Senate Standing Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments

Okay? The Senate Committee on Elections constitutional amendments will come to order. We currently don't have a quorum, so we'll begin as a Subcommitee. The Senate continues to welcome the public in person and via the Teleconference service for individuals wishing to provide public comment today. Our participant code, our participant number is 877-226-8216, and the access code is 650-4123. We're holding our Committee hearing in the O Street building.

I'd ask all Members of the Committee to be present in room 2100 so we can establish a corpsman, begin our hearing. We have nine measures on today's agenda, and let me first apologize for the late start to everybody. I appreciate everyone's patience. There's a lot of committees going on. In fact, I have to be in two committees right now, and we're going to have to figure that out as we go. But I know that we're making a couple different accommodations here.

Assembly Member Wilson, you're going to go first. As I understand it, Assembly Majority Leader Bryan has asked to go second, and Assembly Member Bonta, I hope that that will I'm sorry, will allow you to go third. But again, I apologize and appreciate everyone's patience. So with that, unless I'm missing something, Assembly Member Wilson, we would like to welcome you, and you have two measures on our agenda. Start with 868. That would be okay.

Yes, thank you.

Okay. You're welcome. And thank you. You can begin.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Senator. I'm pleased to present AB 868. The Digital Advertisement Transparency Accountability Act. This will create a centralized, searchable and user friendly public record of digital campaign advertisements that appear across multiple online platforms associated with the campaign or election. This Bill will require all digital ads paid for by campaign committees and specified information about those ads to be submitted to the Fair Political Practice Commission, also known as FPPC.

Campaign committees must be responsible for the content they produce for public consumption. Let me at first explain what exists now. AB 2188, signed into law in 2018, makes online platforms responsible for submitting certain digital ads that appear on their platforms. AB 868 maintains that responsibility as status quo, with an adjustment to transfer the date data to the FPPC. Once enacted, AB 868 would have campaign committees responsible for submitting all other digital ads online.

Platforms will be responsible for submitting certain digital ads that appear on their platforms and wait, excuse me. Committees would be required to submit their ads only if they spend 1000 or more on digital ads during a campaign statement reporting period, and that information would be due along the same deadlines as campaign statements. Committees would be authorized to contract with online platforms to transmit copies of the ad and information about the ads on behalf of the Committee.

This Bill would require the FPPC to make the ads and associated information available in a centralized and publicly accessible online format, like I said that is user friendly and searchable. Now, this easily accessed public resource would provide voters with more information about campaign activity, including the messaging used by campaigns and the amount and sources of money spent on ads in support or opposition of various campaigns. It will also provide greater transparency in our ongoing fight to reduce misinformation disinformation in the political discourse.

Now, my office has worked closely with not only the Senate Committee staff and thank you for that work, but also with California Claim Money campaign and the FPPC to attempt to come up with the best version of this Bill possible. I understand this has brought on concern from the platforms. However, as we make our way through the legislative process, we will continue discussions to alleviate those concerns.

As I have noted at the beginning of my remarks, and have maintained from the moment I introduced this Bill, it is my firm belief that campaign committees should shoulder the ultimate responsibility liability for the content they produce. Now, with me today to discuss this further is Lindsay Nakano from FPPC.

Great. And before you speak, let me just mention for everyone that our Committee practice has been two support witnesses, two opposition witnesses, two minutes each, and ask everyone to try to accommodate that. After that is done, on each measure, we'll ask people to do me too. They can put their name and affiliation into the record here in the Committee room or on the phone lines. But no further testimony will be provided until there's questions and answers from Committee Members. So you're welcome to start.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair Committee. Lindsay Nicano with the FPPC. The full Commission has not had a chance to review the most recent amendments to AB 868, but I have a statement from the Chair of the Commission, Mr. Richard Madditch, that I will read now. The statement was also cosigned by FPPC Commissioner Abby Wood on behalf of the California Fair Political Practices Commission. We want to thank Assemblymember Wilson for her stewardship of AB 868.

Which would enact the Digital Advertisement Transparency and Accountability Act The Bill is based on the recommendations made by the FPPC's Digital Transparency Task Force, which brought together academics, representatives of good government groups, campaign professionals, and regulators who sought to identify ways to improve transparency of digital political advertisements.

We believe AB 868 would unquestionably improve voters ability to know who is behind the many forms of digital political advertisements that have become so ubiquitous in our lives, and to hold those persons or groups accountable for the content of those advertisements. Earlier this year, the FPPC voted to sponsor and support AB 868 as introduced.

We believe the recent amendments to AB 868 are fully consistent both with the recommendations of the Commission's Task Force as well as the Commission's goals in sponsoring and supporting the Bill. In fact, we believe the amendments will improve upon the task force's recommendations and further strengthen the transparency of spending on digital transparency excuse me, digital political advertising.

We therefore wholeheartedly support AB 868, as amended, and look forward to recommending that our colleagues at the next Commission meeting in August vote to continue supporting this important legislation. Thank you. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Great. Thank you. Anybody else that wants to testify in support? Come on up. Come on up. Nobody? Okay, we'll go to opposition here in the hearing room. Come on up. Two minutes each would be the same rules, so go ahead.

Thank you. Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Jason Schmelzer. I'm here today on behalf of TechNet. I want to thank the author and her staff for the conversations that we've had over the past several months. Understand the situation is a little bit sticky, and hopefully we can be no longer in opposition shortly.

To be clear, we had no position on the prior version of the Bill, and our recent opposition is based solely on the recent amendments that would require online platforms as defined in the Bill, to report on behalf of candidates and committees. The authors fact sheets and I think the comments in Committee today make it pretty clear that the Bill is focused on accountability and transparency related to digital campaign ads placed by candidates and committees.

We're not here to express a position on whether or not this type of accountability is positive, but I would note that we did not have a position on the prior Bill, so we weren't in opposition to the prior Bill. However, we do oppose having online platforms fulfill the bill's reporting requirements. This is typically the responsibility of the candidate or Committee that's engaging in the speech covered by the Bill.

If 868 is focused on accountability and transparency for candidates and committees, we think it's rational to have them report to the state themselves. The analysis identifies a few reasons why it might make sense to have the platforms report. I'd like to address those briefly, if I could. First, the analysis notes that moving the reporting responsibility to platforms would limit the number of entities that are doing this reporting.

I would just observe that all of these candidates and committees are already reporting to the FPPC and already reporting on their behavior. So what the Bill would do is actually add online platforms so there will now be more entities reporting, not fewer. So I would take exception with that characterization in the analysis. Second, the analysis notes that political committees only are ad hoc and only exist for a short period of time.

I would just observe that that doesn't stop them from effectively doing all the other reporting that they're required to do under state law. So I don't think that that's a particularly good reason to have online platforms step into that role. Ultimately, 868 moves these obligations to platforms because the political reality is that these committees and candidates don't want to do this themselves. So I would just observe that we also don't think that's a particularly good reason to place this duty on the platforms ourselves.

It's sort of like requiring legislators and staff to report which lobbyists lobby which bills, instead of requiring lobbyists to do that. It's just sort of misaligned. We don't think it makes a ton of sense. For these reasons, we're opposed to the Bill, but look forward, hopefully, to not being opposed to the Bill in the future. And thank you for your time.

Thank you. Just Senator, glad to be back shortly. Do we have anybody else as a primary witness in zero, I'm sorry. Just take a number. Opposition. So, Ms. Rose, nice to see you testifying. Me too. Let's do it. So is anybody here, like, testifying opposition to the measure? Your name, your organization, your position, please.

Dora Rose, the Women of voters of California. Thank you very much for the amendments. They're excellent. We are in strong support. We're also Members of the Digital Transparency Task Force, and this is a great bill. Thank you.

Trent Lange, California Clean Money Campaign. Also in strong support. Also appreciate these perfect balanced amendments. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Lange. Next, please.

Cynthia Shallot, representing Indivisible, California State Strong, which has 80 chapters up and down the state supporting this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Jensen.

Kelly Jensen, representing the California Chamber of Commerce. We remain opposed to the Bill, but we'll continue to work with the author.

Laurel Brodzinsky, on behalf of California Common Cause. We had a support, if amended, position. To the prior version of the Bill and look forward to taking a look at the amendment.

Next, please.

Rob from Sacramento. Strong support.

Thank you, sir. Anybody else? Are we doing both support and opposition? Okay. I don't know. Is there anybody here who would like to speak on the Bill either in support or in opposition? Seeing none? So we got everybody. Let's go to the teleconference line. Mr. Moderator, if you could prompt anyone on the line who would like to testify either in support of or in opposition to AB 868.

Thank you. For in support or opposition of AB 868, you may press one and then zero. We will go to line 219. Your line is open. Line 219, do you have us on mute? All right, we will move on to 245. Your line is open.

Hello. This is Jaclyn Durer. I'm a public health advocate and I live in Sacramento and am in strong support of this transparency measure.

Thank you. Next, please.

Line 250. Line 250. Your line is open. And we move on to line 244. Your line is open.

Elisabeth Robledo with San Joaquin Valley Democratic Club in support of the Bill.

Thank you. Next, please.

Line 274. Your line is open.

I'm Ron Zucker, a clean money volunteer from Petaluma, in strong support of Aba 868.

Thank you. Next, please.

Line 251.

Yes. Michael Levinson. I've lived in Daly City since 1979 and a clean money supporter. Strong support of 868. Thank you.

Thank you, next, please.

Line 281. Yes, hello. Please proceed.

Sorry about that. My name is Pamela Smith and I've lived in San Francisco since '82 and I am in strong support of AB 868. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Line 257.

Hi. This is Shirley Shelfassy from Pleasant Hill. I'm a California Clean Money supporter and also...on coordinator, and I'm in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Line 239.

Yes, this is Amy Samuelson. I'm in San Jose and I'm a clean money supporter and I'm in support.

Thank you. And you have an awesome phone line. Next, please.

Thank you. Line 268.

Nancy Ness, Palo Alto, in support.

Line 260.

Jeff Tardegia, Advocate Sacramento in support.

Thank you. Next, please.

Line 270.

Graham Hui, Walnut Creek, in support.

Thank you. Next, please.

Line 269.

Amy Hui of Walnut Creek, in support.

Thank you. Next, please.

Line 227.

Yes. Hi. Jennifer Tanner for Indivisible California. Strong support.

Thank you. Next, please.

Line 284.

Hello. Rebecca Elliott, indivisible San Jose and California State strong in very strong support of this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Line 266.

Yes. Jim Davidson, Los Altos, in support.

Thank you. Next, please.

Line 273.

Craig Dunkerley, President of the Democratic 21st Century Club in San Jose, in support.

Thank you, next please.

263.

Cat Lange...Los Altos Hills. Strong support.

Thank you. Next, please.

Line 280.

James Pearson. California Clean Money Volunteer in strong support.

Thank you, next, please.

Line 289.

Judy Steele from Clovis, Clean Money volunteer in support of AB 868.

Thank you. Next, please.

Line 292.

Chris Hamilton from Clean Money Campaign in Berkeley, in support of the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you, next, please.

Thank you. And we go to line 295.

Kyoko Takayama, Livermore Indivisible. Strong support.

Excellent. Next, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, we have no further support or opposition in queue.

Very good. Let's come back to the dais. I saw Senator Allen. He disappeared. Senator Menjivar, any comments or questions for the author?

Hi, Assembly Member. I think this is the first time we've ever interacted this year.

Well, this is exciting.

Yes, it's exciting.

Welcome, everyone, to our show. I actually had a little bit of trouble just understanding this Bill. So if you could just and I missed your talking, your opening statement. Am I correct in understanding? Okay, so, Committee, a candidate would submit the digital advertisement onto this online platform for a consumer of the public to then research type in parameters. I'm looking for this XYZ. They'll come up and they'll see the actual advertisement, not just individual. A paid this amount for an advertiser, right?

Yes, absolutely. So currently, online platforms, they call them the Big Five. But the social media platforms have to do this, and they do it. Have a publicly searchable database on their own platform. So what this Bill does is it transfers that to FPPC. So there's one place you go to, and then candidates also have to submit all digital ads outside of what's submitted on this platform. So if you had my local paper is The Daily Republic.

And if I purchased directly with the Daily Republic a digital ad at the time that I turned in my report that showed that I spent money on that, digital ad. I would also have to submit that digital ad so consumers, so the constituents would know exactly not just, you know, money for a digital ad, but also what that ad said.

And so it creates that greater transparency, because with the mail piece, for instance, if I send you a piece of mail and, you know Senator Newman a piece of mail and they could be two different pieces of mail, the only way you would be able to know that two different pieces of mail went is that is by coming together. But in the online, you can research what kind of information and what kind of digital ads are being produced.

So it creates greater transparency and also what are people saying and what are the ways I look at is we've had in the last few election cycles a lot of disinformation or misinformation where we're targeting different people with different information. So it allows for greater sincerity for that as well.

Interesting. I mean, I'm all for I think I just won, and in my election, there's a digital ad run for my opponent that said Reelect XYZ, and he had never been in a seat before, so I thought that was interesting. So very supportive of this Bill. My last question to you is the amendment you'll be taking is now to move the responsibility to the actual candidate or Committee to report this to FPCC versus the online platform, aggregating everything and sending it up. Is that correct?

So originally, the original Bill was always the candidate or the Committee, the campaign Committee sending it in. The existing law AB 2188 had it to where the online platforms, the original Bill shifted that burden away from the platforms and then put it solely on the candidate. There was concern that the original Bill allowed for transparency. And there's those that, as you heard from testimony, as well as people who didn't support, felt like they fought hard for that transparency that first time.

And that could there be a compromise in a sense of allowing online platforms could continue to do that to help those small committees that have concerns about being able to adhere to that requirement. It is something new. We usually don't require people to submit anything except how they spent their money, but nothing else.

And so since it was something new and it was a small in an effort to help with small committees, there was a compromise reach of let's continue in the continuing allow online platforms, the Big Five, to continue to do what they were required to do under AB 2188. But it brings up additional concerns, and that's something we'll work through.

But the amendment is keeping the status quo law, keeping that status quo in AB 6868, which is my Bill instead of my Bill, would have overwritten that law.

Okay.

And so that's the amendment to allow that law that was based on AB 2188 to still continue to exist. And so we're working through all the concerns. And that's something that I've always done as a part of the legislative process that I've done for, I should say always, only the last 16 months that I've been here to make sure that we get the best Bill possible on the floor, trying to mitigate all unattended consequences.

And so we'll continue those discussions to ensure that we don't have unintended consequences in this Bill.

Thank you, Assembly Member.

Thank you, Senator Newman, for covering for me. I had to vote in another Committee, the Juggling Act that we have here. Assembly woman thank you for your patience. We're going to take a pause and establish a quorum, if that's okay. So if the Secretary would call the roll.

Senators Glazer here. Nguyen. Allen here. Mcguire. Menjivar here. Newman here. Umberg.

Okay, so we do have a quorum. Members, any further comments, questions, or discussions on this one? Senator Newman.

I'll be brief, but Assembly Member Wilson, I appreciate the Bill, not least of which because last year I carried a similar Bill, SB 921, which actually had some issues that we've discussed here, which ultimately did not pass the appropriation step in the Senate. So, looking forward to voting for this, and I commend you for working on it. But Mr. Connor from FPPC for being creative and diligent in finding a space to move this forward. To your point, digital advertisements, it's no longer as important how much money is spent.

It's also important how that money is spent. And to the extent that digital media can morph and transform and be micro targeted, it's really important to have a digital repository somewhere to, at a minimum, hold candidates accountable. Glad to support the Bill today.

Thank you. Senator Newman, any further comments or questions? Seeing none. Assemblywoman, I appreciate your work in this area. I think this is an important part of the public access to important information. Kind of checking that box. It certainly has evolved as our campaigning has evolved. And I appreciate your work in this area and happy to support your Bill with that. I'm looking for a motion from my colleagues. Senator Newman has moved the Bill. This would be a number five. Do pass and re refer to the Committee on Judiciary. Secretary please call the roll.

Senators Glazer aye. Nguyen. Allen aye. McGuire. Menjivar aye. Newman aye. Umberg.

Okay, we will put that Bill on call for absent members. Assemblywoman, we're going to go to your next Bill. This is file item number 6, AB 910.

Thank you. Appreciate it. So this is, as was noted, AB 910 and I'm pleased to present. It will allow a set clear requirement for individuals who want to run for County Auditor Controller by providing more information to the experience and educational requirements in Government Code Section 26945. This section includes the prerequisite, education, and work experience that is required to serve in the position of County Auditor Controller.

Portions of that section are extremely broad and has caused conflict regarding the lack of qualifications for individuals who appear on the ballot. This Bill would also amend Elections Code 13.5 by providing more direction to Registrars to verify the background and claims of the candidate prior to placing their name on the ballot, which is extremely important.

It is important that we know that individuals who are interested in running meet the qualifications and are prepared to fulfill the duties of County Auditor Controller, especially when you think about the vital role that they play in our communities. Today, my witness is Matt Siverling from the State Associations of County Auditors.

Welcome, and you have two minutes.

Mr. Chair and Members Matthew Siverling on behalf of the State Association of County Auditors. As mentioned by the Assembly Member, we're looking to clarify and add some specificity to the code sections that set up the prerequisites in order to run for the Office of County Auditor Controller. We want to put as much emphasis on the people who are choosing to seek this office to understand the requirements, to be able to find them, make sure they're up to date and accurate, and can facilitate those upon request.

Again, so the people that actually appear on the ballot are qualified. And the people that are casting the votes for these individuals know that any selection on the ballot is somebody who could actually fulfill the duties of the office. For these reasons, we urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Anyone else want to testify in support? Come on up.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Karen Lang on behalf of the County Association of Treasurers and Tax Collectors as well as the County of Solano. The Treasurer Tax Collectors share a lot of systems with the auditors, and I also happen to have the distinction of representing Nevada County, which is the most recent county that's gone through this. Prior to that it was Humboldt County. And I would emphasize the concern should be also for the taxing entities that are waiting for the apportionment.

So schools are really reliant on a qualified Auditor to make sure that the funds get to them. The cities are the same way, the special districts are the same way. And so making sure that there's a proactive affirmation of their qualifications and not just the penalty of perjury signature, I promise you, if they're willing to lie to the voters, I don't think they're going to break a sweat when they're signing paperwork. So affirmatively checking their qualifications and their education is vital.

Thank you for doing the Bill. We ask for your aye vote tonight. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, anyone else who wants to put their name in the record in support of the Bill, please come on up. All right, we're going to go to opposition here in the hearing room. Anybody here in opposition to this Bill? All right, seeing no one jumping to their feet, we're going to go to the phone lines. Moderator, if you can ask if anyone would like to put their name on the record in support or opposition of AB 910 by Assemblymember Wilson?

Thank you. For in support or opposition of AB 910, you may press one and then zero. And we will go to line 245.

Hello. This is Jacqueline Doer, and I live in Sacramento, California. I'm a public health advocate and I support this measure.

Thank you so much. Next caller, please.

Thank you. And Mr. Chair, we have no further support or opposition in queue.

Okay. We'll bring the matter back to the Committee for questions or comments. Members, any questions or comments? Seeing none, I'm very supportive of your Bill as well, and you're welcome to give us a close if you'd like.

Thank you. Well, I respectfully ask for an aye vote as my very first job in government was, as in the Auditor Controller's Office, as an internal Auditor. So this is important to me. And we had a near miss while I was serving there with these type of issues. And so glad for this to be a Bill that I get to submit, introduce, and stand before you today on.

Terrific. Looking for a motion from my colleagues. Senator Menjivar has moved the Bill. This would be a do pass and we refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Secretary, please call the role.

Senators Glazer? Glazer aye. Nguyen? Allen? Allen aye. McGuire? Menjivar? Menjivar aye. Newman? Newman aye. Umberg?

All right, so it has four votes. Thank you so much for being a part of our conversation today. And we're going to put that Bill on call for absent members.

Okay, thanks again for everyone for their patience. We're going to move next to Assembly Member Bryan. He has three measures before us today. I don't know if he has a preference for order, but come on up.

Is the order my preference?

Yes.

Then I would like to start with 1248.

Okay, so we'll begin. This is File Item Number Four: Assembly Bill 1248. Assembly Member, welcome, and you can begin anytime.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Senators. I come to present 1248, a bill that levels the playing field across California and would give county cities, charter cities, and all jurisdictions that contain over 300,000 residents, it would force them to establish independent redistricting commissions by 2030. It would also require school districts and community colleges that contain over 500,000 residents to establish an independent redistricting commission by 2030. This is not a top down approach. It's a bottom up approach.

We are empowering local jurisdictions to design for themselves an independent process. Everywhere we look across California, we see independent redistricting commissions thriving and proving that they are the appropriate way to draw political boundaries. We should not be drawing our own political boundaries, and for the last several years, Chair, you and I know this well, we have been piecemealing this across the state. Riverside, Fresno, LA County, Sacramento County. Onward and onward. Orange County.

This is an approach that really answers the question and the calling that's coming statewide. It also brings into other jurisdictions besides counties because, as we learned in my home City of Los Angeles where we saw elected officials conspiring to gerrymander for their own political purposes to preserve their own political power at the expense of communities of interest and communities that deserve to participate in the process, there's a state solution that's required, and this is that state solution.

With me to testify is Laurel Brodzinsky of California Common Cause and Faith Lee from Asian Americans Advancing Justice.

Good afternoon, Members. My name is Faith Lee. I'm with Asian Americans Advancing Justice, Southern California, also known as AJSOCAL. We are a social justice organization, also a legal service provider serving the AAPI community and beyond in various Asian languages. At the most recent redistricting cycle, AJSOCAL worked with the AAPI and AMEMSA Redistricting Collaborative to capture our community's diversity and interests to develop responsive and equitable district maps.

Our experience in mobilizing community members to advocate for their communities and neighborhood affirm the bedrock importance of independent redistricting commissions. Through IRCs, residents are able to have a platform to share what unites their neighborhoods and communities, and they're able to learn from each other and identify district lines that really empower those most often disenfranchised and underrepresented by partisan mapping. IRC allows for deliberation and line drawing in public, sometimes even adjusting district lines in real time in response to community testimony.

I want to share a case study from the report of Promise of Fair Maps in San Diego. More than 300 refugee community members in the Black, Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim, and South Asian BAMEMSA community participated in the state, county, and city redistricting process. These members reported a starkly different experience organizing in San Diego County, which used an IRC compared to the City of El Cajon, which was located in the county but did not have an IRC.

They did not feel that their testimony was well received by the city, and some shared that they felt intimidated by supporters of incumbent council members. The City Council ended up adopting existing maps without any changes, but when they participated in the San Diego County IRC process, they felt much more welcomed to testify remotely and in person. The IRC allowed time for representation by the group and testify remotely and in person.

Oh, they made--the community members felt that the San Diego IRC were committed to growing their understanding of the BAMEMSA community. So we're excited to co-sponsor AB 1248 so more Californians are empowered to make their voices heard and participate in drawing district lines that suit their communities. Thank you.

Thank you. Others in support.

Thank you. Laurel Brodzinsky on behalf of California Common Cause, proud co-sponsor of the measure. Quite simply, voters and communities should have the right to choose their elected officials rather than the elected officials choosing their voters and that means putting the authority to adopt new district boundaries into the hands of an independent body puts communities first.

We worked with partner organizations in the 2020 Cycle to monitor over 100 different jurisdictions, and, as my colleague pointed out, came out with a report, The Promise of Fair Maps, which found that overall, while many jurisdictions might do a good job on their own of creating an inclusive and fair process, many do not. We found in our observations across the state that when jurisdictions utilized an independent redistricting commission, they were more likely to keep communities whole in the process, particularly marginalized or underrepresented communities.

They were more likely to encourage and be responsive to community feedback, more likely to have transparent and high integrity processes, and showed no evidence of trying to protect incumbents or draw maps that advance the interests of one political party over another. Independent commissions also generally led to significantly higher public participation because they offered more hearings and the public and community groups actually had more confidence that their testimony would be heard and taken seriously compared to when legislative bodies were drawing their own lines.

AB 1248 most importantly recognizes that local gerrymandering is a problem across the state and in need of a comprehensive solution to truly empower Californians. AB 1248 would require the use of independent commissions in larger jurisdictions, letting them create a local independent commission on their own and only imposing a default commission structure should they pass the deadline of January 1st, 2030. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Alrighty, thank you very much. Others in the hearing room in support, please approach the microphone. Your name, your affiliation, and your position.

Good afternoon. Dora Rose, League of Women Voters of California, co-sponsor in strong support. I also have the proxies of a number of other organizations in support: Alameda County Coalition for Fair Redistricting, Ella Baker Center, Redwood Heights Indivisible, Jen Cavenaugh, the mayor of the City of Piedmont, and AAPIs for Civic Empowerment. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Hello. Sky Allen with Inland Empire United in support.

Thank you.

Ruth Dawson, ACLU California Action, in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. D'Artagnan Byrd with AFSCME California in support.

Thank you.

Howdy. Marquis King Mason with California Environmental Voters in support. Thanks.

Thank you.

Hi. Evan Minton, Voices for Progress in strong support.

Thank you. Anyone else in the hearing room? Seeing no one approach the mic--oh, one more. You got to be quick here. Alright, there you go.

California Clean Money Campaign in support.

Alright, thank you. Anyone else? Seeing no one else approach the microphone, let's turn to the opposition. If you're in opposition to AB 1248, please approach the microphone.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Jean Hurst here today on behalf of the Urban Counties of California, along with a coalition of county organizations with an opposed unless amended position on AB 1248. I want to start out by saying, we get it. We understand that the Legislature would like local agencies to have independent redistricting commissions that operate a lot like the California Citizens Redistricting Commission. We get it.

Where it does become challenging at the local level, however, is the mechanics of ensuring that these commissions understand--are operating in a manner that ensures independence and supports the public trust in the process and in the outcome. We believe that in order to achieve those goals, more must be done to support these efforts at the local level. This includes financial resources and technical assistance for local agencies to work through the process to ensure that they're able to effectively deliver on the promise of independent redistricting.

We have suggested amendments that would limit the scope of the bill in 2031 to those cities and counties with populations of 500,000 and to incorporate an independent assessment of the 2021 redistricting process in these jurisdictions to better understand the outcomes and impacts faced by local agencies, their independent commissions and stakeholders before expanding a mandate to convene an independent redistricting commission to additional jurisdictions.

We do have concerns about the capacity for counties in between that 300 to 500,000 in population to effectively carry out the provisions of the measure, and we think an independent study of the proposed redistricting commissions before expanding the requirements of the measure allows for sharing of best practices, an assessment of necessary resources, and an understanding of common challenges in order to help facilitate successful implementation in smaller communities.

If these efforts are to truly be successful, we think the state must do more to ensure that counties have the resources they need to effectuate a process that the Legislature expects and that voters deserve, and we appreciate your consideration of our concerns. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members, Paul Yoder on behalf of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors. Just very quickly, in terms of piecemealing--and the analysis does a really good job about talking about the other counties that have had one off bills thrust upon them--if this bill doesn't apply equally to all of the large, medium-sized counties in California, you've endorsed piecemealing, and I would just respectfully submit to you the Fresno Board would actually like the bill amended so that instead of being subjected to the bill run by Assembly Member Arambula last year, they could just be subject to this bill like other large and medium-sized counties in California.

That would end the piecemealing. That's the request of the Fresno Board. Again, the analysis--spot on. Thank you for that, and I just--to the author, love to talk to you about it more. I think if we're going to do this, and it seems like we are, then it ought to just be the law for equally spread across the counties. Thank you.

Alrighty, thank you very much. Others who are in opposition, please approach the microphone. Give us your name, your affiliation, your position.

Sarah Dukett on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California, opposed unless amended. Looking forward to working with the author to hopefully set counties up for success. Thank you.

Alrighty, thank you very much.

Eric Lawyer on behalf of the California State Association of Counties and the California Special Districts Association. We respectfully oppose unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you. Alright, seeing no one else approach the microphone, let's turn to the phone lines. Moderator, please queue up those who are in support or opposition to AB 1248.

Thank you. If in support or opposition of AB 1248, you may press one and then zero. We will go to line 279.

This is Isabel Sorrie and I am calling on behalf of--I'm getting echo--anyway, on behalf of Indivisible StateStrong, coalition of 80 groups, Indivisible Westside Los Angeles, and Santa Monica Democratic Club who have all endorsed AB 1248 in support.

Thank you. Next please.

Line 245.

Yes, this is Jacqueline Dewar, a public health advocate and a resident of Sacramento, and please support this bill.

Thank you.

Line 287.

Hi. Nancy Latham from Oakland and Indivisible East Bay, California StateStrong, in support of 1248.

Thank you.

Line 305.

Hi. Carla Kincaid-Yoshikawa from San Francisco in support of this bill.

Thank you.

Line 310.

Hi. This is Sietse Goffard with Asian Americans Advancing Justice, Asian Law Caucus, and we strongly support this bill.

Thank you.

Line 295.

Akio Kotakanama, Alameda County Coalition for Fair Redistricting, Indivisible, strong support.

Thank you.

Line 219.

This is Mike Beggs in San Jose. I'm in support.

Thank you.

Line 293.

This is Leah Pressman, Culver City, California, in support.

Thank you.

Line 244.

Elisabeth Robledo, San Joaquin Valley Democratic Club, Fresno, in support of the bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, and we do have one more while they get their line number. Line 276. One moment. 276, your line is open.

Al Sattler. I live in Los Angeles area RPV, Senator Allen's district. I support this bill. Politicians should not choose their own districts. Thank you.

Thank you. Alright.

Thank you. And, Mr. Chair, we have no further support or opposition in queue.

Alright. Bring it back to Committee for questions, concerns. Seeing no--Mr. Allen.

I just want to move the bill, and I want to thank Assembly Member for his leadership on this. I think the point's well taken. I mean, the way we've crafted this bill is to provide a set of options. We give flexibility to locals, but with the core principle being that there ought to be a fair set of standards.

Politicians shouldn't be drawn on their own lines, but there can be some flexibility within the local context to choose different options, and of course, some of the one off bills that we've had have not provided any flexibility and that's why I just think that this bill is the right approach and I'm hopeful, actually, this will kind of put the issue to bed. We'll create a model where people can feel confident about the redistricting systems, and we can go from there, but I do think some of the comments that have been made raise some interesting issues.

Well, what about those counties that have already been covered by previous legislations that are far more prescriptive? But that's certainly no reason not to support this bill today. It's a very important reform. I'm proud to be part of it and very grateful to your leadership on this issue, Assembly Member. I'll move it when appropriate.

Alright. The bill has been moved. As to Mr. Yoder's comment and following on Senator Allen's comment about having a bill--perhaps this bill supersede the other piecemeal legislation, perhaps you can address that in your close.

Sure. I definitely think it's an interesting thing to talk about. We hadn't raised it before, particularly for the commissions that were put into statute after the last redistricting process because a number of these predated the lines that were just drawn for us. No one in particular came afterwards, I believe, and so there's a conversation potentially to be had. It's the first I'm hearing of this particular idea, but we want to do this right.

We want to ground this in the principles that have been stated by all the witnesses and many, many people across California. We shouldn't be drawing our own lines. The people should be drawing those lines, but it should come from a grassroots effort, not a top down effort. That's what we've done here in this bill.

I also want to thank my Colleague, Senator Allen, for all of his leadership and partnership in making sure that this process is one that is bicameral in terms of how we talk about it because it's worthy of that discussion, and again, I respectfully ask your aye vote.

Thanks. I'd ask you to consider what Mr. Yoder said so that we do have sort of a standard practice in California that there's some economies with respect to research, analysis, even those who are implementing. So, thank you. With that, Madam Secretary, if you would call the roll.

This is File Item Number Four: AB 1248. The motion is 'do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Governance and Finance.' Senators Glazer? Aye. Glazer, aye. Nguyen? Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. McGuire? Aye. McGuire, aye. Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar, aye. Newman? Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye.

Alright, the vote is five/zero. We'll put that on call. Thank you. I'm going to pass the gavel back to the Chair. Thank you. Congratulations to you, Assembly Member Bryan, on your newfound leadership position. To the extent that I've been obsequious in the past, I'm going to up that obsequiousness here in the future.

Thank you, Senator Umberg, for sharing in my absence. Once again, I had other Committee obligations I had to fulfill. My apologies to the Member. So we can go to the next bill. Your choice as to what you want to hear next.

Let's go with 764.

Okay. This is file item number three, AB 764. Begin whenever you're ready.

Welcome back, Mr. Chair. And thank you, colleagues. Four years ago, the Legislature approved the first major change to the local redistricting rules in decades to the adoption of the FAIR MAPS Act. The result was a more transparent and participatory redistricting process in 2021 and 2022. There's a lot to celebrate about the improvements that California has made in the redistricting process, but there's still some work that needs to be done.

In particular, we continue to see incumbency protection prioritized at the expense of keeping neighborhoods whole and community of interests together. Furthermore, the first round of redistricting conducted under the FAIR MAPS Act highlighted the potential for refinement to further improve the process. AB 764 builds on California's good work in promoting a transparent and inclusive redistricting process. It prohibits the consideration of incumbency protection in redistricting and strengthens public engagement requirements and transparency measures based on lessons learned from the 2021 redistricting cycle.

AB 764 also extends key reforms, from the FAIR MAPS Act to school districts and special districts. Finally, AB 764 creates a clear procedure, including a notice and cure process, to ensure compliance with these important reforms. Before I conclude, I want to address briefly the opposition of the bill. I want to acknowledge the good work of the many jurisdictions in the 2021 redistricting process. Notwithstanding significant challenges due to the COVID-19 pandemic. And in building on the reforms of the FAIR MAPS Act, I agree that it's essential that we ensure that all local governments have the tools to conduct a successful redistricting process in 2031 and beyond.

My office has been deeply engaged with the opposition on this bill, as we are with all of our bills, and is committed to continuing to work with the county organizations and all other interested parties to make sure that this bill is successful and can be successfully implemented. Joining me today to testify and support are Laurel Brodzinsky with California Common Cause and Sky Allen with Inland Empire United.

Welcome. Thank you. Come on up.

Good afternoon. Thank you, majority leader, for inviting me to speak with you, and thank you, Chair and committee, for giving me the opportunity to share. I work with Inland Empire United. We're a civic engagement table serving San Bernardino and Riverside counties. As a civic engagement table, we did a lot of work on both census and redistricting, and once we concluded our census outreach immediately pivoted to start to memorize all of the many redistricting rules with the FAIR MAPS Act being our North Star.

There are a lot of moving pieces to redistricting, as we all know, and the FMA gave our groups a structure that we could rely on. We knew that we would have a week notice before any of the hearings, that there were very specific criteria through which to draw and evaluate proposed maps, and there will be at least, though often only, four hearings to get our preferences across.

I believe that all of our maps are without a doubt, stronger than they would have been without the FAIR MAPS Act. Still, there are ways we can strengthen it and further protect the interests of communities ahead of the next redistricting cycle. An easy starting place, I think, would be to include special districts and school districts. The process for redrawing those areas should be the same as redrawing a city.

Next, I'd say our biggest challenge with counties in my area were that cities were treated equal to COIs. Community-proposed maps were discarded, often for city splitting, regardless of the COISs that were documented as reasons why. And regularly, cities were referred to as communities of interest instead in order to sway aboard away from community alternatives. Further, from my experience, local elected officials do have a lot on their agenda, so they're often not going above and beyond lawful minimums if they don't feel they need to.

Despite the size of the two counties in my region, most officials did the minimum amount of community engagement, often did not offer remote options to participate, and only scheduled the minimum number of hearings. If you all raise the bar now, the minimum will be a lot more accessible next time around. So I hope you will approve this bill. Thanks so much.

Thank you so much. Next witness.

Thank you. Laurel Brodzinsky, again, on behalf of California Common Cause, proud co-sponsor. As I previously mentioned, Common Cause, along with our partner organizations of ACLU, the League of Women Voters, and Asian Americans Advancing Justice, completed a study of the 2020 redistricting cycle with observations of over 100 different local jurisdictions. And as the Assemblymember mentioned, overall redistricting in this past cycle was a lot better than we saw previously in terms of public transparency, engagement, and keeping communities whole.

But as with many things, with the first implementation of a bill, you do start to notice loopholes, deficiencies, ambiguities, and other things that went wrong in the process. And these ranged from anything as small as not getting websites up before the first public hearing because there wasn't defined deadlines for that, to really engaging in gerrymandering to protect incumbents because it wasn't explicitly included in the FAIR MAPS Act. So each provision of AB 764 has a direct relation to things that we observed in the 2020 cycle, really trying to make sure that in the next decade this process is better and strengthening the FMA and expanding it to other, the criteria to other jurisdictions. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much. So now we'll open it up to others who want to indicate their position of support of the bill. Just your name and your affiliation, please.

Dora Rose. League of Women Voters California, co-sponsors and in strong support.

Thank you.

Ruth Dawson, ACLU California Action, in strong support as co-sponsors. Also support Secure Justice. Thank you.

Thank you.

D'Artagnan Byrd, AFSCME California, in support.

Thank you.

I'm Faith Lee with Asian Americans Advancing Justice, Southern California. We're in support.

Thank you.

Trent Lange, California Clean Money Campaign, in support.

Thank you. We'll next turn to opposition. Anyone here in opposition that like to come up and testify under our time limits?

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Jean Hurst here again on behalf of the Urban Counties of California with a coalition of local government associations with an opposed unless amended position on AB 764. A little variation on the theme. I do want to start out by expressing our appreciation for the outreach and engagement from the author and sponsors as well as from this committee. We have offered amendments in the spirit of those conversations and in the spirit of ensuring that counties can successfully execute new requirements associated with FAIR MAPS Act Two.

Also want to note for the committee that from nearly all accounts, local agencies faithfully executed the original FAIR MAPS Act under extraordinary circumstances. Delays from the Federal Census Bureau, obviously impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic, and really the first time we were implementing this new law. To our knowledge, these efforts were largely successful. So obviously, we're concerned about requiring new and additional requirements with limited resources, without evidence of shortcomings. That said, we appreciate the sponsor's goals of increasing transparency and public awareness.

Our concerns and suggested amendments fall in three categories. There are a number of new reporting requirements in AB 764 with strict and short publishing deadlines that we think will make compliance challenging. To that end, we've offered amendments that we believe reasonably extend timeframes to allow us to successfully meet statutory requirements. Considerable additional public meeting requirements will also be challenging to plan and execute.

We've offered amendments that in most cases increase the number of public hearings, just not to the extent that sponsors had originally proposed. Finally, and perhaps most concerningly, AB 764 contains a new private rate of action that allows for litigation, for prevention of future violation or threat of violation in addition to an actual violation. We think this is not acceptable. Local agencies cannot avoid litigation if they can be sued for actions that they have not yet taken.

And we believe existing law provides for appropriate, robust review of local actions, and the courts have not hesitated to intervene when those actions do not comply with applicable law. As a result, we've requested that these provisions be struck from the bill. While we appreciate sponsors' interest in improving the FAIR MAPS Act, we are concerned that in its current version, AB 764, imposes conditions on local agencies that will make it more challenging to comply, subjecting our members to additional litigation, and potentially undermining the public's trust in the process. We look forward to additional dialogue to help address some of those concerns. Thank you.

Great. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Johnnie Pina with the League of California Cities. And before I get started, I was, through the chair, was wondering if I could donate part of my time to mister.

Well, that's not generally our practice here, so just want to use your time as well as you can use it.

You got it. Okay.

I'm trying to be fair to all sides so that's the rules of the committee.

Understood. Johnnie Pina with the League of California Cities. Respectfully in a position of opposed unless amended. I too would like to extend my appreciation for the author, sponsors, and the committee staff for working with us on this bill. As was previously stated, local governments in good faith did good work to implement the FAIR MAPS Act under difficult circumstances. While we certainly want a process that is transparent and encourages public participation, AB 764 creates a litany of new demands on election officials and would increase operational cost to local agencies with constrained budgets with no state funding to offset these new duties.

Additionally, because proving partisanship is ambiguous for nonpartisan offices, in conjunction with the new private right of action by specifically enumerating partisan gerrymandering for offices that are constitutionally enshrined as nonpartisan offices. There is concern that any interested party could file suit against the local agency based purely on perception of partisanship. Again, we certainly appreciate the sponsor's intent but are concerned about how the proposed changes could impact local agencies. We look forward to ongoing discussions, but for the time being, we're opposed.

Great.

Unless amended. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Now, opportunity to put your name on the record and position.

Mr. Chairman and members, Paul Yoder on behalf of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors, opposed the bill unless money is included for the counties that do this. Last year, Kern got.

Thank you, sir.

$1.0 million to redistrict in Fresno.

Thank you. Thank you for putting that on the record. Next speaker, please.

Sarah Dukett on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California, respectfully opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you.

Eric Lawyer, on behalf of the California State Association of Counties and the California Special District Association, respectfully opposed unless amended.

Great. Any other witnesses in opposition here in the hearing room? Okay, we're going to go to the phone lines. Moderator, if you could ask anyone who wants to put their name and affiliation on the record, in support or in opposition to AB 764.

Thank you. For in support or opposition of AB 764, you may press one and then zero. We will go to line 279. Line 279, your line is open. We'll move on to line 245.

Yes, good afternoon. This is Jacqueline Duerr, a public health advocate and resident of Sacramento, California, and I support this bill.

Thank you. Line 312. Your line is open.

Can you hear me?

Yes, please go ahead.

Hi. This is Igor Treggub, chair of the Alameda County Democratic Party. On behalf of the Alameda County Democratic Party, we offer our enthusiastic support. Thank you.

Thank you. Line 313. Your line is open.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Tom Sheehy, on behalf of the Orange County Board of Education, in opposition to AB 764 for the same reasons as previously articulated by the League of Urban Counties.

Thank you. Next caller, please.

Line 295.

Kyoko Takayama, Alameda County Coalition for Fair Redistricting, and Livermore Indivisible, in strong support.

Thank you.

Line 286.

Yes. Ethan Nagler on behalf of the City Clerks Association of California, opposed unless amended. We align our comments with the counties. Thank you.

Line 314.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Teja Stephens, calling on behalf of Catalyst California, in strong support.

Line 316.

On behalf of Asian Americans Advancing Justice, also known as Asian Law Office. And we wholeheartedly support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. 293.

Hello, this is Leah Pressman from Culver City, in strong support.

Thank you, 305.

Hi, this is Carla Kincaid-Yoshikawa from San Francisco, in support.

Thank you. Line 244.

Elisabeth Robledo, San Joaquin Valley Democratic Club, Fresno, in support of the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Line 279.

Isabel Storey, on behalf of the Santa Monica Democratic Club, in strong support of AB 764.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 300.

This is Jan Dietrick, policy team leader for 350 Ventura County Climate Hub, in very strong support. Thanks.

Thank you, line 219.

This is Mike Beggs in San Jose, in support.

Thank you. And Mr. Chair, we have no further support or opposition in queue.

Great. Well, thank you to all those who've come to provide their input. We'll bring the matter back to the committee members for questions or comments. Questions or comments? Senator Umberg.

Thank you. I'm going to support the bill, but just a couple of questions. In terms of the private right of action, is that only for injunctive relief, or does it provide for damages as well?

I believe that it applies for both, but we can definitely look into that. The counties are already they're already being sued for violations under the FAIR MAPS Act. What we're trying to ensure in this bill is compliance. And so we are going to work with the opposition to find the right landing spot for this. But that's the purpose of the private right of action. And a reminder, counties are already being sued for violations of this.

All right, well, I see heads shaking the affirmative. So in terms of damages, Mr. Chair, would you mind if I ask somebody what I've looked through the bill, I don't see the formula for whether it's statutory damages or there's some trouble damages.

Is there a witness you want to call back up?

Someone in opposition. If someone in opposition is familiar with it. And then the second question, while they're approaching the microphone, is that attorneys fees, are they required or are they permissive? And I'll ask the bet the opposition knows the answer.

Spoken like a judiciary.

Right. Right.

Do we have a technical witness in the room who can help?

Okay, I don't claim to know.

And identify yourself for the record, please.

Apologies. Jean Hurst on behalf of the Urban Counties of California. We are currently subject to a writ of mandate under Civil Code of Procedure, and we do get sued.

The question is not whether the writ of mandate applies, it's whether or not there's two different issues and I don't want to spend a lot of time. But injunction says, hey, you can't do this, or rid of mandate says you must do this, versus saying not only can you not do this, but you now are entitled to compensatory and punitive damages because you did thus and such.

And Senator, correct me if I'm wrong, that would also depend on what kind of a lawsuit you're filing and when, for what purposes under the violations under the FAIR MAPS Act. Right? For instance, if you had scheduled not to host the required number of meetings, you could be sued for that. But if you are still under the redistricting process, it could be injunctive, it could be rectified without damages having been done. But had you committed something that is in clear violation that can't be remedied, then a damage conversation might be appropriate. No?

Well, this is not coming to the Judiciary.

That's what I thought.

Continue to look at it. But the issue would be whether or not there's damages that are in addition to injunctive relief and how those damages are calculated. And then on the second part is whether or not attorneys fees are permissive or required.

I would hope that there is no jurisdiction that violates the FAIR MAPS Act to any degree that would require even an appropriate conversation of what damages are. But to the extent that that ever happens, I think all things should be on the table. Right? There should be nothing that's happening across jurisdictions in California that we can't fix with injunctive relief or with substantive changes that can cure the problem to the fact that damage and actual harm is done in a way that would satisfy the courts to award damages. I couldn't argue in favor of why that wouldn't be appropriate.

Okay. All right. We'll continue to look at this. So thank you.

I guess the one thing would be this bill goes next to governance and finance, and maybe in the meantime you can have a.

Would love a conversation

Dialogue on that. Okay. Other comments or questions from members? Comments or questions? Assemblymember maybe you could provide some response to the Urban County, the local issues that they raised. Less so on the reimbursement, less so on the public hearings, but just on the burdens they feel in being able to do this in an appropriate way. And any thoughts you have about that?

Yeah, there are a number of parts of the bill, including the hearings, where we have tried to take a tiered approach to account for large urban jurisdictions versus more rural ones. Again, we have another committee. We are more than willing to meet with the opposition to continue to fine-tune. We've made adjustments this far and feel pretty optimistic we'll land in a landing spot that's good for all of California. The fact that it's difficult to ensure that the public is engaged in this process, I think is why it's important that we require it.

Indeed, I certainly agree with that. And that's why I'm going to support your bill today because I think it's headed in the right direction. I think that as we have talked about the stress points, they have the time also, to be clear, 2030 is a long ways away, and there's time for them to prepare for this appropriately so they can fulfill the requirements of the bill.

I do think, and this relates to the bill you had earlier, that there is some level a lack of sophistication by some of these entities that you include in your bill that likely are not the concerns that you would have about people doing it inappropriately. But nevertheless, I appreciate that you're trying to set an important value statement on the state record here for all of them to follow.

But I do worry about some of these jurisdictions and the ability to get the help they need to make sure they do it right. And certainly because you give them the landing time, the lead time, I am hopeful that will be helpful. You'll still be here to work through some of those issues in that year. Any other further comments or questions? Assemblymember, would you like to close?

I just want to thank all the witnesses, everybody who's come. It's critically important that all of the voters of California feel, all of the people of California, feel included in the drawing of our political boundaries, eel included in making sure that our democracy is truly representative of the people. Amending the FAIR MAPS Act to fine-tune from the lessons that we learned in the last redistricting process is not only appropriate and necessary, but I think it's a responsibility we have as a government. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Great. Can I get a motion? Senator Allen. This would be a do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Governance and Finance. With that, Secretary, please call the role.

Senators Glazer. Aye. Glazer, aye. Nguyen. Allen. Allen, aye. McGuire. McGuire, aye. Menjivar. Menjivar, aye. Newman. Umberg. Umberg, aye.

So, we're going to put that bill on call for absent members. So I appreciate everybody's patience today. We're going to take just a short, maybe five or so minute recess. So we'll come back in just a moment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Committee, staff, colleagues, community, everybody who has played a role in this monster important, necessary, timely piece of legislation first would like to formally accept the submission of the RN that is not in print, but is reflected in the Committee analysis. I would also like to address conversations that I've had with the Chair for many, many weeks and into the last three minutes. We have many points of agreement.

The language on the ballot question for referendums will remain in the Bill, but will be finalized in collaboration and in work with the Secretary of State who will agree to it. Her final recommendation is what we will end up with for the ballot question. I'll accept author amends to remove the disclosures of the top three funders from the ballot itself and instead include the funders in the official voter information guide so the people can still find it.

I will continue to work with the Chair and a neutral party that will be responsible for the language on this disclosure that will be in the voter information guide. The Chair and I have also agreed that AB 421 will be the only legislative vehicle to move forward with the ability for a referendum to be withdrawn from the ballot. And I graciously appreciate the Chair for holding his own vehicle and allowing this Bill to represent the legislative focus on this issue.

The ballot referendum process is a people driven process that was designed over 100 years ago to allow the people to check the Legislature. What we're seeing in recent years is that that check has been subverted by a concentration of various special interests. Bipartisan cross aisle in Californians believe it and they know it, as has been indicated by recent polling and recent election cycles.

We need to return this back to a people driven process by increasing transparency, increasing integrity and honesty so that the people can continue to check the work that we do, but not have their voice manipulated, misused, or have others masquerading as the people proclaiming to represent them. That is the effort of this Bill. That is the effort of the constellation of organizations and community who have come together to put this Bill together. And I respectfully ask for your I vote with me today to testify. Got Terry Bernard with SEIU, Marquis Mason from Enviro Voters, and Joan Cardellino. One of them is a technical witness.

Good, because we have two witnesses, two minutes each is kind of our correct.

One is just a technical witness.

Okay. We'll be sure to ask them a question or something so they can get involved too. All right, so with your two witnesses, come on up. Welcome you to the Committee.

Good evening, Senate Committee Chair Glazer and Members of the Senate Elections Committee. My name is Joan Cardellino. I'm an Oakland resident and a Member of Indivisible East Bay, which is one of more than 120 organizations that make up empower California Voters Coalition. I'm here as a voter who's alarmed by how special interests like big oil, fast food and the tobacco industry have abused the referendum process and used their wealth to sow confusion and misinformation among voters. I have personally experienced this.

Last fall, I was approached by a petition circulator who asked me to sign fast food and oil setback petitions that did the complete opposite of what the circulator claimed they would do. The confusion and misinformation sown among voters doesn't stop there. When an issue is finally placed on the ballot, voters are not informed who or what corporations are behind the law or behind overturning a law.

On top of that, it is confusing to voters on whether a yes vote for a referendum to overturn a law means that it would actually uphold the law. This double speak on our ballots makes it difficult to understand what our vote actually means. The UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies found bipartisan support for making referendum ballot language easier to understand.

81% of voters, Democrats and Republicans alike, support referendum reform that would clarify language on the ballot so voters know whether they are upholding or overturning an existing law. AB 421 would also require that top funders of a referendum are disclosed to voters. Passage of AB 421 would ensure that California voters are empowered with the information necessary to vote their intentions. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this important matter that affects our democracy and our communities. And I strongly urge you to vote yes on AB 421. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next speaker.

Hey, everybody. My name is Marquis King Mason. I'm with California environmental voters. I'm too tall for this. Okay, yeah. So California Environmental Voters represents over 120,000 Members with a mission to protect the environment and health of all California communities by electing environmental champions, advancing transformative policy, and holding policymakers accountable. It's no secret that corporate interests are heavily involved in the political process nationwide, but especially here in California, that is reflected no place better than the referendum process.

Recent polling has found that over 95% of voters say that our state's referendum process is dominated by special interests. Our political system is built off of a majority support in building broad coalitions, not paying to play money and interests rely on confusion and disinformation to pass their agenda that are often at odds, at direct odds with communities. Like we've seen with the overturning of oil setbacks, the attempt to overturn oil setbacks and those trying to stop the right to a living wage for fast food workers.

Big tobacco, oil companies, fast food companies and plastic manufacturers have all utilized referendum process in recent years in efforts to block progress that protects people, improves our health and limits harmful pollution. This body has taken historic policies to the finish line, sometimes asking Members to take hard votes, but necessary votes, only to see corporations, by the way, onto the ballot to halt any progress that has been made.

As Senators, you have committed to protecting progress, and AB 421 is a crucial piece of continuing to uphold that mantle. Ensuring that there is clear ballot language, displaying of a referendums, financial backers on the ballot, and certification paired with training and oversight of signature gathering firms and individuals are greatly needed reforms that would restore some of the trust and political process that many in California have lost.

We believe that these changes will help put the critical tool of direct democracy, the referendum process, back into the hands of voters. For communities dominated by oil companies, protecting their neighborhoods from oil drilling is literally a fight for their lives. We need all of you in this fight and we need AB four, two, one to be as robust as possible to ensure we are serving communities for generations to come. We cannot continue to allow the system to be abused. That is why I'm asking today for your I vote. Thank you so much.

Thank you so much. Okay, now we'll take the opportunity for those who are also here in support of the Bill to come up and give their name and affiliation.

Mr. Chair and Senators Terry Brennand with SEIU California. First time I've ever been described as a technical witness. We'll give it a shot. You can refrain from any questions.

Thanks, Terry.

Good evening, chair and Members, Jessica Hay with the California School Employees Association in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Good evening. Chair and Members, D'Artagnan Byrd with AFSCME California in support.

It's been a long day.

Thank you. Mitch Steiger with the California Labor Federation, also in support.

Thank you.

Thank you, Christina Scarring with the Center for Biological Diversity in Support.

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

Thank you.

Darryl Little with the Natural Resources Defense Council in support. I would also like to register support for the Californians Against Waste. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Mr. Chair, Members Alyssa Yem on behalf of the California State University Employees Union in strong support.

Thank you.

Dr. Gleo Saba, with strong support on behalf of the Physicians for Social Responsibility chapters of California, including LA, SFA and Sacramento.

Thank you.

Thank you. Cynthia Shallot Indivisible California State Strong in support with amendments.

Thank you.

Robert Copeland from Sacramento, in strong support.

Thank you, sir.

Cynthia Chow on behalf of California Calls in support.

Thank you.

Dora Rose League of Women Voters of California moving from support if amended to support. And thank you for the amendments.

Thank you so much.

Annie Chow with the California Teachers Association in support. Also authorized to put support in for the California Federation of Teachers. Thanks.

Thank you.

Good evening. Raquel Mason, on behalf of the California Environmental Justice Alliance, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening. Valerie Love with Greenpeace USA in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. Evan Menton. This is one of our three priority bills this year. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Trent Lange, California Clean Money campaign in support if amended. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Thank you for all those who have come to testify in support. We'll now provide the opportunity for those who want to testify in opposition to come on up. Same rules.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Members. Kelly Jensen, representing the California Chamber of Commerce. We very much appreciate the work of the chair and the majority leader and the author of this Bill. We were a long ways apart when this started, but we have come together on most of the elements. We still would love to see the amendments, obviously, as it moves forward, but again, appreciate the work of the Committee and look forward to seeing those amendments. And we'll keep talking. Thank you. Great.

Thank you, sir. Anybody else here would like to register their position in opposition here in the hearing room? All right, seeing now we'll go to the phone lines moderator. If you can ask those who would like to put their name and affiliation on the record in support or opposition to AB 421, please.

Thank you. If you're in support or opposition of AB 421, you may press one and then zero. We will go to line 268. Your line is open.

This is Nancy Naff in Palo Alto in support with amendments.

This is Isabel Story with indivisible West Side Los Angeles in support with amendments.

Hi, this is Igor Tregob in full support in my individual capacity as chair of the CADEM Environmental Caucus. Also wanted to tag on the support of the organization of my immediate predecessor of the caucus, Avel Miller, and her organization Climate Foxboat. Thank you.

Yes, this is Cynthia Hart from the Culver City Democratic Club. The Culver City Democratic Club strongly supports AB 421. Thank you.

This is David Schmidt from San Francisco. Support with amendments.

Thank you. Line 40, your line or 240. Your line is open.

Hello, Elise Kofayan with the Glendale Environmental Coalition in strong support.

Thank you. Line 273.

Craig Dunkerley, President of the Democratic 21st Century Club in San Jose. Strong support with amendments.

Thank you. 327. Your line is open.

Hi Michael Levinson, Daily City resident. Strong support with amendments.

Hi. Jennifer Tanner for Indivisible, California, in strong support with the new amendments. Thank you.

Hi. Noah Garcia on behalf of the Dolores Huerta Foundation, we support AB421. Thank you.

Hi, this is Neil Park Mcclistick with Working Partnerships USA and Silicon Valley Rising and Strong Support.

Jan Dietrich with 350 Ventura County Climate Hub in strong support with the amendments. Thank you.

Amy Healy with California Clean Money in strong support with the Amendment.

Yes. Grant Hewitt Walnut Creek in strong support with amendment.

This is Mike Bags in San Jose. Full support.

Yes, this is Raj Bay with change begins with me and strong support. Thank you.

Good evening. Tasia Stevens again on behalf of Catalyst, California. In strong support. Thank you.

This is Abby Deckert with strong support on behalf of Youth Versus Oil in San Diego.

Thank you. Marcia Hanscomb from Los Angeles, on behalf of Defend Biona Wetlands and West Side LA. Indivisible support with the amendments. Thank you.

Hi. Wendy Silva with Inner City Struggle. And we are in support.

Pat Lang, Los Altos Hills. Support as amended.

Mary Bevins San Mateo. I support AB 421 with amendments.

Hello. This is Diana Milky. I'm a resident of Torrance, representing 350 Southland Legislative Alliance in strong support of 421, as amended. Thank you.

Veronica Wilson in Los Angeles, on behalf of Labor Network for Sustainability. In support.

This is Nancy Latham from Indivisible, East Bay and California State. Strong in strong support of AB 421.

Hi. This is Shirley Scholing from Pleasant Hill, co leader of Contra Costa. Move on. In support with amendments. Thank you. Line 280.

James Pearson Gilroy support with amendments.

Hello, Diana Curiel from Fossil free California. We're in strong support of AB 421.

Amy Hamblin with Next-Gen Policy in support.

Valerie Ventry Hutton, 350 Bay Area action. In support, as amended.

Elizabeth Robletto, San Joaquin Valley Democratic Club, Fresno. In support if amended. Thank you.

Lawrence Abbott, San Leandro. Full support as amended.

Good evening. Onyamo Viekia with Black Women for Wellness Action Project and support. Thank you.

Pacolia Maniga with Oakland rising in Oakland, California. In support.

Kayla Sato With, Orange County Environmental Justice resident of Senate District 34. In strong support.

Kyoko Takama Livermore Indivisible. In support.

Hello. My name is David Wynn and I'm calling on behalf of community coalition and we are in very strong support of AB 421. Thank you.

Line 266, your line is open. We will move on to 341. I'm sorry. Line 331, please go ahead.

Did you say 341?

Yes, please go ahead.

Hi, Tom Aang. On behalf of AAPI specific empowerment education Fund in support. Thank you.

Line 281, your line is open. Please go ahead.

Hello.

Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Okay, my name is Pamela and I'm from San Francisco, and I'm in strong support as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, we have no further support or opposition in queue.

Great, thank you. Moderator thank you for doing such a great job for us today. So appreciate you. Okay, Members, we're going to bring the matter back to the Committee. Let me maybe start us off. Assembly Member, thank you for your hard work on this, for all the conversations that we have had, maybe many more than you would have preferred.

Loved every one of them.

Yeah, showing your poker face now. Okay.

But look, you raised an important issue about the ability of the voters to know what they're doing. The fact that folks can take a law that we put into effect we thought we put into effect, and freeze it and challenge it. And even if the voters agree with the Legislature, have that delay of two years where that particular law didn't go into effect. And I can tell you that I've had the same experience two years ago.

I was the joint author with Senator Hill on a measure to ban flavored tobacco and vaping products. And we worked hard to get that issue through the Legislature. It wasn't easy because of a very well influenced opponent. And even after that hard work of getting it through the Legislature, lo and behold, those interests did exactly what you've been concerned about, which is taken their wealth and collected the signatures and put that issue on the ballot.

And of course, it appeared on the ballot this past November, and the voters, by a 63% margin, affirmed the Legislature's position. So it's like whew, got through that. But it's frustrating, I know that, and I wish that you could think about the damage that happened during those two years and it can be palpable. And there are very other issues. Senator Allen had another measure that got referendum. So we've all kind of faced that issue, and it's tough.

I did go back and look for the record, at least to see how often this had been a problem in recent California history. And I went back to 1982, and since 1982 is that 40 years, 41 years, there's been 17 measures, referendum, and of the results of those were that eight of the 17, the Legislature's position was affirmed by the voters. And nine of those referendums, the lawmaker's position was rejected by voters.

So there's a factoid to put on the record, 17 in the last 40 years. But I think that we have found a common ground in a variety of things in your Bill, even some things that are not currently in your Bill today, but were in the previous version of the Bill that I thought there were places that I could support. But I appreciate that this art of lawmaking is not always in a straight line, and we've had to balance a lot of issues out there.

And I appreciate your professionalism in trying to find that middle ground that can find support from this Committee and from the Legislature. And I think that you have done that with this Bill, and I appreciate it very much. Want to see if there's other comments or questions, Senator Umberg?

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Majority Leader, for your passion and your flexibility. Also, I'm glad you brought a technical expert because I have a technical question for Mr. Brennand.

He's excited. Come on up here.

Well, I want him to earn his pay. On page 48 of the Bill, there's an unusual provision. And that unusual provision provides that there's a certain time limit to bring an action to address the Bill, to set aside, void it or annull it. But it says, any relief granted by a court shall not interfere with the conduct of the November 5, 2024 Election. And that would seem to me to create all kinds of different challenges.

So, for example, if there's a problem with separation of powers where the Legislature is telling the court you can't, even if you find a constitutional infirmity, you can't do anything about it. That in and of itself, although there's a severability clause in the Bill, that in and of itself could be a very serious problem. I'm going to support the Bill, and I want the Bill to become law and law that's sustained by the courts.

So I don't know if you may want to take that back and have folks look at it because it seems to be pretty glaring. I'd like to say that I found that, but actually it was Senator Allen that found it. I'm just taking credit for the question right now.

So, which one am I supposed to be upset with? You're, right. This was drafted by our constitutional lawyers and the firm of Olsen, Remshow and I will bring that back to them for a consideration.

Thanks. Okay, thanks. And now I'm correct that, you know, as I sit here, I was apparently the chair that found that issue raised that issue. All right? So I know you'll take a look at it. I know you'll make sure that the Bill would pass constitutional muster and that there are no infirmities such that would be glaring so that a court would not have the ability or the jurisdiction or the inclination to find it to be void.

No, absolutely. We had constitutional scholars and lawyers who were.

One's here. I'd love to hear.

One is not here. But I know that the Assembly Elections Committee also did a very diligent job in crafting this Bill, and we're going to do all we can to make sure that it holds.

Thanks. Thanks. I'll look forward to hearing back on that issue. So thanks. All right.

Great. Any other comments or questions from Members? Before going to Assembly Member Bryan to close, let me also recognize our majority Leader in the Senate, Mr. McGuire, for his help and guidance as we've continued these conversations. And with that, I look forward to working with you on the language with the secretary. It's always been my view is that she has such an important position in our election process that her word is going to be good by me that it's done the way that she thinks it can be done properly. So thank you for your willingness to work with her. With that, you're welcome with your close.

Thank you. My first thought is about the 17 referendum, and I think about the nine that the law was overturned. I think about the eight where the law was affirmed. The damage done in those two years for the eight still has a cost to the public that's worth counting. I think there's a counterfactual had the law been overturned, what that damage could have been as well.

And so I think this is a costly process for the public, and I don't just mean financially. I mean our entire social good. Somebody asked me today, when did the Elections Committee become the powerful, big, important Committee? And of course, I said, when Steve Glazer began to chair it. But it's the People's Committee, because this is the people's house, and this is a people driven process that was designed over a hundred years ago, and the Legislature looked drastically different.

The Legislature today has more women than it's ever had before. It has more LGBTQ folks than it's ever had before. In fact, parity with the state. It has the largest black caucus than it's ever had before. It's a place where somebody grew up in farm worker housing, can become speaker of the Assembly, where a former foster kid can be a majority leader. It's a body that actually represents the 40 million people in the diversity of California.

If you are going to overturn the work of this body, and the people should have the power to overturn that work, then you better be the people, not special interest masquerading as the people and manipulating a process that was designed to be confusing, that was designed to be manipulatable. This is a Bill that's going to take us to a better place. I'm grateful to the Committee for all the work that's been done.

I'm grateful to all the community, many who have come here and called in today. We've got work to do. We're going to get this Bill across the finish line, but only if you support us today. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Terrific. Looking for a motion. Senator Allen moves the Bill. This would be a due pass as amended and rereferred to the Committee on Appropriations. With that, Secretary, please call the roll.

Senators Glazer.

Aye.

Glazer aye. Nguyen.

No.

Nguyen no. Allen.

Aye.

Allen aye. McGuire.

Aye.

Mcguire aye. Menjivar.

Aye.

Menjivar aye. Newman. Umberg.

Aye.

Umberg aye.

That has enough votes to get out. We'll leave the roll open for absent Members. Thank you, sir. All right. We've had the very, very patient Assemblywoman Bonta here, and my apologies as you come up for the reordering of the agenda today. I know that that caught you by surprise, and I apologize for that again. But we welcome you to the Committee. And this is file item one, Assembly Bill 37.

Thank you. Happy to defer to my Black Caucus Chair and my Majority Leader and appreciate the preference to them. Thank you, Chair and Members. Firstly, I'd like to accept the Committee amendments as outlined on page six of the analysis which is reflective of carefully drafted language between my office, the FPPC, and Committee staff.

I'm truly appreciative of the time spent on this language because AB 37 is the first bill I introduced this year in response to the alarming increase in political violence directed towards elected officials and candidates for office. In the last year, four of our colleagues were targets of intimidation tactics or threats, including a death threat. In April, we were evacuated because of a credible threat here involving a shooter at large.

First, AB 37 protects candidates, elected officials, their families, and staff by authorizing personal security as a campaign expense and expanding who is eligible for that security. Secondly, the measure also removes the 5,000 dollar lifetime cap on security expenses using campaign funds, which has not been adjusted for 30 years. Thirdly, AB 37 removes the need for there to be a verified threat by law enforcement to reimburse a security expense.

With me today to testify in support of this bill is Audrey Ratajczak with the Orange County District Attorney's Office.

Thank you so much and you're welcome to begin. You have two minutes.

Good evening, Chair and Members. Audrey Ratajczak from Cruz Strategies on behalf of the Orange County District Attorney, Todd Spitzer. I'm here today to support AB 37 by Assembly Member Bonta and thank her for bringing this much needed legislation forward. This bill provides necessary changes in law to protect the safety of elected officials and their families. Under current California campaign laws, there is a 5,000 dollar lifetime cap on campaign security expenditures that has not been adjusted for inflation or cost of living.

The cap needs to be updated to reflect the current cost market for home alarm systems and other security protection measures which easily exceed the cap. AB 37 expands access to security by allowing additional types of security expenses to be allowed for reimbursement, removing the cap, and expanding eligibility to include family members and staff of the elected official or candidate.

As an elected official for over two decades, DA Spitzer and his family have experienced numerous concerning threats including a stalker that has shown up at his home multiple times. Throughout his career, he has had to implement a number of necessary security protections that far exceed the cap allowed under current law.

We are requesting and working closely with the author on a very narrow carve-out to allow an office holder to retain their security after leaving office if there is a serious threat that is verified by law enforcement, and working closely with the Committee and with the FPPC on that. So for these reasons, the Orange County District Attorney is in support of AB 37 and urges your support today.

Thank you so much. Are there any other folks here in the hearing room that would like to put their name on the record in support? Or provide testimony if you wish?

I'll be brief. Excuse me. Johnnie Pina with the League of California Cities in strong support. Thank you.

Perfect. Thank you so much. Anybody else want to put their name on the record in support? Alright, we'll go to opposition. Anyone here in opposition? Seeing none, we'll go to the phone lines. Moderator, can you see if anyone wants to put their name on the record in support or opposition to AB 37?

Thank you. If you're in support or opposition of AB 37, you may press one and then zero. We will go to line 220. Your line is open.

Good evening, Mr. Chair and Members. Kira Ross on behalf of the City of San Marcos in support of the bill.

Thank you.

Thank you. Line 244.

Elisabeth Robledo, San Joaquin Valley Democratic Club, Fresno, in support of the bill.

Thank you.

Thank you. And Mr. Chair, we have no further support or opposition in queue.

We'll bring the matter back to the Committee for any further comments, discussions, debates. Anything Members? Assembly Member, thank you for bringing this bill forward. I think you found the right balance in the bill. First of all, I share your own frustration about these security issues being even present and how frustrating that is for so many of our good elected leaders and others who are just doing their jobs, and to feel that threat is a terrible thing but I think your bill has found the right balance.

I appreciate the work you've done with the FPPC on this. Campaign funds can be abused, but the folks that collect it and have to account for it and have to be transparent about how they use it, it's really their--accountability is right there in their lap and if there's abuses under this, there'll be transparency and accountability for that. I hope that won't be the case, but I think your bill finds the right balance and I'm happy to support it today.

Any other comments or questions from Members? Looking for a motion. Senator Menjivar moves it. Will allow you to close.

Thank you so much. This bill is an unfortunate necessity of the times we live in, and with that, I respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you so much. This is a 'do pass as amended and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations.'

Thank you.

The Secretary, please call the roll.

Senators Glazer? Aye. Glazer, aye. Nguyen? Aye. Nguyen, aye. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. McGuire? Aye. McGuire, aye. Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar, aye. Newman? Aye. Newman, aye. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. That's seven to zero.

Full House. That Bill is out 70. Congratulations, and thank you again for your patience today. Okay, we have another author here in the House, Assembly Member Low, we welcome you to the Committee. You have two bills before us today. Why don't we start with Assembly Bill 1227.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Committee Members, for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 1227, which allows the County of Santa Clara to embark on a voter adopted ranked choice voting in county election. aye respectfully ask for I vote.

Terrific. Do you have any witnesses here in support?

Yes. Yes, I do. Allie Hughes on behalf of Canyon Snow and Dora Rose with the League of Women Voters. Thank you.

Awesome. Thank you so much. Good afternoon. My name is Allie Hughes and I'm representing Canyon Snow Consulting for our client CalRCV, and I'm a lifelong resident of Santa Clara County. I'm speaking in support of AB 1227, as amended, which will give Santa Clara County the option to hold ranked choice voting elections for our county offices, the Board of Supervisors, District Attorney, Sheriff, and Assessor. In 1998, the voters of Santa Clara County, or FCC approved Measure F, which would allow for ranked choice voting in Santa Clara County following a vote of implementation from the Board of Supervisors. And once the technology had caught up due to Santa Clara County being a charter county, county Council felt that it would be best to get explicit authority from our state for our county to run a ranked choice election. The language in AB 1227, as amended, is more broad than the language in Measure F to give the county the flexibility to implement the type of ranked choice voting system that works best for us. And we know that if the county chooses to incorporate provisions that were not in Measure F, then that we would have to go back to a vote of the people or another vote of the people may be required. Ranked choice voting has also been used in municipalities across the country since the 1860s and is not a confusing system, which is backed by data and voter data. And additionally, any sports fan would understand the difference between 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place. Additionally to that, many of our overseas military personnel currently use ranked choice ballots, and it's been used in two of our large northern jurisdictions, San Francisco and Oakland. In addition, Santa Clara County also has a Citizens Advisory Commission on Elections to oversee the Registrar of Voters and to ensure or excuse me and to advise the Board of Supervisors on elections. And this Commission has also established a Committee to oversee the tabulation settings and to ensure that a ranked choice voting election in our county will be done properly. Moreover, our Registrar of Voters is prepared to implement ranked choice voting and have already submitted a plan to the Board of Supervisors. Ranked choice voting is a safe, proven and effective voting system that our county voters have asked for. Please give local deference to our voters and vote in support of District Bill AB 1227. Happy to answer questions and thank you for your time.

Thank you so much. Looking for other witnesses in support.

Dora Rose, League of Women Voters of California, here in support of AB 1227. I'm the next to last thing between you and dinner, so I'll try to go fast. This legislation empowers Santa Clara County to implement a proven democracy reform that's been shown to increase voter turnout and the representation of women and people of color. Ranked choice voting has been successfully used in California elections for almost 20 years now. It's got a number of advantages. Winning candidates can be elected with a majority support in a single election without the need or the expense of a runoff. It eliminates the spoiler effect, so the winner is a better reflection of voters'actual preferences and there's no need for a primary. So local elections can be held with a statewide General election when turnouts higher and much more representative. In the Bay Area, we've seen RCV lead to more women and candidates of color being elected to local office than without RCV. The League monitors elections very carefully to make sure that we aren't implementing reforms that confuse voters and cause them to make mistakes. RCV is very straightforward. Voters just indicate their 1st, 2nd and 3rd choice. Polling shows that both voters'understanding of RCV and overvote error rates are no different than what we see with plurality and top two voting. Moreover, voters have indicated they prefer RCV to the system, that it replaced strong evidence of voter comfort with the system. Santa Clara voters have spoken very clearly, waited a very long time for the infrastructure to be adopted that allows their preferences to be enacted. The Legislature should not override the will of the local voters to adopt pro democracy reforms and to implement systems that are going to improve elections and are suited to the needs of their community. So the League of Women Voters of California thanks Assembly Member Lowe for his leadership here and we strongly urge and an aye vote.

Thank you very much. We'll look for people to come up in favor of the measure with just your name and your affiliation.

Josh Tosney on behalf of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Paul Lilly, Californians for Electoral Reform in Support.

Thank you.

Hi. Allie Hughes. Wearing three hats today. Speaking as the President Emeritus of the Silicon Valley Young Democrats and as a board Member for Baymac, both in strong support.

Thank you. Anyone else here in the room in support? Okay, we'll go to opposition. Anyone here in opposition in the room seeing them? We'll go to the phone lines. Moderator if you can ask if anyone would like to indicate support or opposition to Assembly Bill 1227.

Thank you. For in support or opposition of AB 1227, you may press one and then zero. We will go to line 283. Your line is open.

My name is Karen Bricker. I'm a resident of Palo Alto. The League of Women Voters is my organization, and I voice strong support for the measure. Thank you.

Thank you. Line 306. Line 306, you took yourself out. You'll have to push one and then zero. There you go. Your line is open.

Thank you. My name is Dr. Forrest Peterson. I live in Palo Alto and I support AB 1227. Thank you.

Thank you. Line 331.

This is Jan Dietrich, in Ventura County climate hub, in strong support. We need this in every county.

Thank you. Line 244.

Thank you. Elizabeth Roberto, San Joaquin Valley Democratic Club. And although in Fresno, very much in strong support of Bill.

Thank you. 205. Your line is open.

Steve Chesson, I live in Mountain View. And I'm in strong support of AB 1227. Thank you.

Thank you. 263. Your line is open.

Pad Lang Lasagna says strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Line 277. Your line is open.

Good evening, Autumn Young. On behalf of Larry Stone, Santa Clara County Assessor, we urge a no vote as it risks voter confusion and disenfranchisement.

Thank you. Line 350. Your line is open.

Hi, this is Mike Buchanan from Sunnyvale with Cal, RCV and strong support.

Thank you. Line 347.

Hi. This is Benny Christopher. I live in Los Altos and I support 1227. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, we have no further support or opposition in queue.

Okay, thank you again, moderator for your help today, Members. Any comments? Questions? Any comments? Questions? Senator Low. Assemblymember Low, thank you for your work on this Bill. I have to tell you, I've always had a mixed view of ranked choice voting. No need to get into it here. I think what Trumps that issue for me is local control on the right of any community to decide what's best for them. And in this case, your advocacy on behalf of them is obviously extremely compelling to me. And I'm happy to support the Bill today. So thank you. I want to give you a chance to close, if you wish.

Just simply put, thank you for the recognition of this being a district Bill and allowing the voters to decide. I know that there are increasing opportunities to help educate the public and appreciate the support.

Terrific. I have a recognize a motion from Senator Newman. This is due pass secretary. Please call the roll.

Senators Glazer. Aye. Glazer. aye. Nguyen. Allen. Allen. aye. McGuire. McGuire. aye. Menjivar. Menjivar. aye. Newman. Aye. Newman. aye Umberg aye. Umberg, aye.

I'm going to take that as a close the roll. That's a 6-0. Is that right? 6-0 vote. That Bill is out. Assemblymember, you have item 8, ACA 5, and the floor is yours.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. It's always the right time for love. This is a constitutional amendment to enshrine marriage and love in our state constitution, and I respectfully ask for aye vote.

Great. Any witnesses here? Main witnesses to speak in support, please. Come on up.

Good evening, Chair and Members. Craig Pulsipher on behalf of Equality California, proud co-sponsor. We are no doubt fortunate that marriage equality is currently the law of the land, thanks to several previous decisions by the US Supreme Court. However, as you all know well, it's become increasingly clear that the far-right majority of the current court cannot be trusted to uphold their own precedent or protect our civil rights. Last year, the Court overturned 50 years of precedent affirming the constitutional right to an abortion.

And just last week, the Court decided to once again ignore years of precedent and allow certain businesses to discriminate against LGBTQ people. ACA 5 is an important and necessary safeguard in case the Court were to once again ignore years of precedent and roll back protections for same-sex or interracial couples to marry. The measure will put a constitutional amendment before voters to repeal Proposition Eight, erasing a dark part of California history, and protect once and for all the fundamental freedom to marry.

As was stated so eloquently by one of our board members in a previous Committee, love knows no boundaries, no gender, and no race. Love is the most profound and sacred emotion that two people can share. It's a force that unites us and transcends societal expectations and prejudice. And yet, despite the strides we've made towards equality, the shackles of discrimination still persist in our state constitution. This measure comes at a time when the LGBT community is under attack across the country and even here in California.

With over 500 anti-LGBTQ bills introduced this year alone, the majority of which target trans young people, ACA 5 will certainly not end all discrimination against LGBTQ people, nor will it stop these hateful attacks by anti-LGBTQ politicians and extremists. However, it is an important opportunity to reaffirm the freedom to marry as a fundamental right and protect same-sex and interracial couples who deserve to have their marriages respected under the law.

We are extremely grateful to Assemblymember Low and Senator Wiener for bringing this measure forward and respectfully urge your aye vote.

Thank you, sir. Anyone else here in the hearing room like to speak out in support?

Becca Cramer-Mowder on behalf of ACLU California Action, proud co-sponsors in support.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

Karen Stout, on behalf of the California Nurses Association, as well as NARAL Pro-Choice California in strong support.

Thank you.

Good evening. Genesis Gonzalez on behalf of Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis as a proud co-sponsor in support. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, we'll go to the opposition side of the aisle here. Anyone in opposition to this measure, please come on forward.

Chair and Members, my name is Greg Burt. I work with the California Family Council. This is one of the main organizations that was a proponent of Proposition Eight. At its core, ACA 5 is about changing the definitions of one of the most foundational institutions of human society.

Some would argue we need to redefine marriage in a way that doesn't discriminate against anyone or leave anyone out. Yet this is not possible. Anytime you define a word like marriage, there are going to be relationships that align with the definition and those that don't. Even though ACA 5's expanded definition includes same-sex couples, it still discriminates against polygamists, minors, and those interested in group marriage, just to name a few.

We believe that the definition of marriage as spelled out in our state constitution should remain a covenant between one man and one woman because of the vital role marriage plays in civilization. Even though death, divorce or other circumstances may prevent the ideal, every child longs and deserves every opportunity to be raised by their biological mother and father in a lifelong union.

Since the dawn of civilization, governments have historically acknowledged that a union between a man and a woman creates the optimal family environment for upbringing of children. Despite recent court rulings, faithful Christians remain steadfast in their commitment to God's definition of marriage, which has been a source of societal stability for thousands of years. We believe there is something uniquely beautiful, divinely inspired about the male-female relationship. Marriage is not a man-made invention, but a fixed feature in the natural order.

Tampering with this order invites heartache and pain. And anything that compromises our family compromises our future. For these reasons, we ask you to vote no on ACA 5.

Thank you, sir. Anybody else here in opposition to this measure? Seeing none, we'll go to the phone lines. Moderator, if you could ask anyone who would like to put their name and affiliation on the record in support or opposition to ACA 5, please do so.

Thank you. For your support or opposition you may press one and then zero. We will go to Line 345.

Good evening, Chair and Members. This is Jessica Hay with the California School Employees Association in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Line 324.

Good evening. This is Molly Robson with Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we'll go to line 279.

This is Isabel Storey on behalf of the Santa Monica Democratic Club. We are in strong support of ACA 5.

Thank you. Line 244.

Elisabeth Robledo, San Joaquin Valley Democratic Club, Fresno, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Line 351.

Penny Harrington, from San Diego County in opposition.

Thank you. 306.

This is Dr. Forrest Peterson. I'm a resident of Palo Alto in strong support for ACA 5. Thank you.

346, your line is open.

Jonathan Keller from California Southern Baptist Convention, in opposition.

Thank you, line 353.

Pastor Brandon Campbell from the California Capitol Connection, in opposition.

Thank you, line 349.

Karen England, Capital Resource Institute in opposition.

Thank you, line 263.

Pat Lang, Los Altos Hills. Strong support.

Thank you, line 354.

This is Thomas King, New Testament Baptist Church, in opposition.

Thank you. Line 352.

This is Dran Reese from the Sultan Light Council. Strongly opposed.

Thank you, line 355.

This is John Skoglund with the County of Los Angeles in support.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have no further support or opposition in queue.

Thank you, Moderator. We'll bring the issue back to the Committee for comments or questions. Senator Menjivar.

Assemblymember, thank you so much for working on this important legislation. Proud co-author of this. You know, I think the LGBTQ caucus has done amazing work this year, even in the face of so much hate that's going on in the nation. You know, to the opposition, I would ask, you know, where in red in the Bible did we get a quote from God or Jesus that he said, marriage is between a man and a woman. Nowhere in the entire Bible is it quoted in red, because that's the quotes of Jesus, does it say that.

I would say that's not factual, sir. And I wouldn't assume to say what Jesus said all those years ago. In fact, you know, studies show that children are most successful in the homes of loving parents, whether they're single parents or queer parents or raised by grandparents or raised by cousins or siblings. As long as they're in the home of a loving individual, that's where a kid is successful.

I'm so happy that I have colleagues here in the dais that agree with that sentiment as well, and that we'll all be very excited to vote on this Bill unless someone surprises me, but I don't think so.

Thank you. Other comments or questions? Comments? Senator Low, thank you for your leadership in this space. Also a proud co-author. I know as many of my colleagues here are as well, and I want to give you the opportunity to close.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and colleagues, many of you on the dais are proud co-author of the constitutional amendment, and we thank you very much for solidarity and also commitment to love, just very specifically for purposes of public discourse, just even on the Bill itself. Whereas the courts have recognized that same-sex couples and interracial couples have the right to marry, this proposal before us is enshrining constitutional protections for interracial marriage as well as same-sex marriage.

So if any member of the dias is in an interracial marriage, this proposal before you helps to enshrine constitutional protections for interracial marriage as well as same-sex couples. So again, factor of consideration for any members of our Legislature who may be an interracial relationship. Additionally for public record, as this Bill has moved forward through the process, I know that this is oftentimes seen as a partisan issue.

Members Niello and Wilk have supported the piece of legislation as reflected in the community analysis of unanimous support in Senate Judiciary, as well as over eight members of the Assembly Republican Caucus. And part of that was because of the continued effort to acknowledge the concern of religious protections and infringement that may occur, as we stated in the State Assembly.

A letter to the Journal specifically, if I might, through the Chair, just read specifically that no member of the faith community or evangelical community shall perform marriage that is contrary to the tenets of a person's faith. This will remain unchanged following the approval of Assembly constitutional Amendment Five. So in addressing the religious concerns that this was infringed upon religious protections, we clearly state the protections and the rights afforded to those in the evangelical and religious community.

So when we think about then the arguments that still lie after the fact that we would help ensure the protections, the constitutional protections, this does not redefine the definition of marriage. Never has. No member of the clergy have ever been forced to perform a marriage post marriage equality being made law of the land. The definition has not changed to include polygamy, ever. So these are falsehoods. And it's important again for the public discourse to speak truths to the conversations that we have.

And so, as reflected in the growing support of bipartisanship, and recognizing that love is love, I'm hopeful that many members who still have reservations can find it deep in their hearts and recognizing the expansion of rights that we should be afforded in the State of California. And I respectfully ask for aye vote.

Thank you, Assemblymember, and I'm glad you put those points on the record. I know this Bill is just one step in the process you have ahead, and this issue of dealing with falsehoods and misrepresentations will not be too far behind as this thing moves forward. I did not know about interracial marriages as an issue here. I am in one. So thank you for illuminating that for me and others. All right, are we looking for a motion, Senator Menjivar, was that a motion? Certainly. We have a motion. This would be do pass. Excuse me? This is just simply adopted? I thought so. This is to be adopted and we refer to the Committee on Appropriations. With that, Secretary. Please call the roll.

Senators Glazer? Glazer aye. Nguyen? Allen? Allen aye. McGuire? Mcguire aye. Menjivar? Menjivar aye. Newman? Newman aye. Umberg? Umberg aye. 6-0.

All right, that Bill has 6-0 and that Bill is out. Congratulations. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. All right, we'll move to our last item on our agenda. Again, appreciate the patience of everyone here who's participated in our hearing today. Certainly. Assemblymember Sanchez, thank you for your patience. You have final item number 9. This is Assembly Bill 1688. And you can begin.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am happy to present AB 1688 today, which would help provide California's election officials with more data to improve list maintenance efforts and ensure that our elections run as smoothly as possible. Voter registration list maintenance is an important duty for our election officials. It is federally required and helps ensure that our elections function as well as possible. A vital part of our list maintenance is referencing credible data to determine if someone has died and should be removed from the voter rolls.

Currently, California uses multiple sources for maintaining its databases, but it does not use the death index maintained by the Social Security Administration. Use of state level data and the death index is required in States like Maryland, Minnesota, Washington and multiple others. AB 1688 helps provide California's election officials access to this data, which would help them have a better idea as to who is and is not deceased. Ultimately, by equipping our election officials with more tools, AB 1688 will improve our vital list maintenance efforts. Testifying with me today in support of AB 1688 is Donna Johnston with the California Association of Clerks and election officials.

Terrific. Thank you. Welcome to our Committee. And you can begin.

Good evening, Members. Yes, I'm Donna Johnson. I'm the immediate past President of the California Association of Clerks and Elections Officials, co chair of the Certification and Training Committee for Elections Officials in California and a Member of the Association for the 15 Years I've been the Registrar of Voters for Center County. Voter registration lists are fundamental to ensuring that we have well run elections. List maintenance is crucial to ensuring that lists are up to date and that we as elections officials, have the most accurate information.

States that maintain voter registration lists, fulfill federal requirements, and are able to help their election agencies more appropriately plan and budget for the necessary number of ballots, voting machines, polling places, as well as poll workers. One important way for states to ensure their voter rolls are updated is for elections officials to reference valid, vital statistics collected by state and federal agency databases. These databases help inform elections officials, such as myself, as to who is ineligible to vote because they are deceased.

This is practiced in all across the United States, though currently California does not permit the Secretary of State to reference databases maintained by the Federal Social Security Administration. This is a common practice throughout many states, including Maryland, Minnesota and Washington. As the author had mentioned, AB 1688 provides means of helping California better maintain its voter registration lists by permitting the Secretary of State to analyze more data from the Social Security Administration to help better evaluate if someone is deceased. And we respectfully urge your support on this measure.

Thank you. So much. Anyone else in the hearing room that would like to put their name on the record? In support, please come on up.

Not in support, Mr. Chair, but Ted Mulhauser, on behalf of Secretary of State Dr. Shirley Ann Weber. Appreciate the author working with our office on the amendments. Don't have an official position, but also wanted to thank the Committee staff for helping coordinate that.

Great. Thank you, sir. Anyone else here in support? Seeing none. Anybody here in opposition, please come forward. Seeing none will go to the phone lines. Moderator if you could ask if anyone wishes to put their name on the record. In support or opposition to AB 1688.

Thank you for in support or opposition of AB 1688, you may press one and then zero again. That is 1 and 0 for support or opposition. And, Mr. Chair, we have no one in queue.

Okay, terrific. Thank you. We'll bring the matter back to the Committee for any questions or comments. Questions or comments? Seeing none. Assembly Member thank you for your engagement in this space and happy to support your Bill. Anything you want to say in closing?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

I heard a motion from Senator Newman. This would be due pass and we refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Secretary, please call the role.

[Roll Call]

Bill is out, seven to zero. We're going to go back through our agenda, make sure everybody's had a chance to vote. We'll begin with file item number one, AB 37 for those who have let's say that one's out for those who have completed their work today. Senator Mengevar in particular. Thank you for your good work all day today. Sorry for the long hearing. Appreciate it, everybody. Okay, so we're going to file item two. That's AB 421 by Bryant secretary to call the roll.

The motion is due pass as amended and rerefer to the Committee on Appropriations with the Chair of voting aye and the Vice Chair voting no. Senator Newman. Aye. Newman aye.

That Bill is out six to one. We'll move next to file item three. This is AB 764. The Secretary please call the roll.

The motion is due pass and rerefer to the Committee on Governance and Finance with the Chair voting aye. Senators Min When? No. Newman aye. Newman aye.

That Bill is out six to one. We'll move next to file item number four. AB 1248 by Assembly Member Bryant. Please open the roll.

The motion is due pass and re refer to the Committee on Governance and Finance with the Chair voting aye. Senators Min When? No. Newman aye. Newman aye.

That Bill is out six to one. We'll move next to file item number six. AB 910 by no file item we just did five. What did we just do?

We did 1248.

So we're going to go to item five. Sorry. Okay. This is AB 6868 by Wilson. Please open the roll.

The motion is due. Pass and re refer to the Committee on Judiciary with the chair voting aye. Senators. Wynn when? No. Mcguire. Mcguire. aye, Umberg Umberg ay six to one.

That bills out six to one. This is file item six. AB 910 by Wilson. Please open the roll.

[Roll Call]

That bills out 7-0.

And that should be it.

Members, that completes our work today. Let me just note as we finish that today is the 10th anniversary of Scott working here in the Legislature. Scott Matsumoto. So wish him our heartiest congratulations. I don't know if he gets a ring or something. Good luck on the next interview. All right. I also want to thank Karen French and Claire, our other staff who have done a great job on our agenda today. This should be our last hearing, at least until for the summer.

But we want to thank all the individuals who participated today. If you're not able to testify, we welcome your comments and suggestions by writing to our Committee at our website. Your comments and suggestions are important. And thank you for all that who did participate. And with that, we've concluded our agenda. The Senate Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments is adjourned.