Senate Standing Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments

Please note that two items have been pulled by the author from our agenda today. File item number 7, Assembly Bill 868 by Assembly Member Wilson, and file item number 9, Assembly Bill 1248 by Assembly Member Bryan, have been pulled. We'll take them up at our next hearing. So we're going to be considering nine measures, two of which are on consent. Those are Assembly Bills 1762 and Assembly Bills 1559. So before we can begin, we need to establish a quorum.

We're just one Member short of a quorum. And then we need authors to be present to present their bills. So the authors, Assembly Members Valencia, Cervantes, Pellerin, and Berman. Would like to invite you to come to our hearing room so we can hear your bills. So with that, we'll take a short recess while we wait for authors here in the Senate Committee on Elections. Thank you.

Senators Glazer. Glazer, present. Nguyen. Allen. McGuire. Menjivar. Menjivar, here. Newman. Newman, here. Umberg. Umberg, here.

All right, so we do have a quorum and we do have an author. So we will begin with our agenda. The first item up is Assembly Bill 34 by Assembly Member Valencia. And we welcome here to the Committee. And, sir, you can begin whenever you're ready.

Thank you. And Buenos dias, Mr. Chair and Senators. I will be accepting the Committee amendments and want to thank the chair and the Committee team for diligently working on AB 34. Additionally, I'd also like to acknowledge our team Members, Aaron Reiberg and then also Kobe Grossman, who have worked on this Bill.

Independent Citizens Redistricting Commissions maintain impartiality in the redistricting process. They directly increase transparency and accountability by prioritizing local public input and ensure that the process is conducted in an open and transparent manner.

AB 34 is modeled after recent legislation would similarly create an Independent Redistricting Commission that would draw district boundaries for the Orange County Board of Supervisors. This Bill actually goes a step further and, Excuse me, little out of breath. This Bill goes a step further and adds components specifically tailored to best fit Orange County. In the last 20 years, Orange County has changed in its demographics and political makeup, a trend that is expected to continue.

Through the impartial redrawing of political district lines. AB 34 will put Orange County voters first by increasing representation of the diversity and interests of the community. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Great. Thank you. Thank you, Assembly Member. We'll first begin with witnesses in favor. And just to remind everybody, the Committee practice has been to have two witnesses, two minutes each for both sides. So are there any primary witnesses in support that you have here?

Unfortunately, they were not able to make it up due to the schedule.

Good. Okay, so then we'll go to anybody else here in support of the Bill. Want to stand up and be recognized? Seeing none, we're going to go to opposition here in the. Excuse me, a tweener. Okay, tweeners are. Good moment.

Dora Rose, League of Women Voters of California. I want to thank the author for taking some excellent amendments in the most recent round of amendments. And we still have a supportive, amended position ironing out a few things, but thank you. We're much closer now.

Terrific.

Hi. Laurel Brodzinskiy, California Common Cause, also in support if amended. Thank you.

Okay, anybody else here on the support side or the tweener side? We'll go to the opposition side. Anybody here in the carrying room want to go indicate in opposition? Please come on up.

Good morning, Chairman, Members D'Artagnan Byrd of American Federation of State, County Municipal Employees, in support of AB 34. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. We're going to take testimony from support or opposition here in the hearing room and then we'll go to our teleconference service. Anyone else want to indicate their position on this Bill? Support, tweener, opposition. All right, we'll go to the teleconference lines. Moderator, can you ask if anyone is there to testify on AB 34? And this would be just giving their name and their affiliation and their position.

If you would like to testify on AB 34 in support or opposition, please press one zero at this time. And Mr. Chair, we have no comment.

Great. We'll bring the matter back to the Committee for questions or comments. Senator Newman. And followed by Senator Umber.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I am one of the Orange County Delegation Committees that is among those who are co-authors. So glad to be supportive. I actually do want to hear from either Ms. Rose or Ms. Prasinski regarding the amendments you're seeking. Either of you. You have a supportive, amended position, if you wouldn't mind, in brief, what still remains to be resolved from your perspective.

Brief. We recommend a ban on ex parte communications between the Commission Members and organizations and members of the public. That's one. And the other thing we recommend is that they bring it into alignment with the Fair Maps Act and the redistricting criteria in the Fair Maps Act, which are slightly different.

But there are some significant and important differences, including, most importantly, making sure that communities of interest have precedence over, in order of priority in terms of keeping them together, the geographic integrity of communities of interest before some other elements of those redistricting criteria.

I appreciate that. And Ms. Brzinski, can't see you. Does that capture your concerns as well? All right, thank you. Glad to support it. You're going to continue working with Common Cause?

Correct. Yeah, we've been. Continued communication and happy to continue.

Terrific. So I'm glad to support the Bill. Happy to make the motion when appropriate.

Thank you, Senator Newman. Senator Umberg.

Thank you, Assembly Member Valencia. A question following to Senator Newman's question, how does this differ from the state's criteria in terms of communities of interest versus geographic boundaries versus other criteria?

My understanding of the Bill is it's mirroring models that have already been passed throughout the state which actually ensure that that is accounted for. I think one of the major differences that we're having discussions about is the makeup of the actual Commission. I believe one of the amendments that is being asked of us is to include proportionate based on party identification, whereas I think as the Bill is now, it's based off of party demographic. Right.

So as districts change, as communities change, counties change, based on political makeup, the Bill that we currently have would adjust for that. Whereas I believe the conversation that we're having would always have a certain amount of Democrats, a certain amount of Republicans, and a certain amount of no-party preference. So that's one of the differences that we're discussing as well right now.

All right. Thank you, Assembly Member Valencia, I'm proud to be a co-author. This Bill is a long time and coming. I know we've had issues concerning redistricting in Orange County for many, many years. I'm surprised that some Legislator who's been around since 1990, hadn't introduced it earlier, but I'm proud to support it and look forward to your continued efforts.

Thank you, Senator Umberg. With that, I don't see any further comments or further discussion. Assembly Member, I'm happy to support the Bill. I appreciate your leadership in this area, along with two distinguished co-authors that I do know and are impressive in their own right. So would you like to close?

Thank you Mr. Chair, I appreciate your time and respectfully ask for a yes vote.

All right. With that, I'm going to acknowledge the motion from Senator Newman. This Bill is a do pass, as amended, and re-referred to the Committee on Governance and Finance. With that, if the secretary would call the role.

So that has three votes. We're going to put it on call for absent Members. Thank you, sir.

[Roll Call].

Thank you.

All right, so we are looking for authors, and I know that we're all experiencing the same challenge today, with multiple hearings taking place throughout the Capitol area. So looking for Assemblymember Cervantes, Assemblymember Pellerin, who I believe is chairing a Committee. Assemblymember Berman, who I know is also chairing a Committee, to come forward. With that, why don't we take a motion on the consent calendar. Moved by Senator Newman on the consent calendar, this is Assembly Bill 1762 and Assembly Bill 1559. Secretary, call the roll.

[Roll Call].

All right, that Bill has three votes. We'll put it on a call for absent Members. So we'll take a short recess as we wait for authors to join us here. That's Assembly Member Berman. Assembly Member, thank you for being here. You're here to present file item number 8, 1037. We welcome you to the Committee, sir, and you can begin when you're ready. Thank you.

Although your microphone is not on, so we're going to give you a chance to actually be heard.

I'll repeat my compliment as soon as it is.

Microphone working there? Okay, let's try it again.

Thank you, distinguished Chair.

Thank you, sir.

I appreciate you allowing me to present AB 1037. During my tenure in the Legislature. We've taken numerous steps to ensure that voting in California is both secure and accessible. However, signature issues still result in far too many invalidated vote-by-mail ballots. A report from USC's Center for Inclusive Democracy, studying data from the 2020 General election, noted that missing and mismatched signatures are a primary driver for rejecting vote-by-mail ballots and were responsible for nearly 77% of rejected ballots in that election.

AB 1037 would authorize a county elections official to offer the opinion. Excuse me, to offer the option for a voter to cure the signature problem electronically. This would provide one more tool to assist California voters if the elections official determines that the signature on the vote-by-mail ballot envelope does not match the signature on file or if the identification envelope does not contain a signature.

Similarly, Colorado and Nevada have successfully utilized a text-to-cure process whereby a voter can address a missing signature or signature mismatch via text or similar technology. I'm pleased to be joined today by James Kus, the Fresno County Registrar of Voters, on behalf of the California Association of Clerks and Elections Officials. At the appropriate time, I respectfully request an Aye vote.

Thank you, Assembly Member. Your witness is welcome to come up and present, providing two witnesses, main witnesses in support and opposition. Two minutes each. Sir, you can begin when you're ready.

Good morning, Chairman Glazer and Senators. I am James A. Kus, Fresno County Clerk, Registrar of Voters, and I'm here today on behalf of the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials Legislative Committee. The CACEO is pleased to sponsor Assembly Bill 1037, authored by Assemblyman Berman. Current law requires counties to provide notices and opportunities to cure to voters who forget to sign their vote by mail ballot envelope or whose signature does not compare to their signature in the registration record.

This Bill will provide another avenue for those voters to cure their missing or mismatched signatures in a manner that is convenient and speedy. CACEO appreciates Assemblymember Berman's continued efforts to provide effective election administration processes that prioritize voter participation opportunities.

Thank you, sir. Anyone else here to testify in support, please come on up.

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

Thank you.

Eric Harris with Disability Rights California, in support.

Thank you, sir. Anyone else here to indicate their support? We'll go to opposition here in the hearing room. Anyone here to speak in opposition? See no one leaping to their feet. We're going to go to the phone lines. Moderator, would you ask if anyone would like to put their name on the record in support or opposition to Assembly Bill 1037 to please so indicate.

If you would like to testify on AB 1037 in support or opposition, please press one zero at this time. And we do have a comment coming through. Just one moment, please while we provide them with their line number. Just one more moment, please. And we have a comment from line 35. Please go ahead.

Community advocate, Silicon Valley Independent Living Center, in favor.

Thank you. Moderate. Anything further there?

We have no further comments at this time.

Terrific. We're going to bring the matter back to the Committee for questions or comments. Members, questions, or comments on this legislation? Senator Newman.

Assemblymember Berman, I actually commend you on the Bill. I was actually in Colorado recently for an NCSL meeting about election security, so I'm pretty familiar with what they're doing in Colorado. So you know, I think it makes sense, the solutions that you proposed here. So glad to support the Bill. Glad to make the motion when it's appropriate.

All right, any further comments or questions? Seeing none. Assembly Member thank you for your continued efforts to make sure every vote is counted. And with that, you're welcome to close.

I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you, sir. I acknowledge the motion from Senator Newman. This would be do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. I hear that's a fine Committee. Secretary, please call the role.

[Roll Call].

All right, that Bill. We're going to put that Bill on call for absent Members. Thank you, sir. Yeah. All right, we're looking for two final authors before this Committee can complete its work. Assembly Member Cervantes and Assemblymember Pellerin. And we'll take a short recess while we wait for their. We have taken the consent calendar up, but we can open the roll if you'd like.

Please.

Okay, let's ask the secretary. We'll start with file item number one, Assembly Bill 34. Could the Secretary call the role again?

File item number one. The motion is do pass as amended, and re-refer to the Committee on Governance and Finance. [Roll Call].

Okay, we'll move next to the consent calendar. This is Assembly Bills 1762 and 1559. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call].

We'll put that Bill back on call. Okay, we'll take a short recess while we're waiting for authors.

Thank you for your patience. How's everybody? Here we go. So thank you Chair and Senators, AB 292. Many no-party preference voters do not realize that unless they request a partisan ballot, they will receive a ballot without the option of voting 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 must request to have a partisan ballot, many NPP voters fail to request one in advance and do not realize that their ballot is missing the office of President, sometimes close to or on Election Day itself.

This means that for MPP voters who are unable to go in person to request that partisan crossover ballot, or receive or have enough time to receive a crossover ballot in the mail, their ability and right to cross over and vote in the presidential primary is removed. So AB 292 implements two major updates to clarify the voting process for NPP voters.

First, it explicitly requires that NPP notices contain a checkbox next to the names of the parties that allow crossover voting, so that it's cleaner and clearer to the voter on which political parties offer open primaries and allows that voter to request a partisan ballot.

Second, in the event that an NPP voter does not respond to that initial mailed notice or to request that partisan ballot for the presidential primary, 292 requires that that information be printed on the ballot, letting the voter know that they do have an option and the option that they would exercise in that case if they're not able to go in person to request a crossover would be to do a remote accessible vote by mail ballot.

And with the remote accessible vote-by-mail ballot, NPP voters will be able to download a parson ballot, fill it out, and return the ballot to be counted. This approach ensures that NPP voters can cross over and vote even if they cannot go in person to pick up a crossover ballot or receive one in the mail. With me to testify in support is James Kus, the co-chair of the California Association of Clerks and Elections Officials Legislative Committee and the Registrar of Voters for Fresno County.

Please come on forward with our lead witnesses.

Good Morning Senators James Kus, Fresno County Clerk, Registrar of Voters on behalf of CACEO. CACEO is pleased to support Assembly Bill 292. We believe that Assembly Bill 292 will provide significant improvement in voting access for no-party preference, NPP, voters in presidential primary elections.

This Bill will clarify the crossover options so that voters know what they are clearly available to the NPP voters prior to the mailing of vote-by-mail ballots, ensuring they receive the ballot they desire at the time that it is mailed and will significantly increase information available to NPP voters who miss out on that initial crossover window.

I'd like to acknowledge Assemblymember Pellerin and her staff for working with CACEO to adjust the bill's physical effects on NPP ballots and providing options on information provided on those ballots to best educate our voters.

Thank you. Next lead supporter.

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

Any other support, please come forward.

Laurel Brodzinsky, California Common Cause, in support.

Marquis Mason, California Environmental Voters, in support. Thanks.

Thank you. Now we'll move on to any lead opposition.

Colleen Britton, Election Integrity Project California among other objections, EIPCA takes significant issue with the proposed desperate treatment of MPP voters based on the manner in which they elect to request an allowable partisan ballot and with any ballot request not accompanied by a means of verifying voter identity. The Election Code 15502 mandates that if requesting a ballot pursuant to paragraph three, the voter must also provide their signature.

However, the proposed Bill states the voter's signature shall not be required if the voter is requesting a partisan ballot by telephone, internet, or text. Expecting NPP voters to request a partisan ballot by mailing or delivering a signed paper request is reasonable and necessary mandate that adds a level of protection against voter impersonation.

Providing a voter with only a written or verbal admonishment that only the registered voters themselves may request a ballot does not provide the same level of protection or ability to actually validate the identity of the requester. There is no lack of opportunity and no reason for providing further, less secure methods.

NPP voters already have the option to request the partisan ballot of their choice at the County Elections Office anytime during the 29 days before election day, at the vote center of their choice, on any of the 11 days of operation, and at the precinct polling location on election day. Desperate treatment of voters also raises serious constitutional issues and should not be codified in the election code.

All requests should be made requiring the verifiable method of signature provision, either by mail-in form or in person providing the one of many days and locations listed in the previous paragraph. EIPCA respectfully requests a no vote on AB 292. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other oppositions in the room please come forward.

Morning. Jeanette Phelps, Sacramento County and I oppose this Bill.

Thank you. At this time, we'll move for witnesses to testify via teleconference. Moderator, would you please prompt the individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of AB 292?

To testify in support or opposition to AB 292 Please press one zero at this time. And we do have a few comments coming through. It'll just be one moment, please. While we provide them with line numbers.

Please just state your name, organization, and whether you oppose or support the Bill.

And at this time we have approximately 10 people waiting to comment. And first we'll go to line 43.

My name is April Bean, and I am from Sacramento County, and I oppose this Bill.

Next we'll go to line 30.

Hi, my name is Jennifer Johnson, Placer County. I oppose AB 292. Thank you.

Line 42.

Shirley Miloi of Placer County. I oppose 292.

Line 21. Line 21. Your mic is open. Please go ahead.

Thank you. My name is Joanne Bowen. I'm from Yolo County. I believe all replacement ballots issued, even for a primary, must only be given.

Ma'am, all we're asking for. If you can just give us your name, affiliation, and a support or opposed position.

Joanne Bowen, League of Women Voters, Davis. And I'm opposed.

Thank you.

Line 33.

My name is Ruth Weiss, San Diego County. And I am in agreement with EIPCA's opposition stance on this Bill.

Line 29.

This is Amy Cho, Placer County, EIPCA, oppose AB 292.

Line 13.

Lee Moseberry, Placer County, Election Integrity Project California, vehemently oppose this Bill.

Line 16.

My name is Gwen Myers, I'm from Placer County. I vehemently oppose this Bill.

Line 24.

Peggy Wilson, Santa Barbara County EIPCA affiliate. I vehemently oppose this Bill.

Line 34. Line 34. Your mic is open. Please go ahead.

Hello. I'm not sure if I'm that. My name is Pete Joe, I'm from Placer County and I'm opposed to 292.

And we have no further comments at this time.

Thank you to all the support and opposition witnesses. We'll now bring it back to discussion. To the Members. Any questions or comments? There is a motion. Madam Assembly Member, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

There's a motion, and this is do pass and refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Please call for the vote.

[Roll Call].

And we'll hold the call. The vote. We'll hold a vote on call. That's the words.

Thank you.

I was wondering, Assemblywoman. So Cervantes is here. She only has one Bill. Would you be okay?

It's like a grocery line huh?

It's your prerogative if that's okay with you. Okay, thank you, Assemblywoman. It's a support.

Support support.

Understood. Yes. Thank you so much, Madam Chair and Members, for the opportunity to present Assembly Bill 63 which would both increase transparency during the canvas of the vote and assist both Houses of the Legislature in their constitutional duty to judge the qualifications of its Members. Existing law requires county registrars to provide only two election result updates to the public after election day. The first is when the semifinal canvas of the vote is completed.

This includes early mail ballots and ballots cast in person at polling places or at vote centers on election day. This update is typically issued within a few days of election day. The second is upon the certification of the canvas of the vote or in other words, when the final result of the elections are published. This must occur within 30 days of Eday.

This means that county registrars are not required by law to provide the public with updated election results during the interim period of nearly three weeks. While most county registrars do provide regular and frequent election updates on their own accord, there are a handful of counties in our state that provide minimal to zero updates to the public during this period. We want to make sure that we are providing regular updates and this bill would do that.

The second part of this bill is just given on--let me--trying to speed it up for you here, Madam Chair. So I want to make sure that we are requiring the Secretary of State to notify the relevant Houses of the Legislature if any winning legislative candidate has not been continuously registered in the district they ran to represent after filing as a candidate.

This would allow each House of the Legislature to properly exercise its constitutional duty to judge the qualifications of its Members if necessary, then act. Those are the two things before you related to AB 63 and respectfully ask for your aye vote today.

Thank you. Any lead witnesses in support? Anyone in support of the bill can please come forward. Any lead opposition? Anyone in opposite please come forward. Seeing none, let's go to the line. Moderator, would you please prompt any individual waiting to testify in support or opposition of AB 63?

If you would like to testify in support or opposition to AB 63, please press one zero at this time. And we have no comments.

Thank you. Bring it back to Members.

I have a question. Assembly Member, I'm curious. So, to the second element of the bill, which is seemingly unrelated to kind of the first part, what's the kind of rationale or context behind that?

So the bill is meant to address a recent instance in which a candidate for the Legislature changed residence to a location outside of the district in which the candidate was running in, and so there is a period between certification as a candidate and certification of the results of an election where we are trying to close, and that is what this bill addresses.

And so what action would be taken or would be allowed for if this were included?

So with this bill, this would provide a new notification that the Secretary of State would issue upon the certification of final election results for statewide, general, and special elections. So the SOS would notify the relevant House of the Legislature if this were to occur, as it has in the past, and where now we could take action as a Legislature to then--whether we did deem that candidate ineligible and remove them from office.

So to be clear, so in the event that it was found that a candidate filed but did not live at the residence or within the jurisdiction once they were elected, presumably the relevant House might choose not to seat that person?

Correct.

Okay. And is that provided for already?

This bill would allow for that to happen.

Okay. But there is a scenario, irrespective of this bill, where the Legislature might not seat a winning candidate? Appreciate it.

Correct.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. And there's a motion. This bill is 'do pass and refer to the Committee on Appropriations.' Please--I'm sorry. Would you like to close? I'm sorry.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I appreciate the opportunity here to just address some of our election challenges in the state and trying to provide more transparency and honored to have your vote today in support of this measure.

Thank you. Please call for the vote.

The motion is 'do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations.' Senators Glazer? Nguyen? Aye. Nguyen, aye. Allen? McGuire? Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar, aye. Newman? Aye. Newman, aye. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye.

And we'll hold a call open. Thank you for doing this, Assemblywoman.

Of course. No problem.

Appreciate that. We are now into Item File Number Four: AB 545.

Okay. And they're here, right? Yeah. Okay. All right, shift gears here. Okay. Thank you. Chair and Senators, current law sets minimum standards for the accessibility of voting locations to voters with disabilities. Accommodations can include curbside voting and accessibility aids, such as magnifying glasses, signature cards to help voters sign ballots in the required area. While these accommodations exist, there is a lack of standardization across the state.

For instance, in many counties, signage providing information about curbside voting is not prominently displayed, and voters with disabilities are often unsure of how to attract the attention of election workers. Additionally, accessibility aids are often forgotten in boxes behind the voter check in station rather than being prominently displayed. AB 545 makes voting more accessible to voters with disabilities by requiring curbside voting at all voting locations. This was actually done in 2020 to mitigate the effects of COVID-19 which proved that it is feasible.

AB 545 requires that signage related to accessible voting be prominently displayed and requires that voting locations establish a method for a voter with a disability to contact a worker in order to vote by curbside. AB 545 additionally removes the outdated requirement that voters with disabilities must swear under oath that they are unable to mark a ballot.

AB 545 is sponsored by Disability Rights California and supported by the California Association of Clerks and elections officials, the League of Voters, and Environmental and Disability Advocates. With me to testify in support today is Eric Harris, the Director of public policy for Disability Rights California, and Paul Spencer, an attorney for the voting rights team.

Thank you. Please come forward.

Good morning, chair Members. I'm Paul Spencer. I'm a voting rights attorney with Disability Rights California. We're a proud sponsor of this Bill. Just to tell you the reasons about why this is important, we know from our poll monitoring and from our hotline that we run for voters with disabilities that this is an issue statewide. For example, the curbside voting.

We occasionally get hotline calls from voters with disabilities who are in the parking lot waiting to vote, but they can't figure out how to get anyone's attention inside. And they've literally called every number they could think of. And then they find our hotline and we're able to figure out with the county elections office how to get someone out there. But these are problems that are really easy and avoidable.

It's having signage for curbside voting and it's having a signal device so that someone in their car can get the attention of someone inside. For many people with disabilities, being able to vote in their car means that they can actually vote in person. Getting in and out of the car can be really burdensome. You could also be immunocompromised. We know from our poll monitoring, too. One great thing, especially, for example, a Low vision or blind voter, is to have a signature guide to magnifying glasses.

They're typically in every voting location, but they're buried in a Tupperware box. Workers don't really know if they should put them out or not, and part of that is because there's currently no requirements in the election code for these devices. So we know that this is a problem statewide.

Disability Rights California in consultation with Assembly Member Pellerin, with county election officials and people with disabilities, we've talked about these problems and what possible solutions are, and we think that this is a common sense, easy Bill to address these really common accessibility problems we see statewide. So thank you and we respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you, sir. Our next witness in support. We can hear you just fine.

Good morning. My name is Dan Oakenfuss with the California foundation for Independent Living Centers. We're here in support. We represent thousands of people with disabilities that use our services of our 25 independent living centers across the state. And thank you for authoring.

Yeah. Thank you, Dan. Other individuals who would like to put their name and affiliation on the record in support of the Bill please come forward.

Dora Rose, League of Women Voters of California in strong support. Thank you for bringing the Bill. Thank you. James Kus, California Association of Clerks and Elections Officials. And we support this Bill.

Thank you, sir. Anyone else here in the hearing room? All right, we'll go to opposition here in the hearing room first, and then we'll go to our phone lines for support and opposition. Anyone here in the hearing room in opposition? All right, seeing them, we'll go to the phone Lines moderator if you'd ask anyone who'd like to put their name on the record on AB 545, please.

If you would like to testify on AB Five, 45. In support or opposition, please press 1 then 0 at this time. And we do have a few comments coming through. First we will hear from line 35. Line 35, please go ahead.

Christine Fitzgerald, community advocate, Silicon Valley Independent Living Center. In favor. Thank you very much. Line 39. Good morning. This is Sherry Burns with Silicon Valley Independent Living center and the Aging Services Collaborative of Santa Clara County. I am in full support of AB 545. Thank you. Thank you. Next caller, please, line 16. Line 16, your mic is open. Please go ahead and.

Line 25.

Hi, my name is Sonya from LA County, and I oppose this Bill.

Thank you. Next caller, please.

And we have no further comments at this time.

I will bring the issue back to the Committee for questions or comments. Members, any questions or comments? Seeing none. I'm happy to support your Bill Assembly Member. Thank you for your concern of diverse communities in which we represent, and you're welcome to close.

I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Okay. Looking for a motion. Great. Senator Menjivar has moved the Bill. This would be a do pass, as amended and re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations. Oh, there's no amendment. That's fine. Let me correct that. That's just a do pass and rerefer to the Committee on Appropriations. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call].

We're going to put that Bill on call for absent Members. We're going to move now to your next Bill. This would be Assembly Bill 626, is that right? File item number 5.

That works.

And you may begin when you're ready.

So thank you again, chair and Senators, over the years, we have seen an increase in the number of California voters who are choosing to vote the ballots that are mailed to them. In the November midterm elections, 87.52% of California voters voted their mailed ballot. In three counties, 100% of the votes were cast by mail ballot, and in 32 counties, 90% or more of the ballots were mailed ballots.

Under current law, when a vote by mail ballot is returned in the mail or to a ballot dropbox, the signature on the identification envelope must be compared with the voter signature on file before the ballot is removed from the envelope and then counted. Due to this, a vote by mail ballot takes more time to process and prepare to be counted as compared to a ballot cast in person.

Voters who drop off their vote by mail ballots at a Dropbox or voting a location often wonder why their ballot is not counted as quickly as those who vote in person at the same location, and that impacts the people that are dropping off those ballots in those final days up to and including Election Day.

AB 626 allows voters to return their voted vote by mail ballot at a voting location and have their vote recorded and their ballot processed in the same manner as a ballot cast in person.

This change will expedite the vote counting process if voters take advantage of this process and decrease the workload of elections officials, and with me to testify in support today, is James Kus, our co chair of the California Association of Clerks and Elections Officials Legislative Committee and the Registrar of Voters of Fresno County.

Thank you, Assemblywoman, and we welcome your witnesses to testify and support.

Thank you, Chairman Glazer. James Coos, Fresno County Clerk, Registrar of Voters, on behalf of CaCeO. CaCEO supports Assembly Bill 626. We've been very pleased to work with Assembly Member Pellerin and her staff on the technical details of this Bill. AB 626 will improve the in person voting experience for many voters, allowing them to cast their completed vote by mail ballot, an in person voting location, if the county meets certain technical requirements.

Since the initiation of the California Voters Choice act in 2018 and all vote by mail in 2022, a common complaint received by counties is voters frustrated that they must surrender their completed vote by mail ballot to vote in person, in particular at vote center locations. This Bill will allow counties who meet technical requirements to directly assist these voters, directly speeding up the in person voting process and the tabulation process on Election Day and post Election Day.

Thank you, sir. Next witness.

League of Women Voters of California in strong support.

Any others here in the hearing room that would like to testify put their name on the record in support, please go on forward.

Eric Harris with disability rights, California support. Thank you, sir. Colleen Britton with election integrity Project, California in very strong support. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Jeanette Phelps, Sacramento County Strong Support.

Thank you very much. Anyone else here in the hearing room would like to testify in support or in opposition? Anyone here in opposition want to come forward? We'll go to the phone Lines moderator if you could ask if anyone would like to put their name on the record in support or opposition to AB 626.

If you would like to testify in support or opposition to AB 626. Please press 10 at this time. And first we will hear from Line 43.

Hi, this is April Bean. I'm from Sacramento county and I support. Thank you, ma'am. Next caller, please. So you are aware we have approximately 10 more people waiting to comment. And next we'll hear from Line 39. Good morning.

Sherry Burns with Silicon Valley Independent Living center in Santa Clara County in support. Line 13. Lee Mitsbury, Plaster County with Election Integrity Project California. I enthusiastically support this Bill. Line 29. Amy Cho, EIpCa, Pleasant County, support this Bill. Thank you.

Line 34, line 34, please go ahead. This is Steve Cheryl from Placer County. I totally support AB 626. Line 16. It. Line 16, your mic is open. Please go ahead. This is Glenn Myers from Placer County. I totally support AB 626.

Line 30. Jennifer Johnson, Placer County. I'm happy to support AB 626. Thank you, Line 50, Patricia Beavy. Last Californian in strong support of AB 626. Line 24. Peggy Wilson. Peggy Wilson, Santa Barbara, California. In strong support of AB 626 with the Election Integrity Project, California.

Thank you, Line 42, Shirley Miloi in Placer County. I also support AB 626. Thank you. Line 33, Ruth Weiss, San Diego County, support of AB 66. And Mr. Chair, we have no further comments at this time.

Thank you, moderator. We'll bring the matter back to the Committee for questions or comments. Members, any questions or comments? Yeah, seeing none. Member, thank you for your continued expertise that you've brought to your work here in the Legislature. We appreciate it and happy to support your Bill today. Would you like to close?

Just respectfully ask for your aye vote all right.

I did acknowledge a motion from Senator Newman. This would be a do pass, and we refer to the Committee on Appropriations.

Secretary, please call the roll.

Senators. Glazer, aye. Glazer, aye. Min when? No. Alan Mcguire. Menjivar. Menjivar Aye. Newman, aye. Newman? Aye. Umberg, aye. Umberg, aye.

All right, we're going to keep the roll open for absent Members. You're on a roll. I got one left.

Four for four.

Let's go for it.

Okay, so this is file item number six. Assembly Bill 969. And you may begin when you're ready.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair and Senators, 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. The county plans to conduct their elections via manual tally, which takes time, a large number of people to hand count ballots and is not an accurate way to count ballots. Shasta estimates it will cost upward of $4 million to hand count ballots for their 112,000 registered voters.

As mentioned in the analysis, it is unclear whether Shasta County can fulfill its legal obligations regarding reporting under the Elections Code if they do not utilize an electronic voting system that is state-certified and federally qualified. Hastily terminated voting systems, contracts, results in high costs and uncertainties, and threatens our democracy and concerning how elections officials will run their upcoming contests.

Since each voting system has unique features, election staff and volunteers in Shasta will have to be retrained and a new voter information materials will need to be produced. And now we are less than five months away from a presidential primary election. A voting system includes the electronic voting system hardware and software, including voting machines and tabulators. These voting systems and their contracts are expensive and not easily instated or changed.

For example, in my district, the County of Santa Clara has an annual lease payment of $1.7 million. What AB 969 does is simple. It prevents a jurisdiction from terminating an existing voting system contract without having a replacement contract in place and ready to go. This Bill does not prevent a jurisdiction from deciding to terminate their voting system contract. It simply says that they must have a system ready to go in its place.

AB 969 also prohibits that an elections official, prohibits the elections official from performing a manual count in any contest in which there are more than 1,000 eligible registered voters 154 days in advance of the election. AB 969 only aims to reflect the reality of running an election in the 21st century and the infeasibility of hound counting tens of thousands of ballots that contain multiple ballot contests.

With me to testify in support is Cathy Darling Allen, the County Clerk and Registrar, voters from Shasta County and James Kus, the co-chair of the CACEO Legislative Committee and the Registrar of Voters for Fresno County.

Thank you, Assemblywoman. I'd like to invite the county registrar to come on up. Welcome.

Good morning. Thank you, Chair Glazer, Senators, my name is Cathy Darling Allen. I'm the Shasta County Clerk and Registrar of Voters. Last week, I celebrated my 20th year working in elections in California after being elected to my fifth term of office last year. This January, as the Assembly Member just said, on January 24, the Board of Supervisors voted to terminate our voting system contract. This left our 111,000 California voters without a voting system and therefore disenfranchised.

The board ultimately directed me to develop a hand tally system. I and my team of excellent professionals aim to conduct successful, accurate, transparent elections. We've been able to do so historically using the reliable system certified by the Secretary of State. I am concerned about our ability to do so using hand counts, especially when we have the high turnout typical of a presidential general election.

After spending the last four months digging into processes and procedures of a full hand tally, I have serious concerns about any California county's ability to do a full hand count. I am concerned about the resources that will be required and the county's ability to recruit and retain the required staff. I'm also concerned about accuracy, especially given in the repetitive nature of hand counting. It requires an intense amount of focus and can be exhausting.

I want to be clear that in manageable amounts, hand counting provides proof and assurance to election administrators and voters that the tally equipment used to count votes is working as expected, as evidenced by the many 1% hand counts conducted by the counties here in California over the past decades. This is a process that can and does work, but a full hand tally is extremely costly. In preparation for the hand tally program, Shasta County has increased the size of our department by staff by 25%.

We expect to double our rent costs over the next two years and at a minimum, expect to cost our taxpayers an additional $4.1 million over the next two fiscal years. There are also significant costs to accuracy, as evidenced by the hand counts performed very recently in Osage County, Missouri, Nye County, Nevada, and Baxter County, Arkansas, just to name a few.

Hand count error rates are much higher than machine counts in the case of Osage County, the election authority, which is what they call clerks in Missouri, stated, after considering all factors of this election and comparing it to other elections that are similar, hand counting would cost us more in time, money, losing volunteers and accuracy. These are unacceptable trade-offs for a benefit that I am still challenged to understand, I ask for your Aye vote on AB 969. Thank you.

Thank you, Clerk Darling Allen, thank you for being here, making the drive. We welcome the next witness in support.

James A. Kus, Fresno County Clerk Registrar of Voters here on behalf of CACEO. CACEO supports AB 969 and respectfully requests that you vote Aye on this Bill. This Bill provides clarity to county elections officials regarding the topic of manual ballot tabulations. The Bill further instructs the Secretary of State to generate rules and regulations for all manual and tabulation processes in the future, making these very important verification processes uniform across the state and more understandable to the voting public.

CACEO greatly appreciates Assemblymember Pellerin's desire to ensure that voters in each county will always have a certified voting system in place to ensure an open, accessible, and accurate election.

Thank you, sir. We're going to now hear from others who want to put their name on the record in support of this measure, then we're going to hear from opposition. But this is a moment just to give your name and affiliation and your position. So those in support who want to register their views, come on up.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Eric Garris, Deputy of Legislative Affairs, on behalf of Secretary of State Dr. Shirley M. Weber, in support.

Thank you, sir.

Laurel Brodzinsky, on behalf of California Common Cause, in support.

Thank you.

Morning, Chair Members D'Artagnan Byrd of Ask Me California, in support of AB 969.

Thank you, sir.

Eric Harris with Disability Rights California, in strong support.

Thank you.

Noah Bartel, ACLU California Action, in strong support.

Thank you. Anyone else here in support? Seeing none. We'll go to opposition. Anyone in the hearing room who would like to testify in opposition to this Bill please come forward.

Colleen Britton, Election Integrity Project California, strongly opposes AB 969. We see it as an outrageous, desperate, de facto declaration of war by the state against self-governing county governments of California. It assumes that counties can't be trusted to ensure a viable election plan without oppressive state law. Shasta County Board of Supervisors acted responsibly. They did their due diligence, established a clear plan to meet the needs of their county based on the evidence presented in all considerations discussed. This is the role of local government.

Shasta followed many positive examples of counties and European countries that have preceded them in a similar decision. Those entities now conduct their elections free of manipulable election systems with same-day, verifiable results. Their changes are absolute proof that it can be done reliably, inexpensively, and with much more integrity. Meanwhile, California uses expensive, inscrutable election systems that lack protections from manipulation. It can't provide results for 30 days after Election Day. Nothing positive can come from the state's imposition of voting system mandate.

It only engenders more citizen anger and distrust, especially when that system remains fully reliant on the very technology that people know to be manipulable. The Halderman report raises more suspicions of ulterior motives. 969 sends a clear message there's something to hide. Part of that something resides in electronic voting systems. The Bill validates the suspicions that election fraud and manipulation are real, systemic, and are engineered from the top down. It's an obvious act of desperation. The urgency status of this Bill only amplifies that.

Prove us wrong and end AB 696 now. Instead, we urge you to support the ability of each county to determine what's best for them. Thank you. And vote no, please.

Thank you. Next witness in opposition. Anyone else here in the hearing room? Anyone want to register their position in opposition in the hearing room? Welcome, ma'am.

Jeanette Phelps, Sacramento County, opposed to this Bill.

Thank you. All right, seeing none, we'll go to the phone lines. Moderator, do you ask if there's anybody who would like to put their position on, their name and position on the record for AB 969.

If you would like to testify in support or opposition to AB 969, please press one zero. First, we'll hear from line 56. Line 56, please go ahead.

I'm in opposition to the AB 969.

Line 43.

April Bean, Sacramento County and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Line 30.

Johnson, Placer County, I strongly oppose AB 969. Thank you.

Line 33.

Ruth Weiss, San Diego County, in strong opposition to 969.

Line 13

Lee Manteberry, Placer County, strongly oppose this Bill.

Line 21

Joanne Bowen, Yolo County. I'm opposed to this Bill.

Line 24.

Peggy Wilson, Santa Barbara, California. Strongly oppose AB 969 and the fallacious.

Thank you very much. Next caller, please.

Line 11. Line 11.

Rob Dobbins, Placer County, strongly opposed.

Thank you, sir. Next caller, please.

Line 29.

Amy Cho, Placer County, strongly oppose AB 969.

Thank you.

Line 42.

Yes. Shirley Miloi from Placer County. I strongly oppose AB 969 because of freedom of choice.

Thank you. Next line, please.

Line 34.

This is Steve Cho from Placer County, strongly opposed to this Bill 969.

Thank you.

Line 16.

Gwen Myers, Placer County. I strongly oppose AB 969.

Line 50. Line 50, please go ahead.

Patricia Beebe, Last Californian, in absolute vehement opposition to AB 969.

Thank you. Next caller, please.

And Mr. Chair, there are no further comments.

All right, we'll bring the matter back to the Committee for comments and questions. Assemblywoman let me just thank you for bringing this Bill forward again. I appreciate your expertise in this area. Look, I heard from some of the opponents here today raising issues about interfering in self-governance. I don't think there's anybody here in the Legislature, I'm going to put myself up there that has more allegiance to local control than me.

But there's a point in which you want to have that autonomy, but if you're acting in a reckless manner that's going to deny people the right to vote, I think that's an appropriate place for the state to step in. So for me, it's a common sense measure that protects residents from irresponsible actions of a reckless county government. And some of the testimony that somehow says that they've done everything right, there's no proof of any of that.

I mean, they've created a hand count system that doesn't seem at all manageable given the number of people that will be participating in an election. Your Bill, as you have said, doesn't mean that a county can't pick a different system, but they can't blow up the whole voting system by chasing conspiracy theories about one voting system or another. So it's a smart Bill, it's carefully crafted, and I'm happy to support it today. Any other comments or questions from senators? Senator Umberg?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I concur with you being champion of local government. A question of Assembly Member Pellerin is that I'm cognizant of our responsibility to protect voters all throughout the state. But the question is, if one county decides to buy into conspiratorial theories and change its system of voting, does that impact the statewide tally?

Yes, I believe it will. And as it was stated in the analysis, it's really unclear how Shasta County will meet its legal obligation to report election results, especially in a timely fashion. And I think it greatly impacts the voters. This is really a voter experience situation where a voter is not being left with a state-certified, federally qualified system to ensure transparency, accuracy, security.

I mean, these systems go through huge testing at both the state and federal level, and there's voting system guidelines that are enacted that counties all must follow. And it's that kind of uniformity that ensures and protects our democracy.

But follow on question is that this is Shasta County. I represent Orange and LA counties in terms of statewide tally in the statewide vote, whether it's governor or president or whatever it may be, how does whatever Shasta County does impact the people that I represent in Orange and LA counties?

So we may not get those results on time, they may not be submitted legally and authorized by the Secretary of State, and there could be problems with certifying our statewide results as a result, as an outcome of that.

Thank you for bringing this common-sense measure.

Senator Newman.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, Assembly Member Pellerin, I want to commend you for the work you're doing this year. And I know it comes from substantial experience, past experience as an election official. Right. So who better than you to advise us on some of these changes? One of the witnesses made an assertion that there is something to hide, which I would argue is a strong statement. I think it's important to put on the record exactly why we're doing this and why we're not doing this.

So, Ms. Darling Allen, if you're available, if you wouldn't mind, because I think it is necessary to get this on the record. And so if you could speak as the election official in the county that is the subject of the Bill, do you have anything to hide? I think I know the answer to that. But more importantly, the rationale here, please.

So, no, we have nothing to hide. That's one of many, unfortunately, specious allegations that have been made over the last six months. And the allegation or the statement that Shasta County has done everything right in this process is absolutely untrue. The Board of Supervisors, which has statutory authority to manage the budget for every county and, of course, controls contracting as well, has the authority to cancel that contract, which they did without consultation with my office, anyone who works for me or with me directly.

So what that has resulted in. One of my colleagues asked me recently what I've been working on. How many hours a week am I spending doing this? And I said, I'm doing staff evaluations and working on developing a hand tally system. No other jurisdiction in the nation has ever done a hand tally of this size as a regular course of business. Audits are, of course, a totally separate category. Does that help answer?

Yeah, I think that's fine. So if you could, if you were to do this by hand accurately, how long would it take your office?

So currently we are using November 22s turnout numbers, which is just below 69,000 ballots. We are estimating, we're backing into the formula essentially, so we have 28 days in a presidential year to complete the canvas of votes in order to make those timely result reports to the Secretary of State. And so we've allowed ourselves 18 days of the 28. That hopefully allows enough time for reporting on the back end and then also retaliating where those results do not match or can't be verified.

So we have created a system that. We hope will work. We, of course, don't have any opportunity to test that until we have a special election this November. We anticipate hand counting that election and testing it. But we're talking about hundreds and hundreds of people, upwards of 500 people counting ballots. We do not have a building currently that we can do that in that's large enough for that kind of activity. And we are literally trying to suss out details. Do they get fingerprinted? Do they get paid by the hour?

Do they get paid by a stipend like a poll worker would? There are just a myriad of details that we're trying to hammer out here. And I can't stress enough how much better machines are at repetitive tasks than humans. We just aren't good at it. And we have done a lot of hand counts across California in the process of audits.

And all of us, I think, can attest that there are times when you have to recount and recount and recount a batch to get to the correct answer.

That is good. I appreciate it. Lastly, I think the assertion was made that because this is an urgency Bill, that you must be up to something. But I want to make clear the urgency here is a technical term. It doesn't speak to sort of the level of import assigned something. Urgency means that we have to do this in such a way that it is in place by the next scheduled election. Right. Hence the use of that provision. I appreciate it. Thank you. I'm glad to support the Bill today.

Maybe just to follow up, if I could, with the Clerk, was there any evidence presented that the system in which it was thrown out by your county was providing inaccurate results?

No.

No evidence ever presented?

No.

And it's used by how many counties now? 30.

There's 40 counties in California. Now it's 39.

So they jettisoned this current system without any evidence presented that it was flawed in any way, shape, or form.

They jettisoned the system based on flawed reports that started with the 2020 November election and have been amplified nationwide. I'm sure you all know what I'm talking about. And what was said in the hearing was that they had concerns.

No evidence was presented that in Shasta County, with your election system, that there was any flaws or inaccuracies in its work.

That's accurate.

So these are statements made about other parts of the country regarding systems that were similar, that was being applied to your work in Shasta under your current system that you've now thrown out?

Okay, good. All right. Anything further Members? Like to give you the opportunity to close.

Correct.

Yes. Thank you very much. And as you said, I spent 27 and a half years working as the chief elections official in Santa Cruz County. I know what it takes to do a hand count, that hand counts are very important in doing an audit of a machine count voting system. And in order to preserve and protect our democracy, voters deserve a state-certified, federally qualified voting system. I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you, Assemblywoman. I want to acknowledge a motion from a Member. Okay. Senator Menjivar has moved the Bill. This would be a do pass, and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call].

All right. We're going to hold that vote open for absent Members. Thank you, Assemblywoman. So I want to invite the remaining Committee Members to join us back here in the hearing room for our final vote tallies on the bills we've heard today. We've heard all the bills. We're going to go through them one additional time so Members can add on. We'll start with Item File Number One: Assembly Bill 34 by Assembly Member Valencia. The Secretary would open the roll.

The motion is 'do pass as amended and re-refer to the Committee on Governance and Finance' with the Chair voting aye. Senators Nguyen? Allen? McGuire? Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar, aye. Newman? Oh. They've already voted.

Okay, we'll hold that open for absent Members. We'll move next to File Item Number Two: AB 63. Please open the roll.

The motion is 'do pass and we re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations' with the Vice Chair voting aye. Senators Glazer? Aye. Glazer, aye. Allen? McGuire?

Okay, we'll hold the roll open for absent Members. We'll move next to Assembly Bill 292, File Item Number Three.

The motion is 'do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations' with the Vice Chair voting no. Senators Glazer? Aye. Glazer, aye. Allen? McGuire?

All right, we'll hold that open for absent Members. We'll move to File Item Number Four: AB 545. Please open the roll.

The motion is 'do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations' with the Chair voting aye. Senators Nguyen? Allen? McGuire?

All right, we'll hold the roll open for absent Members. File Item Number Five: AB 626. Please open the roll.

The motion is 'do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations' with the Chair voting aye and Vice Chair voting no. Senators Allen? McGuire?

All right, we'll hold that open for absent Members. We just did File Item Number Six. Let's move to File Item Number Eight: AB 1037. Please open the roll.

The motion is 'do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations' with the Chair voting aye and the Vice Chair voting no. Senators Allen? McGuire? Menjivar?Aye. Menjivar, aye.

We'll hold the roll open for absent Members. We'll move to the consent calendar. This is File Item Ten and Eleven: AB 1762 and 1559. Please open the roll.

On the consent calendar, Senators Allen? McGuire? Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar, aye.

All right. We're going to go in recess now and wait for our absent Members. We're going to open the roll for absent Members. We'll start with File Item Number One: AB 34. Please open the roll.

The motion is 'do pass as amended and re-refer to the Committee on Governance and Finance' with the Chair voting aye. Senators Nguyen? Allen? McGuire? Aye. McGuire, aye.

We'll hold that open for absent Members. File Item Number Two: AB 63. Please open the roll.

The motion is 'do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations' with the Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. Senators Allen? McGuire? Aye. McGuire, aye.

We'll hold that open for absent Members. We'll move to File Item Number Three: AB 292. Please open the roll.

The motion is 'do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations' with the Chair voting aye and the Vice Chair voting no. Senators Allen? McGuire? Aye. McGuire, aye.

We'll hold that open for absent Members. We'll go to File Item Number Four: AB 545. Please open the roll.

The motion is 'do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations' with the Chair voting aye. Senators Nguyen? Allen? McGuire? Aye. McGuire, aye.

We'll hold the roll open for absent Members. We'll move to File Item Number Five: AB 626. Please open the roll.

The motion is 'do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations' with the Chair voting aye and the Vice Chair voting no. Senators Allen? McGuire Aye. McGuire, aye.

We'll hold the roll open for absent Members. We'll go to File Item Number Six: AB 969. Please open the roll.

The motion is 'do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations' with the Chair voting aye and the Vice Chair voting no. Senators Allen? McGuire? Aye. McGuire, aye.

We'll hold the roll open for absent Members. We'll move to File Item Number Eight: AB 1037. Please open the roll.

The motion is 'do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations' with the Chair voting aye and the Vice Chair voting no. Senators Allen? McGuire? Aye. McGuire, aye.

All right, we'll hold the roll open for absent Members. We'll go to the consent calendar. This is File Item Number Ten and Eleven: AB 1762 and 1559. Please open the roll.

Senators Allen? McGuire? Aye. McGuire, aye.

We'll hold the roll open for absent Members. Okay, we'll go back in recess as we wait for absent Members. Thank you. Back to order. We're going to complete our vote count now. Final time for outstanding votes on our bills. We'll start with File Item Number One: Assembly Bill 34. Secretary, please open the roll.

The motion is 'do pass as amended and re-refer to the Committee on Governance and Finance' with the Chair voting aye. Senators Nguyen? Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Six/zero.

That bill is out six/zero. We'll move next to File Item Number Two: Assembly Bill 63. Please open the roll.

The motion is 'do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations' with the Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. Senators Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Seven/zero.

That bill is out seven/zero. We'll move next to File Item Number Three: AB 292. Please open the roll.

The motion is 'do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations' with the Chair voting aye and Vice Chair voting no. Senator Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Six/one.

That bill is out six to one. We'll move next to File Item Number Four: AB 545. Please open the roll again.

The motion is 'do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations' with the Chair voting aye. Senators Nguyen? Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Six/zero.

That bill is out six/zero. We'll move next to File Item Number Five: Assembly Bill 626. Please open the roll.

The motion is 'do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations' with the Chair voting aye. Vice Chair voting no. Senator Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Six/one.

That bill is out six to one. We'll move to File Item Number Six: Assembly Bill 969. Please open the roll.

The motion is 'do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations' with the Chair voting aye. Vice Chair voting no. Senator Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Six/one.

That bill is out six to one. We'll move next to File Item Number Eight. This is Assembly Bill 1037 by Assembly Member Berman. Please open the roll.

The motion is 'do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations' with the Chair voting aye. Vice Chair voting no. Senator Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Six/one.

That bill is out six to one. We'll move to the consent calendar. This is File Item Ten and Eleven: Assembly Bill 1762 and 1559. Secretary, please open the roll.

Senator Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Seven/zero.

The consent calendar is out seven to zero. That concludes our work of the Committee today. Thank you to all the individuals who participated in public testimony. If you're not able to testify, please submit your comments or suggestions in writing to the Senate Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments or visit our website.

Your comments and suggestions are important to us, and we want to include your testimony in the official hearing record. Thank you again. Appreciate your participation. That concludes our agenda. Thank you to our wonderful staff for their work today and prior to the hearing. The Senate Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments is adjourned.