Assembly Standing Committee on Elections

Good morning. Welcome to the June 21, 2023, hearing of the Assembly Elections Committee. A quorum is not present, so we'll begin as a Subcommitee. If Members of the Committee are monitoring this hearing, please come to room four. Four. Four of the state Capitol so that we can establish a quorum. Two options for the public to testify today's hearing in person and by moderated telephone service. The Committee has seven bills on its agenda, including one Bill that is proposed for consent.

For each Bill, there will be a maximum of two witnesses in support, two primary witnesses in opposition, with a limit of two minutes per witness. After we've heard from the primary witnesses in support in opposition, the public will have up to 10 minutes in total time for additional comment on each Bill, starting with all of you who joined us in the hearing room today. Other witnesses are limited to providing their name, the organization they represent, if any, and their position on the Bill.

Additional comments will be ruled out of order. If you're unable to get through on the phone, please feel free to submit written testimony. That written testimony becomes part of the official record of the Bill. For those who are watching this hearing remotely. Good morning, Mr. Bennett.

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 131-5444 you can also find this number on the Assembly Elections Committee website, as well as on your TV or computer screen. If you're calling in, please eliminate all background noise, including the live stream broadcast that's on your smart device 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 incredible Committee staff will be there to try to help. Thank you for bearing with us as we implement methods to continue to serve the people of California. At this point, we do not have a quorum, nor do we have any authors here. I hear Senator Ashby is on her way. Senator Josh Newman. If you are watching, you are the lion's share of our agenda today. We would love to see you. Senator Allen, Senator Wilk, you are also welcome with the presence of Mr. Bennett. A quorum is now here. Madam Secretary, can we call the role

[Roll Call]

Beautiful. Thank you so much. Now let's take up the Committee's consent calendar. There's one Bill on the consent calendar. That Bill is item number one, SB 29, by Senator Steve Glazer as proposed, to be amended as outlined in comment number four of the Committee analysis. Does any Member wish to remove this item from the consent calendar? Seeing and hearing, none. We have a motion by Mr. Lackey, a second by Ms. Rubio. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

The motion is do pass as amended, and be re referred to the Committee on Appropriations with recommendation to consent calendar. [Roll Call]

The consent calendar has been moved 60. We will now wait for our Senate colleagues again. Senator Newman Ashby, Alan Wilk. We would love to see you.

Senator Ashby, it's good to see you. Welcome to the Elections Committee. You can begin with SB 314 whenever you're ready.

Thank you for having us. We hurried over. Yes, we hurried as fast as we could and brought our crew with us. I brought my daughter with me today out there. Alia is here to cheer us on. So if you guys have any tough questions, we'll bring her up to the mic, okay?

Absolutely.

You did when she was three. She's 10 now. All right, Assembly Member, this Bill falls in the category of great minds think alike. Okay? And I want to thank you guys for letting me present SB 314. 314 creates an Independent Redistricting Commission, which I know you're all very familiar with here on this Committee. This one is exclusive to the boundaries in Sacramento County. In California, jurisdictions may establish advisory or independent redistricting commissions, which, you know, in the City of Sacramento.

When I was a Council Member there, I worked to pass reforms that established the Independent Redistricting Committee that the City of Sacramento uses. We worked with all the same partners that you all are using on your bills now, and it has served our city well. Many other jurisdictions, as you know, have done the same thing. Los Angeles, San Diego, Riverside, Fresno, and Kern counties. And I'm sure you've heard several bills this year, including authoring some that do the same.

Studies of the 2020 redistricting Cycle show that independent redistricting commissions are far more transparent, promote more public participation, and draw maps that are more reflective of the community. In 2021, the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors drew their own district lines. They did hold hearings, and they did take public comment, but ultimately, they themselves made the final decisions about which areas they would represent. Many, many groups and neighborhoods felt that their voices were not heard, nor were they reflected in the maps that were adopted.

The AAPI and the LGBTQ communities in particular were vocal about not feeling represented in that process or in the final outcomes where the lines were drawn. Hence the Bill specifically for Sacramento County. This Bill is supported by groups in my district that were vocal, particularly AAPI and LGBTQ communities. SB 314 lays out eligibility requirements and selection processes that are modeled after bills established for commissions in LA, San Diego and Riverside, as well as the policy that I wrote for the City of Sacramento.

And I do have a witness with me, and I would also like to say that my understanding and your staff has worked on this, as has the Senate election staff, is that should your Bill go through, this folds into yours. But if something should happen there, we would still have Sacramento county with an independent redistrict Commission, which is why I appreciate you allowing me the opportunity to move it forward concurrently along with yours. Assemblymember Bryant, this is my witness and friend Andreas Ramos, who represents an incredible group in Sacramento that was very involved in the redistricting process, and I'll let him testify.

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

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

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

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

Thank you. Do we have any primary witnesses in opposition? That's good. Is there anybody in the room who would like to vocalize their support or opposition of this Bill? Seeing none moderator can we go to the phone lines there? Anybody on the phone lines would like to register their support or opposition to this Bill?

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. For opposition or support of SB 314, press 10 on your telephone keypad. And we have no one. Sir, you may continue.

Any Committee Members questions? Comments? Concerns?

Good morning. Question is, why don't we mirror the Commission composition that we use for state seats, like our seats? I notice here this uses a similar formuLA that other bills have proposed where it could be approved by a majority of the commissioners. As the voter registration currently stands in the county, you would have six Democrat commissioners, four Republican commissioners, and four NPP third party commissioners. So that means that a simple majority can gerrymander these lines. It doesn't require votes from each category.

So why not do I believe what the State Commission has? They have two reps from each. They require equal representation or they at least require concurrence from one of each group. This, you could pass the map with six Democrats and three NPPs and not have a single Republican vote.

The Bill is drawn to mirror the community, and the whole point of independent redistricting is to mirror the community. If for some reason Sacramento became a community that had a majority of Republicans, then that same thing that you're saying would be true. What will always happen? It will not always be Democrats, it will not always be Republicans, it will not always be independent voters, but it will always reflect the makeup of the County of Sacramento. And that is why it is written that way.

Why don't the elected county Board of Supervisors mirror the community? They're elected by their people. So if all you're worried about is mirroring the community, I think those electeds then should be drawing these maps instead of these unaccountable. I have no idea who these commissions are going to be. I'm just saying, if the idea here is we want an independent Commission, this allows for political gerrymandering because the Democrats have a significant party registration advantage. So I'm just saying if we really want independent, it should be more fair. I'm not against independent commissions. I just want it to be fair and balanced.

I don't know if you served at the local level. Did you?

Okay. So I served in the City of Sacramento for 12 years, and I have the distinct privilege of having lived through two redistricting cycles, one without a redistricting Commission and one with a redistricting Commission, let me tell you what happened when we did not have a redistricting Commission and it was up to the council Members, of which I was one. We held hearings. Peoples did things. Maps were submitted anonymously. Later on, we found out one map came from a council person's office.

I did not.

One Council Member showed up the day of the meeting, had a map in his back pocket, by the way, that's the map that ended up getting adopted. The lines were drawn around neighborhoods they thought they could win, or high schools they used to go to, or neighborhood houses that they used to live in, or where they had emotional, sentimental ties to communities. Wasn't always nefarious, but communities were coming out saying, what in the world? You just split Meadowview in half.

One of the three poorest neighborhoods in our entire community, and now we don't have a singular voice. We have to be involved in two races, and we don't have enough majority for that person on the dais to represent our community. And we've been underrepresented for decades. In the second go round, I wrote the Independent Redistricting Commission. We put on the ballot. It passed, the voters voted for it, and then we had that implemented, and the council Members had no involvement at all.

We had two council Members actually districted out of their lines. But the Independent Redistricting Commission had no idea that that's where they don't get a map of where we live. They were just keeping communities whole. They were just listening to the community and responding. I'm not going to try to tell you right now that independent redistricting commissions or that my Bill or that Assembly Member Bryant's Bill are perfect. They're not.

But what I will tell you and what I have lived through and can guarantee to you is that independent redistricting commissions are far superior to elected representatives drawing their own lines where they represent and where they'll spend the next four years making the decisions and running for office over and over without having to really hear the input of the community.

Thank you, Senator.

I'm just suggesting that the current Commission composition could lend to similar issues. I just think there should be buy in from each stakeholder.

Sure.

You've got three different stakeholders here. And so all I'm suggesting is that maybe the Commission require a vote from each one.

I appreciate those comments, Mr. Bennett.

Understood. I appreciate it.

Thank you.

I'd like to address the question specifically, and that is the reference here in terms of stakeholders. Supervisorial campaigns are nonpartisan campaigns. So it would be completely inappropriate to have a Redistricting Commission that reflects political party makeup. That's why you don't do it that way.

Spoken like a county supervisor.

You want to try to keep political party. You do officially keep political parties out of everything in terms of supervisorial races, and so it would, again, be inappropriate. So appreciate how you have the set up.

Same at the city level, but you still want to reflect the makeup of the community. So thank you. Thank you for that clarification.

Thank you, Mr. Bennett.

And thank you for letting me borrow your mic.

Thank you. Seeing no other comments, Senator Ashby, would you like to close?

I just really much appreciate you hearing us out today. And again, I will acquiesce that independent redistricting commissions will not solve all of our problems in redistricting, but it will make a process more fair and more reasonable and allow for more people to feel heard in the process. And I urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Motion by Ms. Rubio, second by Ms. Pellerin. I fully agree with you, and while you wouldn't say that our bills are perfect, I'm happy to. I think when we've looked at this process throughout, up and down the state, the independent process is the right way to go. We've been piecemealing it for years. Fresno, Riverside, Los Angeles, Sacramento. We need to do this. We need to get this right. Also, traditionally, something like this that would be in conflict with the Chairs Bill wouldn't get heard.

I have so much respect for the effort that you're trying to do that. If we have to chapter some issues out later, then that's just what we'll do. Because this needs to move forward. It has a do pass record. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

The motion is do pass and be rereferred to the Committee on Local Government. [Roll Call]

That Bill is out. 6-2.

Thank you very much.

Senator Wilk. What's up, man? Good morning.

Good morning.

You can begin on 718 whenever you're ready.

Needed author, so I ran out of Committee to try to get you through your day quicker, so thank you, Mr. Chair. And Members, I've got a couple of bills having to deal with elections. I guess you're going to hear the next one. Next meeting. But this one today is SB 718. We're a Democratic Republic. It's very important that we have the consent of the governed. When we govern, we need to have their consent.

And so I've been very active historically in campaign finance disclosures because I think the more information that we give voters, the better decisions they can make. I sometimes run counter to my colleagues on my side of the aisle, but I think it's important. And the real challenges I saw this last time was counting ballots. As you know, so many people mail them in now, and we don't have, sometimes it's in middle of December where we don't even have a final result.

And I just think we need to do a better job disclosing what's going on so voters have confidence. I saw a lot of people on social media try to take advantage of it and sow seeds of dissent and make accusations that weren't true and so want to clean that up. So this particular Bill is, again, just having to deal with the Secretary of State publicly estimating the number of missing or non comparing ballots.

About 65% of all ballots that are rejected are rejected for those two reasons. We just recently accepted amendments, as you know, Mr. Chair from the Secretary of State's office. And overall, my only goal is greater disclosure so public has confidence in our elections, which hopefully gives them more confidence in how we govern. So with that, take, any questions?

Are there any primary witnesses in support or primary witnesses in opposition?

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Ted Muhlhauser, on behalf of.

Come on up, Ted Good morning.

Ted Muhlhauser, on behalf of Secretary of State Weber, PhD, want to thank Senator Wilk and his staff for being so willing to work with Secretary Weber on their common goal of Transparency. I think we're only looking at some amendments that are critical for us as far as balancing staff duties and ensuring we can report this information in a quick manner as possible and most responsibly and accurately and appreciate the Senator willing to work with us.

We have not seen any specific language yet, but we do believe that we have discussed an agreement in concept and look forward to being able to finalize that.

Great. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody in the hearing room who'd like to register their support or opposition to this Bill saying none? Moderator can we go to the phone lines? Is there anybody on the phone lines?

Ladies and gentlemen, if you're in support or opposition of SB 3718, press 10. And no response. You may continue.

Any Committee Members? Ms. Pellerin?

So I'm a former county elections official worked for 27 and a half years. And we do an unprocessed ballot report, and that does get out there. Why do you think that's not sufficient? And we do talk about the fact that that report includes a lot of unprocessed bills and some we don't even know about yet because we haven't received them.

This is Secretary of State.

But the Secretary of State can't get the data without the elections of.

I know, but it's not always updated in a timely manner, and there's discrepancies. And then that creates. I was Republican Leader last cycle, and we had a race, a contentious race, which we ended up losing by 13 votes in the Central Valley, four counties. All four had, because the laws are so gray, all had different standards and reports, and the people are out there saying, oh, the election is being stolen. I don't think the election was being stolen. I just don't think there's uniform standards.

And that's all I'm looking to do. I just think it creates confidence. And so having just gone through that, and it needs to be done quicker so people have access to it.

Well, you either want it quick or you want it accurate.

Okay. You want it as quickly and accurately as possible. How about that?

Okay. Well, until I see the language, I think I'm going to lay off on it for that now. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions, comments? Yes, I'd like to ask the witness from the Secretary of State. I have a question for him.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Again, Ted Muhlhauser. On behalf of Secretary of State Shirley Nash Weber.

Yes, sir. Your Department provided to the Senate Appropriations Committee the implementation would cost about 35,000 in one time costs. However, your letter of opposition to this body is saying that you would need three additional positions. Can you explain this discrepancy and why you think implementation will cost more now?

They're short term positions, Mr. Vice Chair. They would not require the type of expenditure you would have for three full time, new personal years.

But is that new information?

No, it is the exact same financial number.

So my question is the discrepancy why?

Mr. Chair? I'm sorry, I don't believe there is a discrepancy. I think what we reported to in the cost on this Bill is that the actual number in the thousands is associated with those bodies.

Okay. I'm not going to debate. Thank you.

Yeah, it's just three part time to be fully transparent. Three part time program technician, two classifications for 30 days.

Okay. Seeing no other questions, Mr. Low?

Thank you very much for the measure. I understand the legislative intent to... I'm going to lay off until we get the Secretary of State's communications clearly, and I know that you've committed to that. I look forward to voting when it makes it to the floor.

Me too.

With no other questions. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll, or do we have a motion? Motion, Ms. Lackey. Second Essayli.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Request reconsideration. Can you request reconsider? Vote is 2-0. That Bill fails. Would you like reconsideration?

Sure. Why not?

Without objection. Reconsideration.

If people are sincere about looking at the amendments than sure.

Reconsideration is granted.