing this move forward for further discussion and, frankly, an honest conversation to allow for others outside of this committee room to have honest conversations and debate on this notion of access, this notion of redemption, and what an equitable society looks like while understanding constitutionality and provisions.

So, with that said, I'll second the motion as well of support, because it merits further conversation. I thank those who are on various sides to help understand the importance of the dialogue that is required of this and looking at from a lens of expanding access.

Thank you. And with respect to the chair, he and I have a great relationship, and we have a deep, mutual respect on many hard conversations that we have at least twice a week. And it is nothing but love and respect, because this hard work takes everybody in the same way this hard work takes everybody. I believe our broader democracy takes everybody.

I also find it interesting that the new line that we talk about with Prop 17 being an appropriate threshold, as was mentioned, was not supported by the same folks who mentioned it now being an appropriate line. And so there is a lot of work that we do together to push the needle on these conversations with respect to voting being a privilege. We did not fight for the Voting Privileges Act. Martin Luther King didn't die for that. Fannie Lou Hamer didn't give her life to that.

John Lewis didn't spend his lifetime fighting for the Voting Privileges act. We fought for voting rights. And voting rights are only rights if they are endowed to all citizens of our country, not just the ones who haven't grown up in communities that were left out of the social contract, communities that have lower life expectancies, fewer schools, lower public health infrastructures, higher environmental hazards.

And the only public civic infrastructure that we're willing to constantly invest in is law enforcement in those communities, which is why they are disproportionately impacted by mass incarceration and then subsequently disenfranchised from participating in the very same system that ultimately led to their subjugation. So we have a long conversation to go, and I'm glad the conversation is happening here in the Legislature, and I think it needs to happen with the voters more broadly. This isn't our decision. This is their decision.

And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay. So for clarification, because we have this concurrent circumstance here, I need to clarify who made the initial motion for AB 1595, and that would be Assembly Member Lee and seconded by Assemblymember Low. Okay. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is be adopted and re referred to the Committee on appropriations. [Roll Call]. That's out: five to two.

Okay. Is there any objection to substituting the motion, the second and the roll call vote from AB 1595 for ACA 4? If there is no objection, it is so ordered. Thank you. We'll allow for a few moments to clear the roommate.

Television: There's a reason why we're in delay right now. There's just been a large number of people impacted by this boat, and the Chair has temporarily stepped out to try to bring order and control. And so it'll be a few moments, probably, before we're back in operation. Please bear with us.

You may proceed. You have several. The rumor is that you have several bills. I don't know which one you want to address now, but we'll be happy to go there.

We'd like to do AB 421 and then move on with the rest of the agenda, and I'll do mine at the remainder at the end of the committee if that's okay with the Chair.

Very good. AB 421. You may proceed, sir.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and colleagues. I'm here to present AB 421. 421 looks at our direct participatory democracy process and seeks to strengthen it and engage voters in a way that is honest and true to the foundations of why these processes were created over 100 years ago. Currently, we are seeing our referendum process subverted and abused in a way that manipulates voters, where the incentive is to lie to voters, where the current structure allows for the stopping of duly appointed work here in the legislature -

- without true voter engagement. But instead, a concentrated collection of special interests. That have decided that their will supersedes the will of the legislature, and the efforts to confuse voters even further wre supreme above laws that protect and advance justice in our communities - opportunity in our communities. The process right now allows for paid signature gatherers who are not trained at the level of other signature gatherers, including for ballot measures. It allows for ballot measures to act like referendums and undo the work of the legislature -

- without the same rules and constraints as the current referendum process. It also allows for the funders of the referendum process to be hidden in the process so that voters who are lied to about what a measure does don't know who is paying to lie to them and confuse them. And even more foundationally, the yes or no question on the referendum is in itself confusing. Where a yes or no repeals or doesn't repeal the law.

I can actually bet that many members of this committee don't know what a yes does or a no does on the referendum, whether it keeps the law or repeals the law. We need to clarify that for voters. All of these things are measured steps to make the process more honest, more fair, more transparent in a way that protects the voice of voters more largely. There's a lot of work that's gone into this thus far. There's a lot of work that's going to go into this -

- going further. With me to testify today are Terry Brennand from SCIU and...

From California Calls.

Veronica Carrizales

I'm going to defer to Veronica Forrest, if that's okay.

Great. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and committee members. My name is Veronica Carrizales. And I'm the Vice President of Policy and External Affairs for California calls. California Calls is a statewide alliance of grassroots, community-based organizations dedicated to amplifying the voices of low-income communities of color in the electoral and legislative process. I'm here today to address what we see as a growing threat to our democracy: the corporate abuse of our referendum process.

Our referendum process is being abused by wealthy corporate interests because working-class communities have more power in our government than ever before. The legislature looks more and more like communities we represent. In 1990, there were only 16 state legislators who were people of color. Today, more than half of the majority caucus and nearly half of the legislative caucus are composed of people of color. The change is visible not only in who we see in power but in the decisions that are made here in the capitol.

Working-class communities of color have worked hard to develop a growing voice here in Sacramento, as seen here today. And we've been fighting for workers' rights, tenants' rights, clean air and water in our communities, and educational equity. Most of our most challenging efforts to bring justice to our communities involve fights that threaten the monetary interest of extremely wealthy and powerful industries like the oil, plastic, tobacco, and fast food industries.

When we organize neighbor-to-neighbor in our communities for years or even decades, we do sometimes win. But too often, these victories are short-lived. That's because corporations have developed a playbook to fortify and protect their power by abusing our referendum process. Fast food giants, big oil, tobacco, and other corporate interests should not have the power to take away our community's voices in an instant by writing large texts to fund deceptive, cynical campaigns to overturn the laws that we fought for.

They can do this because our current referendum process has been taken over by corporate interest. This was not what was intended. I'm here today to ask for your vote in support of common sense reforms that give voters the tools to make good decisions. Vote a to empower California voters and return the power to the people. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. You may proceed.

Chair and Members, Terry Brennand, on behalf of SCIU California. SCIU is a member of Empower California Voters. Over a hundred organizations dedicated to fulfilling the true intention of California's referendum process. I just want to speak a little bit to the public support for this. There was a poll, statewide poll from Binder Research that found out only 4% of voters rightfully knew there were no restrictions on signature gathering or the placement of ballot initiatives. Whether referendum or initiative.

77% of the voters think it makes sense to require a volunteer threshold. The median amount in that poll was 59%. This bill requires a 10% volunteer threshold. At least nine out of 10 voters supported some or all of the provisions in this bill, including revoking the licensure of a signature-gathering firm that's repeatedly found to be deceptive, requiring top funders in support of initiative on the ballot proposition and on the signature gathering and support and opposition on the actual ballot.

Simplifying the questions so that you know it's a vote to secure a law or maintain a law or a vote to repeal a law as opposed to strictly a yes or no question. 88% of voters supported the referendum should be listed on each page of the petition to overturn the law so that they know exactly what it is they're signing for and voting for. We're proposing long overdue reforms. This bill has been around since 1911. That's over 100 years.

And we'd like to return some transparency and democracy to the system and return it to the voters of California. For that reason, we're in support. I thank the consultant for the analysis. There will be several ongoing conversations about perfecting this. I think we intended to remove Section 29 of the bill that is causing confusion about implementation. So, going forward, we'll continue those discussions. Thank you.

Thank you. Do you have any other people in the room that like to express their support for this measure? Name and organization, please. And your position?

Nicole Kurian, with California's Against Waste and support. I've also been asked to express the support of California Environmental Voters and Voices For Progress. Thank you.

Thank you.

Glenn Backes expressing the support of Smart Justice California.

Jessica Hay, California School Employees Association, in support

Aldazia Green from the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and strong support.

I'm Dr. Megan Whitman. I'm here on behalf of the Los Angeles, San Francisco Bay Area, and Sacramento chapters of Physicians for Social Responsibility, who together represent thousands of healthcare workers across the state.

Sakereh Carter, on behalf of Sierra Club California, in strong support. Thank you.

Miriam Eide: Fossil Free California in strong support.

[Foreign Language] Thank you.

My name is Marina Ariaga, and I'm a Little Caesars Worker in the city of Carmichael and I'm a member of Fight for 15, and I'm here speaking in strong support of AB 421. Thank you.

[Foreign Language]

[Foreign Language]

Okay, just name an organization. Ma'am. I'm sorry. Thank you.

Alejandra Ramirez-Zarate, OC Action, strong support of AB 421. Thank you.

Joan Cardellino, member of Indivisible East Bay, in support of AB 421.

My name is Francisco De La Torre, and I'm speaking on behalf of Service Employees International Union Local 2015 in support of AB 421. Thank you,

Thank you.

Good morning. Chair and committee, Ben Smith. On behalf of Greenpeace USA, speaking in strong support of AB 421. And I was asked to speak in support from the Center for Biological Diversity in support of AB 421. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Brittany Stonesifer, ACLU California Action, and support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Gregory Fidell with Initiate Justice, strong support.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Doug Subers, on behalf of the California State University Employees Union and the California Professional Firefighters in support.

Mr. Chair and Members: Sara Flocks, California Labor Federation, in support. Also speaking for Smart Transportation Division in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Chair and Members: D'Artagnan Bird on behalf of the American Federation for State, County, and Municipal Employees in support of AB 421.

Thank you.

Good morning. Raquel Mason with the California Environmental Justice Alliance in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Danessa Tillis for Indivisible California State Strong and strong support of AB 421.

My name is David Garcia. I'm a crew member at Chipotle and in Oakland. And I'm a member of Fight for 15. I'm here in support for AB 421.

[Foreign Language]

[Foreign Language]

Good morning. My name is Imol Bates. I'm a public school teacher in the Bay Area, and I'm in support of AB 421. Thank you.

Good morning. Yuliana Matta with the Orange County Civic Engagement Table, and I'm in strong support of AB 421.

Good morning. Irene Kao, with Courage California, here to express our strong support for AB 421. Thank you.

Okay, do we have any witnesses in opposition. Such.

Yes. You may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair and Members: Kelly Jensen. On behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, in respectful but strong opposition to the bill. This bill, in short, seeks to gut the more than 100-year-old system of direct democracy here in California.

Eliminating Californian's ability to express their position on major state policy strips the voters of one of their fundamental rights and what has been a long hallmark of our state that makes it so unique. In the last 100 years, there have only been 33 referenda to go before the voters. That is around 1% of bills passed in this state. Of course, none of these measures triggered calls to reform our ballot initiative process.

There's a good quote I read recently about the California initiative system quote, "When elected officials don't take action on the issues that matter to us, ballot initiatives are a great way for people to make change. We believe in the power of initiatives to hold people accountable." You know who said this? SCIU. It's on their website titled Ballot Initiatives. They work. So, if the sponsors of the measure say that ballot initiatives work, why are they trying to get rid of them?

There's four major issues that we have identified. The first one, this bill, dramatically changes the petition itself that is used to gather signatures. While signature gatherers are currently required to carry a list of top contributors to a referendum or initiative, an update that the top donors change. This information would now have to be printed on the petition and need to be updated constantly.

This would require signature gatherers to come off the street, print new petitions, and then, after a few days, be able to get back to signature collection. The bill also creates a new class of hybrid initiatives, which are initiatives that relate to legislation. In the past two years, these initiatives would have their qualifying time cut in half from 180 days to 90 days. So not only do we have the petition problem, we also have less time for the signature gatherers to do their work.

The measure also changes the traditional yes-no framing of the initiative to say that voters could either keep the law or overturn it. Proponents claim that voters are confused by the current system. However, over the last 100 years, 16 of the referendum were supported by voters, and 17 were overturned, a nearly 50-50 outcome. It's clear that voters understand what they are voting on. Finally, the bill provides a provision that 10% of the signatures must be gathered by volunteers.

Of course, labor unions and nonprofit organizations would be exempt from this piece. This provision, or one similar to this, have already been vetoed five different times over the past 20 years by three different governors. For all these reasons and more, we are strongly opposed to this measure. I have here Kirk Oneto, which can speak to some of the implementation and practicality issues.

And if you would just keep your remarks as brief as possible, that would be appreciated. Thank you.

Yes, happy to do that. Kirk Oneto: I'm an attorney at Nielsen Merksamer. I do specialize in direct democracy work. The problems with this bill are numerous, but I'll focus on a few of them. The petition requirements that are one-sided; they only apply to petitions for measures that take a position that's disagreeable to the government. The requirements on those are probably impossible to comply with.

The bill requires more information to be printed on the signature page on a petition than can physically fit on the petition page. So it really attempts to set up a series of impossible hurdles that cannot be cleared, that will silence voters more than empowering them. The very purpose of direct democracy is for voters to be able to speak when they disagree with the government, and that's exactly what this bill challenges.

Another serious problem is this is the first time in California history where a bill would disenfranchise voters for minor technicalities. Typically, the standard is that if a petition in the petitioning process substantially complies the election laws, the votes count. We're a pro-voter, pro-count, vote state in this bill. It sets up requirements for technicalities where if someone's not wearing a badge and there's no evidence and no proof of fraud or misrepresentation, the signatures on that petition will still be invalidated.

We've never done that before in California. We've never denied voters a right to participate in democracy on technicalities. Paperwork errors when there's not proof and not even evidence necessarily of fraud or misrepresentation, that would be a first, and it would be contrary to all of California's election laws and how we empower voters in this state.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any persons in the room who would like to express their opposition, please state your name, organization, and position. Thank you.

Good morning. Matthew Allen with Western Growers Association and respectful opposition. Thank you.

Good morning, Members. Rob Spiegel, California Manufacturers and Technology Association, also in opposition.

Thank you. Good morning, Members and Chair. My name is Robert Gonzalez, with Cruz Strategies. On behalf of the California Business Properties Association in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Colleen Britton with Election Integrity Project California in opposition. Thank you.

Dale Parks of Discovery Positions; respectfully in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll now go to the phones. Operator, if we have anybody that would like to express their either support or opposition, this is their opportunity to do so. This is Assembly Bill 421.

Again, press 10 if you have not already. We'll go first to line 144. Please go ahead.

Good morning. Valerie Ventre-Hutton, 350 Bay Area Action in very strong support.

Line 118, please go ahead.

Hello, this is Kayla Asato with Orange County Environmental Justice, also a resident of AD 68, in very strong support.

Line 123, please go ahead. 123 lines open. You might be muted.

Hello?

Go ahead.

This is Juan Carlos on behalf of InnerCity Struggle. We are in strong support.

Line 161, go ahead, please. 161, you're open. You might be muted. Please go ahead. Line 159. 159, please go ahead.

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

Line 101. Go ahead, please.

Randy Hicks, California Disability Rights, and strong support. Thank you.

Line 39. Go ahead.

Good morning. Sarah Pollo Moo with the California Retailers Association. Respectfully opposed.

Line 121. Go ahead.

Good morning. Karen Powers with Election Integrity Project California speaking in opposition.

Line 17. Go ahead, please.

Sorry. Thank you. Wash Bay with Change Begins With Me: in strong support of AB 421. Thank you.

Line 25, please go ahead.

Missy. In LA County, I absolutely oppose AB 421.

Line 112, go ahead, please.

Good morning. Natalie Boust, on behalf of the California Business Roundtable, in opposition.

Line 13, please go ahead.

Marina from LA County. I oppose AB 421. Thank you.

And line 47, go ahead.

Lehman Berry with Election Integrity Project California, Placer County, in opposition to 421. Thank you.

Line 26. Go ahead.

Nancy Latham with Indivisible East Bay, strongly, strongly support AB 421. Thank you.

Next is line 119. Go ahead, 119. You're open. You might be muted on your end. Please check.

Hi, I'm Fanny. We are residents of San Bernardino, county, and I am strongly opposed. AB 421.

Line 141, go ahead, please.

I'm sorry. Is it 141?

Yes, ma'am. Go ahead, please. We can hear you.

This is Leah Pressman, representing the Culver City Democratic Club in strong support of AB 421.

Line 166, please go ahead.

Hi, thank you, Chair and Members. My name is Celi Tamayo, and I'm calling in strong support of AB 421 on behalf of San Francisco Rising. Thank you.

Line 24, please go ahead.

This is Andy Miza from LA County with EIPCA. I strongly oppose AB 421.

Line 154. 1-5-4. Go ahead, please.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, Teja Stephens, on behalf of Catalyst California, in strong support.

Line 58. Line 58, go ahead, please.

This is Champ Huang from Santa Clara County. I strongly oppose AB 421.

Line 127, go ahead, please.

Hi, this is Jennifer Cardinas with Election Integrity Project California, and I strongly oppose AB 421. Thank you.

Line number 10. Go ahead.

Chris Foster, Orange County, strongly opposed this bill. Thank you.

Line 20. Go ahead.

Treg Wright, Los Angeles County with EIPCA, strongly opposed.

Line 31. Go ahead.

It 31, you're open. Check your mute button. See if you're muted on your side. There you go.

Yes, I'm sorry. Okay. My name is Liz. I'm with Sacramento County and I am strongly opposed to this bill.

Line 153. 153, go ahead.

Hi, my name is Ted Womack and I'm calling in support of AB 421 with Alliance San Diego.

And line 62, go ahead.

Hi, good morning. Noe Garcia. And I'm calling in strong support of AB 421 on behalf of the Dolores Huerta Foundation.

Line 48, go ahead.

Good morning, Mr. Chair Members. P. Anthony Thomas, with all respect to the outstanding author, CBIA in opposition to AB 421.

Line 117, go ahead, please.

Hi, this is Alexandra in Los Angeles registering our strong support for AB 421.

Line 172, go ahead.

Angelita Vasquez, Santa Clara County. Strong support. AB 421.

Line 136, go ahead. 136, you're open. Check your mute button, please.

Yes. Vicky, Calaveras County, in strong opposition.

And line 173, go ahead, please.

Jennifer Tanner, on behalf of indivisible California State Strong, in strong support.

And the queue is now clear.

Okay, do we have any committee members that have any questions or comments they'd like to make? Yes, Mr. Essayli, go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a couple of questions for the sponsors here. You said that a lot of these referendums or initiatives, they're confusing to the voters. Can you tell me which ones you're referring to?

Respectfully, this is my bill. But I appreciate the sponsors being a part of this. The opposition witness said that there were 16 referendums that were supported, 17 overturned. What does that mean to you?

What does it mean to me?

Yeah, 17 referendum were overturned.

Overturned. That means that the public disagreed with the decisions of the Legislature.

Wrong. It means that the referendum to stop was overturned and the law was affirmed. That's my point.

Okay, so can you give me examples of which laws we're talking about that the voters?

Respectfully, I think I just made the point pretty clear and we made it together.

Okay, so when voters approved the law for the gas tax, do you think they got it wrong?

I think that the question itself and the way a referendum is worded is inherently confusing, even for those of us with advanced degrees, law degrees, and elected positions where we make these laws. When you ask whether a referendum is to be affirmed or overturned, and the answer is the opposite of whether the law is affirmed or overturned, that is confusing. It's confusing in the Elections Committee and it's damn confusing to everyday voters.

Okay, why don't we just change the wording on the ballot? But what I'm worried about here is we're making it harder to even.

That's what we're doing.

No, we're making it harder to put it on the ballot. That's the concern. Yes, we are. You're lowering the days from 180 to 90 to collect signatures. You're putting onerous requirements on the people who are able to collect signatures. You're requiring 10% to be collected by volunteers unless they're a union worker. So let's not play politics here. It's very obvious that one side here is very upset that the people have exercised their power to overturn laws that are very harmful, very harmful to the public.

When you are instituting $25 hours minimum wage on fast food, that means that the price of food for the public is going up and they're suffering. So, yes, they are going to overturn that, and they have the absolute right to do that. But to sit here and pretend that this is about democracy and protecting voters is wrong. This is about securing the power of the supermajority in the Legislature.

And, yes, some people argue we do have tyranny of supermajority in Tennessee, and there should be checks on that. We have tyranny here, too, and the check is the people. So, no, I disagree, respectfully, with my colleague. I very much respect my colleague, but I disagree. I think this is raw political power and politics. I also think that this is unconstitutional. I think it violates the right to free speech, freedom of association, and the equal protection clause. And if this is somehow signed into law, I hope that there will be a referendum to repeal it. So with that, I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would just like to ditto those remarks, and that's probably not surprising to the author, but that is well stated by Mr. Essayli. I appreciate those expressed opinions and viewpoints. You may close. Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Lee. You may go.

I just want to say I speak in strong support as a proud co-author of this measure. It's very common sense to me that, look, even when we talk about a confusion that just happened, we want the language to be much more transparent and accessible to voters. So even if it is the case, we want it to be clearly that if you want to overturn a law, you should have the right to vote to do so. Right? If you don't, you want to keep it. You want to keep it.

I mean, this is not rocket science in the sense that obviously we had a know, stay or go out vote measure that happened in the United Kingdom. Right. People clearly said stay or leave. Right. And they did the same thing. So we should have laws in the same way if we want transparency. Additionally, why I'm excited about this measure is about the volunteer requirement.

I think voters across California, or residents across California are probably used to the very annoying fact that they get accosted outside of their grocery store or someone, that someone is bounty hunting basically for signatures. Right? But if something truly is on the ballot, whether it be a recall or a ballot referendum, they want it to be the true will of people, not just sponsored by corporations.

And I find the argument that it would make ballot referendums just only available for the wealthiest special interests kind of funny and ironic since look, two measures that we just passed in the Legislature last year are now going up for referendum. And within 180 days, special interest, corporate special interests put two measures. One, to prevent us from, to prevent us from preventing oil wells from being sighted near schools, to prevent us from protecting fast food workers. They dropped $20 million each in that.

So it's like, you guys have the money to spare. I mean, you can keep doing this if you really want to, but I find it disingenuous in that aspect because we want our process to be more reflective of the voters. And I think this is what we're going towards. And I really commend the Chair for putting this forward. It's a big, bold reform and we need it. And just because it's worked for 100 years doesn't mean it doesn't need updating after 100 years. Thank you.

You may close.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would argue that most things that are over 100 years old need to have a new conversation, and I'm also open to a negotiating table. I have a lot of respect for my friends at the chamber. We received a letter of opposition not even a week ago. I'm willing to have a conversation about those 90 days because I think there's a genuine conversation.

And I've expressed that to my sponsors, that there is a difference between pausing a law from September to January, which is the 90 day window, and a ballot measure that acts like a referendum but doesn't stop a law that's already been enacted. But we haven't met at the table to have the conversations because we weren't approached until less than a week ago.

This is the first policy committee for an important piece of legislation that has many, many different components to it that I think are all worthy of discussion. And I think the debate here, even on the dais has shown even for members of the Legislature, there are parts of the referendum process that are deeply confusing.

I would respectfully ask for your aye vote not because I think this is perfect today, but because it has many more policy hearings to go through and many more conversations that I'm willing to have with any and all stakeholders to get this to the place that it needs to be. I respectfully ask your aye vote.

Okay, we have a first and a second. Madam Secretary, call the roll, please.

[Roll Call]

Okay, that measures on call. It's going to be back. Ms. Pellerin, would you like to present?

Okay. All right, do I have a second? All right, my witness is coming up. Yay. So thank you, Chair and Members. A voting system cannot be used in a California election unless it has been both federally qualified and certified by the California Secretary of State and the federal government. Yeah, the federal government as well. There are four voting systems that have met both federal and state standards in California. A voting system includes the electronic voting hardware and software, including voting machines and tabulators.

These voting systems and their contracts are expensive and not easily instated or changed. For instance, in my district, the County of Santa Clara has an annual lease payment of $1.7 million. In January of this year, the Shasta County Board of Supervisors terminated their voting system contract and left the county without a state certified, federally qualified voting system. And we are now just 11 months away from a presidential primary election.

Hastily terminated voting system contracts results in high costs and uncertainties concerning how elections officials will run their upcoming elections. As each voting system has unique features, election staff and volunteers will have to be retrained and a new voter information materials will need to be produced. What AB 969 does is simple. It prevents a county Board of Supervisors from terminating an existing voting systems contract without having a replacement contract in place and ready to go.

This simple language ensures that a county elections official will know what voting system they will be using in advance of the upcoming elections and will help minimize the disruptive nature of transitioning from one voting system to another. This bill also ensures that there will be a voting system in place so voters are not disenfranchised. And I have a round of applause already. To be clear, this bill does not prevent a county Board of Supervisors from deciding to terminate a voting system contract. That is their right.

It simply requires that they must have a replacement system ready to go. With me to testify in support is Joanna... How do you say your last name? Francescut, thank you. And the Shasta County Assistant County Clerk, Registrar of Voters and Tricia Webber, representing the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials.

Thank you. Chair and Committee, I am Joanna Francescut. I'm the Assistant County Clerk and Register of Voters for Shasta County. I appreciate your time today as I share our story and why this bill is important to protect voters and ensure elections officials in California can conduct free, fair, and accurate elections. That is what the law requires and what voters deserve. Before I dive down into my experience, I want to understand how elections are conducted locally, nationally, and traditionally throughout the United States. Elections offices are under resourced and staff are spread thin due to inconsistent federal funding.

California has recently provided funding to secure updated systems and equipment, and our office has benefited with updated technologies including vote by mail ballot sorter and e-poll books. These tools have enhanced services we have provided to voters. This lack of consistent funding from the federal government means that California election laws and voting systems provide the Board of Supervisors the ability to approve a contract, a right they deserve as monies are pulled directly from the General Fund and the budget they supervise.

California elections code also requires use of certified voting technology to create ballots and aggregate results. This voting technology is the framework of how elections in California are conducted. A voting system helps us count thousands of paper ballots each election officially and accurately. These tools ensure that those with visual, physical, cognitive disabilities can independently cast their vote. From the viewpoints of elections official, this system is a strong foundation and the base foundation of how the administration of election is conducted.

On January 24, 2023 the Shasta County Board of Supervisor Advisors voted to cancel the current contract for our lease voting equipment with Dominion Voting Systems. This was supposed to be effective after the March 7 special primary election. This action was taken with little regard to the financial burden it places on our community, knowledge about the county procurement processes, and with no plan of action to install new voting equipment and technology, and without any input from the Elections Department and the elected County Clerk Registrar of Voters, Cathy Darling Allen, who's currently on her fifth term of office.

Immediately after that decision, our office started to work, and we created a plan to replace the voting system and secure a contract prior to that March 7, 2023 election. In this attempt to inform the public, we held an open house and then presented options to the Board of Supervisors on February 28.

Our office presented the agenda item to recommend the board select a voting system or vote to rescind the cancellation of the Dominion agreement, and instead the board voted to explore hand counting options of paper ballots. During this exploration, we met with two board members and in the county administration team and county council to review the possibility of the manual tally and provide options.

These board members brought in individuals they regarded as experts to discuss how voting machines are not accurate and how hand counting is more efficient than machine tabulation. While that discussion was ongoing, Cathy and I worked around the clock to analyze California elections law and determine if a manual tally is achievable. While meeting established deadlines of statewide elections on. March 28, we attempted to request once again for them to select a voting system.

Instead, the Board voted to direct staff to establish a procedure for the manual taliy of ballots, select either ES&S or Hart to provide the voting equipment to meet state and federal laws regarding voting with access for voters with disability, and then to submit a plan to the Secretary of State for approval for use at the County's next election. This direction did not provide our Department with the ability to procure a contract for all needed components of the voting system to conduct even a manual tally again.

The next week, at a special board meeting on April 6, our department once again requested the board to select the voting system and the board voted unanimously to put Hart as the new vendor of voting equipment and services in the county.

While we are grateful the Board selected a vendor that will allow us to create ballots and serve our voters with disabilities and prior to the cancellation of the Dominion System contract we have in place, our office is rushing to ensure this contract is negotiated and the equipment is placed prior to a special election that we're going to have on November 7, 2023. This is not our government business. This is not how government business should be conducted. Selecting a voting system vendor is a large project.

At minimum, the selection should follow best standards of county procurement process and not completed within a few months and, if possible, not on the heels of the presidential primary election. California voters deserve to know that their votes will be counted and their voices will be heard.

This proposed law will allow local elections officials who are committed to the highest standard of accuracy to replace a voting system in a way that ensures there is a system in place and to provide the expected services of an elections department in California. The experts that conduct elections have full input and say of the process if it's not rushed through and made with hasty decisions.

Without a voting system in place to create ballots and audit the results of a manual tally, the election officials cannot have an accurate election, and that is unacceptable. No county registrar or elected appointment or elected registrar should be without a voting system contract. I appreciate your time and listening to our experience and I hope this bill will be supported.

Okay. Do we have another witness? Please, be brief. You kind of went to the five minute limit there.

No worries. Hi, my name is Tricia Webber. I'm here on behalf of the California Association of Clerk and Election Officials. I guess I just want to reiterate that a voting system is not just what is the machine that we would tabulate votes on and then audit later. A voting system is the entire process from start to finish. It is integral for creating ballots and what ballots can be created.

It's integral on making the audio systems for anyone who needs to hear the ballot in audio or spoken. It also creates the ballot marking devices to help people independently and privately mark their ballot, which is, again, still on paper, as California only requires paper. It also is part of what your Voter Guide looks like. It's how you do your outreach. It's when you send out notices to your voters and instructions.

And so we need time in order to create those, to make those, and to educate the voters on what the voting system is. So having a voting system in place and having a new voting system, if you're changing it so you have the lead time is very necessary for a good election. Thank you.

Thank you. Do you have any other witnesses who would like to express their support for AB 969?

D'Artagnan Byrd on behalf of the American Federation of State County Municipal Employees. We don't have a formal position right now, but we are moving towards support. So thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? Like to express their opposition? Looks like zero. Okay, we'll now go to the phones. Operator, do we have anybody that would like to express their support or opposition for AB 969?

Currently not in the queue. Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd like to express support or opposition for 969 over the phone, please press 1-0 at this time. And one moment. We do have a couple that are loading up for us. We'll go first to line 25. Please, go ahead.

Thank you. This is Missy from LA County. I strongly oppose the punitive AB 969.

Next will be line 31. Go ahead, please.

Yes, my name is Liz Loggy, Sacramento County. And I am in strong opposition to the bill.

Line 121, please go ahead.

Hello, my name is Karen Powers. I'm speaking for myself. I live in Solano County. I would like to express opposition to this bill, because I feel that...

Okay, just name and position, I'm sorry.

But could be used as a stall tactic. Thank you for your time.

At this time, we have no additional callers in queue.

Okay. Thank you. Committee Members, any questions or comments?

I just want to say I appreciate the author and where you're coming from. Just for me, philosophically, I don't think we should be micromanaging local jurisdictions. So that's my only hesitation with the bill, is that the Supervisors there, they're accountable to the voters there. So the voters aren't happy with how they're running it, then they should deal with it. So that's my only concern about. It's more of a philosophical thing. But I appreciate the author and the concerns that are brought with the disruptions of canceling these contracts. Thank you.

Ms. Pellerin, you may close.

Yeah. This is a bill that supports voters and makes sure that they are not left without a voting system. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Do we have a motion? We have a motion and a second. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is do pass. [Roll Call]

That bill will remain on call till we get the full vote.

Thank you so much.

Mr. Berman, you got two bills before us move to item number 10 and item number 13.