Assembly Standing Committee on Elections

Yeah, it's fine.

Good afternoon, and welcome to the July 5, 2023 hearing of the Assembly Elections Committee. Thank you. We don't have a quorum present, but we will begin as a Subcommitee. If Members of the Committee are monitoring this hearing, please come to room 447 of the State Capitol so that we can establish a quorum. We have two options for the public to testify at today's hearing in person or by moderated telephone service. The Committee has nine bills on its agenda. There is nothing on consent.

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

Additional comments will be ruled out of order. If you're unable to get through on the phone, please feel free to submit written testimony through the portal on the Committee's website. This written testimony will become part of the official record of the Bill. For those who are watching this hearing remotely, and who wish to call in to register your position, the call in number for this hearing is 877-692-8957 and the access code is 131-5447.

You can also find this number on the Assembly Elections Committee website, as well as on your TV or computer screen. If you're calling in, please eliminate all background noise. This includes muting your live stream broadcast, and your smart devices to reduce the sound distortion. If you're having any problems with the moderator phone service, you can call the Committee at 916-319-2094 and the Committee staff will be there to try to help.

Thank you for bearing with us as we implement methods to continue to serve the people of the State of California. Before we have move on to the agenda, I have a few additional announcements to make. First, I have a letter from Speaker Rivas appointing Assemblymember Isaac Bryan to fill the Democratic vacancy on the Committee for the purpose of today's hearing only. Assembly Member Bryan, wherever you are, thank you for hopefully joining us today, and thank you for your prior service as Chair of this Committee.

Additionally, we've been informed that Assembly Member Essayli is unable to attend today's hearing and that vacancy has not been filled. Finally, the Assembly Rules Committee has determined that the fiscal implications of SB 24 by Senator Umberg should be analyzed in the Appropriations Committee, despite the Bill being keyed nonfiscal. As a result, any motion to approve SB 24 and Committee today will include a rereferral to the Appropriations Committee. With those announcements out of the way, we will now move on to the Committee's agenda.

And it looks like we've got Senator Dodd will be here to present SB 328.

First, I'd like to thank you, the chair and Committee staff, for their work on this Bill. Appreciate it. SB 328 addresses a hole in our current campaign finance that allows unlimited donations for local offices like school boards, community college boards, county boards of education, and special districts. This bipartisan Bill sets contribution limits for those local government agencies at the same rate as a legislative candidate. Simply put, you shouldn't need more money than a state legislator to run for these really local offices.

We've all seen the local races become overly politicized despite being nonpartisan offices. This Bill also allows these contribution limits to be modified by the governing board or by the voters. This allows flexibility in jurisdictions where the cost of campaigning may be higher or lower than the limit set in this Bill. Establishing these limits puts all local elections on an even playing field and will help restore public trust.

I would like to introduce Lindsey Nakano, the senior legislative counsel for the Fair Political Practices Commission, and Jonathan Mehta Stein, the Executive Director of the California Common Cause, to speak in support of this Bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Committee. I'm Lindsey Nakano with the FPPC. In 2019, the Legislature passed AB 571, which extended the Political Reform Act's contribution limits to city and county candidates or allowed those jurisdictions to adopt their own limits. SB 328 would further extend that requirement to candidates for all local government elective offices like AB 571. Jurisdictions that adopt their own limits or have already established limits would not be subject to the state limits established in the Bill.

Contribution limits serve the important purpose of reducing corruption or the appearance of corruption in our elections. And imposing limits on contributions to all candidates for all local elective offices will further that purpose and will promote greater public trust in our elections and governmental institutions. Thank you to Senator Dodd for his leadership on this Bill. We respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Madam Chair and Members, it's a pleasure to be here today. California Common Cause looks forward to working with the Chair in the years to come. My name is Jonathan Mehta Stein. I'm the Executive Director of California Common Cause. California Common Cause is dedicating to building a California democracy that includes everyone. We work on voting rights, redistricting reform, media and democracy issues, and money in politics to end structural inequities in our state and local democracies.

SB 328 will apply the current framework of local campaign contribution limits in the Political Reform Act to candidates for educational and special district elections. Closing a glaring loophole. Allowing unlimited campaign contributions has a corrupting influence on our local democracies and contributes to voter cynicism about government. Whenever a candidate is financially dependent on just a handful of contributors, there is a risk they will value the views of those contributors over the people they serve.

Moreover, requiring candidates to seek support in smaller amounts from a broader number of contributors has a democratizing effect and can help competitiveness and communities the competitiveness of community supported candidates who do not have access to wealthy donors. For these reasons, California Common Cause sponsored and strongly supported prior legislation that established default campaign contribution limits for city and county races.

In response to the fact that many cities and counties allowed unlimited campaign contributions and after finding numerous egregious examples of massive special interest contributions to City Council Members and county supervisors under the current law city and county races now observe the same campaign contribution limits as you do in state legislative races. Unless a city or county adopts its own campaign contribution limit.

Our data shows that after the passage of 571, 470 out of 482 California cities now have local campaign contribution limits, which is a sea change from before the passage of the law. This law would extend that approach to local jurisdictions currently without limits school districts, community college districts, and special district elections, thus putting reasonable anticorruption limitations in place while respecting local government's autonomy to set contribution limits tailored to their needs. Thank you and we ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We will now move to the primary witnesses in opposition to the Bill. As a reminder, each primary witness has a maximum of two minutes.

Hi, Chair and Members. Thank you so much. Tiffany Mok representing CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals. CFT engages in school and community school board races by aggregating thousands of small contributions to contribute to candidates that are supporting our commitment to promoting higher education in California. CFT regrets and respectfully opposes 328 because we do not believe this will make the problem the Bill seeks to address better, but it will make the problem it seeks to address worse.

The Bill will not lower the amount of money spent overall in an election and that the contributors themselves will still spend the same amount of money in the whole campaign cycle, but instead of giving directly to the candidate, will give the money to independent expenditures. Second, to the point of the Bill, since there won't be less money spent in the election, collectively, we believe that this will not reach the goal of creating more fairness or encouraging more grassroots candidates.

Finally, we oppose the Bill because we think the practical outcome will lead to unintended consequences of redirecting the money to independent expenditures, which will lead to less disclosure as to who is funding the campaign ads and will lead to more negative campaigns, which will also limit the ability for a candidate to limit those ads. If a candidate doesn't control the funds, they can't control the ads that are created with more independent expenditures. We believe this will create a negative tone and will not reach the goals that we all seek as a democracy. Thank you so much and appreciate this conversation.

Thank you. Let's move on to any additional witnesses in support of or opposition to this Bill. As a reminder, the public will have a maximum of 10 minutes for additional public comment. All additional witnesses are limited to providing their name, the organization they represent, if any, and their position on the Bill. We'll start with those who are in the room.

Champagne Samoa with the League of Womb Voters. Thank you. Hello, Adrianna Champagne-Zamora with the League of Women Voters of California in support. Thank you.

Hi. Annie Chou with the California Teachers Association. We have a watch position. Can I expand on that for 2 seconds?

Yes. Okay.

We align our comments to CFT's comments. We agree with the intent and the spirit of the Bill. What Mr. Dodd is trying to accomplish. We agree that we must lower the temperature, especially in school board races, however similar to CFT, we just think that that will increase the vitriol, especially within the IE spaces.

We will now move we will now open the phone lines for additional testimony on SB 328 by Dodd. Moderator do we have anybody on the line who wishes to speak in support or opposition of the measure?

Yes. Hi, this is Sharina Latch calling from Placer County. I'm a little perplexed about this Bill, but I'm going to oppose unless amended. I think that there needs to be some work done on this to ensure that we're not infringing upon.

We just need your name and organization, and if you support or oppose the measure please.

Well, I just did. If you listen to me. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there other callers?

We have line 12 next, Madam Chair. Line 12, go ahead.

Hi. My name is Andrea Hedstrom. I'm calling from Sacramento County. And you let the California Teachers Association have a few more seconds to speak, but you're not going to extend the same courtesy to the citizens who are trying to participate in representative government because my comment would be we don't live in a democracy. Democracy is mob rule. I understand what we need, Republic.

What we're asking for is if there's additional people in support or opposition to just give us your name, your organization, and whether you support or oppose, you're welcome to submit written testimony on our portal. Thank you. Are there other callers?

Yes. My name is Katherine Mcbride, Placer County in Rebuild, California. Strongly oppose the unconstitutional SB 328. Thank you. Please vote no.

And Madam Chair, you may continue. We have no other responses.

Thank you so much. All right, seeing there's no other further questions or comments, Senator Dodd. Oh, sorry. Thank you. Are there any questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing and hearing no further questions or comments. Senator Dodd. You may close.

Appreciate the work that the Committee staff has done on this Bill already. This is a Bill we're not doing anything that we haven't done to city councils, to boards of supervisors. We haven't noticed the big issues that are the big concern here today in terms of allowing it to go back to local government. There are court cases that require us to do that. So this Bill is not unconstitutional. With that, I appreciate being your first Bill ever as Committee chair and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. This Bill has a do pass and re referred to the Appropriations Committee. And I appreciate the benefits of limiting the size contributions to candidates and that they can accept directly. And with that, I'm going to recommend a support. So do I have a motion? We don't have a quorum. We can't do that yet. Okay, so calling upon all the Members of the elections Committee, please come to room 447 so we can establish a quorum.

Thank you. Madam Chair, Members.

Can we move to Senator Glazer? I know you have another Committee. Thank you, Senator Caballero.

Thank you, Chair Pellerin. Which Bill do you want me to hear first?

Let's start with whichever one you'd like. You pick.

Okay.

Authors pick.

Let's begin with SB 569, if that would be, the we're good there. Okay. Thank you, Chair. And Members. This past March, the Senate Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments, which I chair, held an oversight hearing on the status of lobbying audits done by the Franchise Tax Board. Now, based on the number of registered lobbying firms and lobbyist employers, the Political Reform Act requires that there be at least 300 audits be done 300 audits be done during these past two legislative sessions. Yet, when you look at what happened, and we did in our hearing that in the 1718 year where almost 300 lobbying firms were eligible, they did zero audits. None. And in the 2019-2020 legislative year where there were supposed to be more than 300 audits, they did four. They did four. So it was clear that the work wasn't being done on what we all consider to be an important audit and oversight responsibility. The Franchise Tax Board testified that they don't have sufficient resources to conduct these audits. They further testified that the staff that they have is responsible for audits in 17 different workloads. And that, generally, in the last six fiscal years, that they were able to get between 10 and 50% of those audits done. But in the case of the audits that this Bill speaks to, only 3% or less, some cases zero were ever done. So it hasn't been prioritized. They have a lot of responsibilities. They have a lot of staff and resources, but they've never prioritized the oversight and accountability of our lobbying community to any great extent. Which is why the Bill you have before you, this would transfer the responsibility of that work, that auditing work, from the Franchise Tax Board to the Fair Political Practices Commission. It would also require that lobbying firms and lobbyist employers that have less than a dollar in payments or contributions be excluded from being selected for an audit. And it does require the FPPC to adopt regulations and policies to ensure operational Independence of the audit personnel and the enforcement operations Members. For a system of transparency to work, the task must be completed to function, to fully audit and fulfill these requirements. So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote today. I have here for technical information, Lindsay Nakano from the Fair Political Practices Commission, who I know is happy to answer technical or operational questions.

Are you also going to be testifying in support today?

The Commission does not have a position on the Bill, but I'm available for any technical questions.

Senator, do you have any witnesses in support? So, seeing none, are there any witnesses in the room who are in opposition to the Bill? Just a reminder that you have two minutes. Do you want to sit here at the table?

Chair Members? Silvio Ferrari I'm here actually in my personal voluntary capacity as the chair of the Legislative Committee of the Institute of Governmental Advocates. So I know that's a mouthful. But we are the professional lobbying Association that represents lobbyists and lobbyist employers. And as the analysis said in our letter said, we have taken an opposed position. I think our feeling is largely that since the PRA was enacted, that there's a pretty clear and thoughtful division of responsibilities when it comes to the SOS, the FTB, the FPPC, each having a role in auditing and for not just lobbyists, but a lot of different entities and organizations. What we, I think, are ultimately concerned about is that this shifting takes place and we dilute that division of responsibilities that has been there and as far as we can tell, has worked pretty well. And the heart of this Bill is that it's a resource issue. There are not resources that are being provided to the FTB to do, I think, what they need to do. We would submit to you that regardless of who ultimately gets the responsibility doing the auditing, that resources have to go hand in hand. We would like to see the FTB be appropriately resourced to do what they are statutorily obligated to do, and we think they can do it and do it well. So we are opposed. We don't think the Bill is necessary. And wherever it ends up, resources are going to be instrumental. And I will say the analysis did a really good job of actually pointing out sort of kind of the tug and give of what we do here. And one of the things it pointed out is that this was actually considered in 2021 as part of the budget, and there was a budget trailer Bill considered, and all of that ultimately ended up being rejected. And so I don't have inside information as to all of the reason that was, but I think that's a good data point to have as you consider this Bill. So we are opposed. Thank you.

Let's move on to any additional witnesses in support of our opposition to the Bill. As a reminder, the public has 10 minutes for additional public comment, and we want to hear your name, organization, and your position. Anybody in the room seeing none, we'll go ahead and move to the phones. Moderator do we have anybody on the line who wishes to speak in support of or opposition to SB 569

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. If you do have a comment, you may press 10 on your telephone keypad at this time. And Madam Chair, we have no one. You may continue.

Thank you. Any questions or comments from Committee Members? Okay, absent a quorum, we cannot take a motion at this time. But I want to thank you for bringing this Bill forward. As the Senate elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee Chair and for bringing attention to this issue through the oversight hearing that you conducted earlier this year. And I would be recommending support for this measure today. So, want to go ahead and move on to your next Bill?

Could I just make a comment in closing, Chair? Just respond to the comments that have been made about budget. I don't disagree with that. This is a policy Committee versus a Budget Committee. I think the good news there is that the Administration has recognized the problem in terms of it's a Low priority for the FTB and it should move to the FPBC. So that's a positive step. And this Bill has a phase in of two years to allow for the budget process to run its course. So with that, thank you for your consideration.

And the FPPC has the expertise as well.

They do indeed. Thank you.

So your next Bill is SB 724.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair. So this Bill came out of a very unfortunate incident that happened with six Members of the Legislature last year. And what it tries to do is close a disclosure gap. That's all it tries to do. It closes a disclosure gap. And let me give you the facts, the underlying facts here. Under current law, disclosure is required for communication that clearly identifies a candidate for state office, but does not advocate for their election defeat or election within 45 days of the election. So if you're outside that 45 day window, then there's no disclosure requirement if you're a candidate for office. And the second underlying facts are that in terms of disclosure for lobbying, if you're trying to lobby the Legislature, there's also standards that are in place in current law that says that if you clearly identify the measure in which you're lobbying, you have to disclose. But if you don't identify, then there's wiggle room for you not to disclose. And I mentioned this event that happened last year. Six Members of the Legislature were attacked in the summer, right before we came back into session, outside of the window of required disclosure and didn't advocate specifically for or against a particular piece of legislation. And so that interest group spent hundreds of thousands of dollars attacking six Members and never disclosed anything. Not a single thing was ever disclosed. And that's the gap that this measure attempts to close. That if you make a payment or promise a payment of 25,000 or greater, that affects the laws that are in place today in terms of the disclosure you'll now have to disclose if it's done within 150 days of an election. And I think we all agree that people can say what they want to say, do what they want to do in terms of lobbying, campaigning, whatever it is, but that we have disclosure rules in place for a reason that you shouldn't be able to hide. And that's what this Bill gets at let me just say that in the Committee analysis, they raised some concerns regarding sufficient findings and declarations, and I'm happy to make amendments to the Bill to support that conclusion. They also raised the issue of working with the Secretary of State on the implementation of the Bill in terms of where that disclosure goes today, and I certainly commit to doing that as well. The Secretary of State is already equipped to receive and disclose those disclosures that occur within 45 days. This just extends that window a little earlier, and I'm happy to work with the Secretary to make sure that can be done in an efficient, effective way that does provide the disclosure that I think we all want this Bill certainly would require.

Thank you. Before we move on to witnesses, we're going to call the roll and establish a quorum.

Pellerin? Here. Pellerin? Here. Lackey? Here. Lackey? Here. Bennett? Bennett here. Essayli. here. Low. Blanca Rubio. Blanca Rubio? Here. Bryan we have a quorum.

So we will now move on to any primary witnesses in support of this Bill. Do you have any Senator here? (No Okay. Do we have any primary witnesses in opposition to this Bill? Seeing none in the room, let's go ahead and move on to the phone lines. Moderator do we have anybody on the phone wanting to express support or opposition to the Bill?

Just as a reminder, if you have opposition or support, press 10 to be able to speak, and we will go to line 10. Please go ahead.

Yes, hi, good afternoon, chair and chair Members. My name is Trina Latch calling from Placer County, and I disagree on this Bill. I'm in opposition because I think government is about the people, not the lobbyists.

Thank you. Your name, organization and support are opposed, please.

We will move on to line 12. Please, go ahead.

So you let the lawmakers and the special interest speak, but you don't let the people speak? You didn't have an opposing witness. I'd like to act as that opposing witness and echo the previous caller. Because government is supposed to be about people. It's not supposed to be about money. Organization, of course you're going to move on because you don't want to hear.

Moderator anybody else on the phone?

Yes, we will move on to line 13. Go ahead, please.

Catherine Mcbride, Placer County and Rebuild California strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you.

And Madam Chair, we have no one else. You may continue.

All right, any questions or comments from Committee Members? Yes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We all that get into politics have some degree of expectation that we're going to be either supported or opposed by any group. And I'm in support because the disclosure we've done a really good job of trying to disclose everything. I've been in this Committee for the last two years, and the intent always is disclosure. Anybody can say whatever they want, but if there is no disclosure, then we don't know where it's coming from. And the reason that there is disclosures on everything is so that we are all aware who's doing the support or the opposition. I was one of those Members that was attacked, and I'm used to it. I am used to being opposed, being called names. It's not right, but I'm used to it. And I think that if we all want to level the playing field, the disclosure has to be equal for everybody. To Senator Glacier's point, the fact that we can hide behind different interest groups is concerning because what stops bigger groups from doing the same? So I want to just offer my support to Senator Glazer as legislators or any elected official. Again, we are used to what happens during campaigns, and as long as people disclose, I think it shouldn't be a problem. But I would encourage and I know he stated it, but obviously we don't want to create more work. We want to be able to have the support of the Secretary of State. And with that, I would move the Bill. But also thank Senator Glazer for offering to work with the Secretary of State to make it workable, because I understand the technicalities on trying to get something like this to work. So as long as it works, I'm in full support. I would help in any way that I can in this case by moving the Bill, but would also like to lean on the Committee to have some help for the Senator, being that I know you've been involved. But, Madam Chair, you've been doing this for quite a long time, and so I'm leaning on you to help through this process because I know if anybody knows how to handle this, it would be you. So I really appreciate the support from staff, obviously, but please support the Senators so that we can make this work in an appropriate manner. Thank you.

I'll second the Bill. I do have one important area. Number one, I too, really appreciate disclosure, and I think everything we can do to have appropriate disclosure. What I'm concerned about, particularly in reading, in the analysis, is that it's so broad that we could have lots of unintended consequences here. And I appreciate your commitment to trying to work on this, but we need to make sure we get the appropriate language worked out for public service announcements. Right now, the way the Bill is written, a public service announcement could trigger this. If somebody paid, in fact, as Arnold Schwarzenegger had, well, more than $25,000 spent on tourism advertisements wanting people to come to California global tourism, those would be expenditures that would trigger this disclosure. I don't believe that's your intention, but the question is how do you write the language so that we cover the right things and not the wrong things? And that's particularly true when you think it's not always just negative, but it could be something positive for your opponent that also just happened to. So I'm not certain that you can get there, but I really support what you're trying to do and believe that you have good capabilities to be able to get there. And so I just wanted to add that with my second to give you the opportunity to keep working to make that happen and with the Chair's due pass recommendation with the same caveats. Although her caveats simply refer to work with the Secretary of State to address the implementation concerns, this specifically is the implementation concern that I'm most concerned with. It's just the broadness of the Bill. Thank you.

And on that note, we have a representative here from the Secretary of State's office would love for you to come up and just share with us your thoughts on implementation of this Bill.

Madam Chair, Eric Garris, on behalf of Secretary of State's Office. Just wanted to clarify that as our Carroll access system can't currently be configured to implement this change, it would have to be aligned with our update to our project or our Cars project to make sure that we can implement this efficiently.

Could I ask a follow up to that, please?

You go right ahead.

You currently collect this information for those actions that happen to someone who's within 45 days of an election. So all I'm doing is extending it so that same disclosure requirement happens in a longer period before. So I'm just trying to understand the operational issues because I'm very sensitive to the Cal Access. We've had special hearings on this problem, but all we're doing is extending the disclosure requirement additional days, so it's not really creating a new configuration in their system. So I don't know if you have any clarification on that.

I'd like to follow up with the Chair and the Senator to make sure that we provide accurate information.

No problem.

And the Senator has committed to work with you to do that. So thank you.

Thank you.

Any other comments from the Committee Members? See? None. Senator, you may close.

I appreciate your consideration, and I think you know my spirit on this. We want to make sure that our processes can all work, and we want to make sure that if it was ever challenged, that it would withstand challenge. But listen, the folks that do these things, they don't want anybody to know who they are. So they're not jumping up to say, I'm going to go create a constitutional challenge so you all know who I am, so I can hide my money. So it's not like they're out there excited about making a challenge, but we want to make it as strong as we can and committed to working with the Chair and your team to create the findings, to create the comfort level we all want. So with that, thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. And I do share the author's desire for transparency about who is paying for advertisements that attempt to influence the public officials and voters. However, as the Committee analysis discusses, we do have some questions about the constitutionality, and I think working on those findings and declarations will help get us there. And working with the Secretary of State's office is a key piece to getting this measure in the form that we'd like to see it moving forward. And then, of course, the family Member Bennett's comments about PSAs. I think that we want to make sure that those are continuing to be protected. And with that, I recommend a support position.

Thank you. Thank you.

Go ahead and do I have a motion and second? Go ahead and call the roll.

Pellerin aye. Pellerin. Aye. Lackey not voting. Lackey not voting. Bennett. Bennett. Aye, Essayli. Lee. Aye. Low. Blanca Rubio. Blanca Rubio. Aye Bryan. Bryan. Aye.

That Bill is out 5-0. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. And thank you, Senator Caballero, for being so patient with us. Go right ahead. Sorry.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. I'd like to thank the chair and the Committee staff for the work on this Bill, and I will be accepting the Committee amendments. California is geographically large, which plays a significant role in how the district boundaries for public offices are shaped. Assembly and Senate districts and House races often encompass multiple counties. For example, California's Senate District number one is made up of 11 counties and the previous district that I had had six counties. Running for an elective office is a daunting task, especially in district with multiple county election offices that may have separate rules, guidelines and procedures for filing the appropriate candidate papers. Candidate statements are filed with each county election office to be published in county voter information guides, and serve as a critical tool to inform voters about a candidate's intentions, details about their past experiences, priorities they wish to accomplish, and organizations that support their cause. Currently, candidates that run for an elected office in a multicounty district must file a candidate statement in each county within the district. And current law allows each county election office to determine whether or not a cabinet statements meet their guidelines and provides them the ability to reject a statement unless changed. So this comes about because when I ran in '18, you have to file a statement in every county that has to be signed and pay for the fee to print it in the candidates in the voter guide. And so somebody's got to physically go to each office and do that. And I found out, well, the situation I was faced with is that it was accepted in five of the counties, but the 6th county wanted to mess with me, and so they rejected it, sent it back. And the runner, it's a volunteer that's helping you out on your campaign was panicked because it was one day before the filing period ended. And so, needless to say, we had to get the party attorney involved. You either do that or you hire your own attorney. They called the County Council's office and resolved the issue. But the point of my story is that I knew that what they were telling me was not true, and so I could make the decision. And the other part was that I was up here serving my constituents, and people were running around getting all my papers filed. And had I not done that, then I would have had no candidates filing statement in that particular county. That's critical to having people at the last minute trying to figure out who you are. So SB 632 requires an election office to notify a candidate within one business day, whether their candidate statement has been approved or rejected. And it clarifies that the candidate for State Senate, Assembly, or House that has multiple jurisdictions may include a candidate statement that appears in the Voter Information Guide, can file it in one county and not have to run to every single county with a signed statement, and you still have to pay your check. But this just makes it simpler. It's a lot cleaner. And if the county decides they don't like you because you're running against somebody from their county, they can't mess with you. And frankly, the bottom line is that it was a Member of the Board of Supervisors, so it kind of made sense that they'd mess with me. But it created stress and tension when we didn't need it. So I respectfully ask for your aye vote today. And we have no primary witnesses here today because of the schedule.

Move the recommended action second.

Thank you. We have a motion a second. Are there there anyone here in the room who's opposed to the measure as a primary witness?

Have a seat and welcome.

Good afternoon. My name is Donna Johnston. I'm the immediate past President of the California Association of Clerks and Elections Officials, or CACEO, also the current co chair of the Certification and Training Committee, as well as a technology chair. And I've been a Member of this Association for the past 15 years, as I've been the Registrar of Voters for Sutter County. CACEO is aware of the recent amendments to this Bill, and while we appreciate the amendments, we still remain in an opposed position. The Legislative Committee has not had a chance to review the significant amendments with our Association. We do have concerns with a new requirement stating that the office of the election official shall notify a candidate if the statement has been approved or rejected upon filing if the statement is filed in the office of the Elections official, as opposed to the 24 hours or one day if it's filed electronically. In my county, this requirement is problematic, as statements are accepted by staff who only do a word count as management is the final approver of candidate statements. Management may not be available at the time a candidate comes in to file their statement, and the review can take additional time if there's concerns with this statement. I've sent some statements to my county council for review when it's been determined that legal review is warranted, something that cannot be accomplished upon the filing of the statement. In other cases, I've contacted shared counties when we have a candidate that's in a shared district to obtain their opinion on the statement, something that I cannot do if it's happening upon the filing of the statement. Accepting the statement upon filing could also possibly lead to writs being required to make changes further delaying than the printing of ballot materials, which currently does have tight deadlines. CACEO does appreciate Senator Caballero's desire to provide an efficient process to multi district candidates regarding the filing and approval of their candidate qualification, and appreciates the opportunity to speak today.

Anyone else in the room in support or opposition to the Bill? See none. Moderator do we have anybody on the phone line?

Yes. Ladies and gentlemen, just as a reminder, you may press 10 if you wish to comment. We first go to line zero, go ahead.

I just want to say and please just your name, organization and support or oppose.

We'll go to line 34. 1st, please go ahead. Line 34, your line is open. You may proceed. Line 34, we can't hear you. Did you wish to speak?

Not on this Bill.

Thank you. I'll release your line. Next, we will move to line number 10. Go ahead, please.

Yes, hi. This is Trina Latch with Placer County. I appreciate the author's intent, but I am in opposition of SB 63, two thank you

And no further comments. Madam Chair, you may proceed.

Thank you. I'll now bring it back to the Committee Members. Any questions or comments. Go ahead.

I'll make one comment. There's two aspects to this Bill, and the efficiency of not having to go to six different counties just makes a lot of sense, and I could never understand it when I had to go to two counties, why it couldn't happen. So I really appreciate that aspect of it. With regards to the concerns from the Clerks Association, I just have to think that democracy is the most important thing we do. And if what we have to do is turn these things around in 24 hours, then everybody's got to be ready. The management staff has to be ready. Somebody has to be there available to do this analysis in 24 hours. County Council and the Clerk's Office, I just think it's incumbent upon them to do that. But I appreciate you raising the concern. It is legitimate to make sure that it is doable, and we just have to make sure that does. Thank you very much. That's why I support the Bill.

Thank you very much. So just to address that, I really appreciate you bringing that up is that I think there's a sweet spot here, and we can set up a timeline that gives the candidate extra time if they need it. If it's got to be reviewed by County Council. I mean, the bottom line is that the objection was to my listing Planned Parenthood as a supporter, and I know that you can list Planned Parenthood as a supporter on your candidate. It once the discussion went to County Council, they basically said, it's done, we're finished, and you can't refuse to accept the candidate statement. And so I think if we just look at the timing, we can figure out that we got 24 hours. If you have to send it to County Council, you get an extra day, and that tolls the time so that the candidate can fix it if there is an error, so that we're not taking away the rights of a candidate to do the right thing. And you're not up against because as much as you try to get your candidate statement in early, it always ends up it's a day before or that same day. And so you run out of time, and I want to make sure that people have that ability to get their statements in and get it reviewed and get it back. So I do appreciate that Assembly Member.

More for humor than anything else, but when the reporters ask me why my candidate statement always comes in late towards the end, I say I don't want to submit it early and have something happen that I wish I would have mentioned in my candidate statement. And I think we all do kind of you don't want to file it, and then four days later, some crisis happens, and it's not mentioned in your candidate statement. So anyway.

Any other comments or questions from Committee Members seeing and hearing. No further questions. Senator, you may close.

Respectfully ask for your aye vote. And thank you for the discussion. Appreciate it.

Thank you. We had a motion in a second. Yes. Yeah, we already have that. So, Senator, I do support the improvements to streamline the candidate filing process and think this Bill complements my Bill AB 773. Very well. However, I am very acutely aware that changes need to be made to implement it for both the candidates and the elections officials. And I honestly believe that elections officials are never out to get you. They want to do it right. They want to be accurate. They want to be fair and reasonable. And some of these things do take need to I would like to ask you to continue to work with CA CEO to work out their concerns so we make sure that we're not pushing them. Because it's not just your statement they're looking at. They could be looking at hundreds of statements that come out that all come in at the last day. So that's a lot to do in a very quick turnaround time. So I appreciate your willingness to amend the Bill based on what we talked about here today, and with those amendments and the commitment to work with CACEO, I will recommend a support. And go ahead and call the roll. Thank you.

The motion is due pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations. Pellerin aye. Pellerin aye. Lackey. Aye. Lackey. aye. Bennett. Bennett. aye. Essayli. Lee. Lee. aye. Low. aye. Blanca Rubio. Blanca Rubio. aye. Bryan. Bryan. aye. Thank you. That Bill is out 7-0. Thank you very much.

Okay, who was here next? They both raised their hand. I'm going to go with Durazo. I think I saw you first. Becker signed in first. Okay. Alright. You snuck in, Mr. Senator Becker. So you have SB 485. And you may begin.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Congratulations.

Thank you.

And Members. Here today to present SB 485. I'd like to thank the Chair and Committee staff for their work on this bill. First of all, I want to note, after conversations with the Chair, we'll be removing section two of the bill in Assembly Public Safety. This bill clarifies the definition of an election worker and a voter in existing code to better protect those facilitating and participating in an election from intimidation. There's been an unprecedented increase in attention to elections over the last several years. Election officials must contend with an overwhelming amount of misinformation, in part due to the increased use of social media for sharing unvetted information.

As a result, the democratic divide has widened, and mistrust has been sowed in our election system, both nationwide and here in California. For example, in Shasta County, the Registrar of Voters was harassed. And in multiple instances in Nevada County, voters and poll workers were accosted, threatened, and subjected to racial slurs. For election workers and volunteers, concerns for their own personal safety and the well being of their families has prompted some individuals to leave the election profession altogether.

Existing law makes it a felony to interfere with the officers conducting an election or canvas or voters exercising their right to vote. This bill would clarify that the protections under this law apply to other groups that are at risk for harassment, namely election volunteers and remote voters. Democracy depends on a fair election system, and it's our job to protect those administering the elections and those exercising their right to vote. With me is Erric Garris, Deputy Secretary of Legislative and Constituent Affairs for the Secretary of State.

Thank you. Go ahead. You have two minutes.

Madam Chair and Members, Erric Garris, Deputy of Legislative and Constituent Affairs on behalf of Secretary of State. First, let me start by, the Secretary would like to extend our appreciation to the Chair, Elections, and Assembly Public Safety Committee staff, as well as Senator Becker and his staff for continuing to work with our office to make acceptable revisions to the bill.

Again, just to restate, we are looking at removing Section 2 and reverting the bill back to existing law and making some additional changes. Just to clarify that we're not intending to create a new crime. So addressing those in our amendments as we move forward. We'll continue to work with the author's office and the Committee and Public Safety Committee staff, just to make sure that we hold to the intent of the Committee and the Public Safety Committee.

And with that, I'd just like to say SB 485 is necessary to provide for the safety of election officials and other key election officers by expanding the definition of an election officer to all individuals involved in election proceedings. I'll stop there and just say that I have Janet Ling with the chief of our Elections Division, here with us today to answer any technical questions. Thank you.

Do we have any other witnesses in opposition to this bill? Seeing none. Moderator do we have anybody on the phone lines who are in support or opposition to SB 485?

Ladies and gentlemen, press 1-0 if you are in opposition or wish to comment. Or support, I apologize.

And a reminder, your name, organization and position, please.

And we have no one at this time. You may continue, Madame Chair.

Thank you. Any comments or questions from Committee Members? Alright. Seeing no other questions or comments. Senator, you may close.

Thanks. We respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Great. I'd like to thank the author for this important bill. I worked on the front lines of elections, and I myself have been subject to some of these issues that you're hoping to correct. And the safety of elections officials and the workers are of our utmost concern. And I appreciate your willingness to amend the bill based on the discussions you've had with Committee staff, as outlined in the Committee analysis. And because this bill will be double referred, we will not be amending the bill today.

Instead, those amendments will be taken care of in the Assembly Public Safety Committee. So with that, with a commitment from the author to take the amendments in the Assembly Public Safety Committee, I'm recommending an aye vote. You may call the roll.

The motion is do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on Public Safety. Pellerin? Aye. Pellerin, aye. Lackey? Not voting. Lackey, not voting. Bennett? Bennett, aye. Essayli? Lee? Lee, aye. Low? Aye. Low, aye. Blanca Rubio? Blanca Rubio, aye. Bryan?

That bill is out 5-0, and we'll keep the roll open for people to add on. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We'll now move on to Senator Durazo. Thank you for your patience. And you have SB 52.

Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Members, and congratulations, Madam Chair, for your new position. And I want to thank the staff, especially, for working so closely with us. And having worked with previous chair, Assembly Member Bryan.

We reached many amendments to this bill. Already redistricting office boundaries for state and several counties, including LA County, are based on independent redistricting commissions. Currently, major cities, including Los Angeles, are some of the largest remaining local entities yet to adopt independent redistricting. This bill requires a city of two and a half million residents or more to establish its redistricting Commission to draw the City Council lines.

There were legal questions initially brought up with regards to the ability of the state to have charter cities like Los Angeles and have certain autonomy over municipal affairs like elections. But we did legal research, our own legislative council, UC Berkeley Law Dean Chemerinsky, and we feel very confident about the legal precedent granting the state the ability to legislate on local matters, such as a charter city. If there is a statewide concern, which we believe we have because large cities are stewards of major public resources.

And as a state, another issue is that local governments need to preserve trust with the public, which is lacking at this time. We also have a tailored solution. Our independent redistricting model allows an off ramp for the city if the city adopts a model of independent redistricting. So with an independent redistricting model, SB 52 will provide a fair, transparent, and unbiased city council redistricting, which captures equitable representation and at the same time will mend the relationship between the community and local government.

We've worked very closely, as I said, with Assembly Member Bryan and with me to speak in support key witnesses. Marquis Mason, Legislative Advocate for Environmental Voters. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for joining us. You have two minutes.

Thank you so much. And congratulations, Madam Chair. Very exciting. Everybod, my name is Marquis King Mason, and I'm with California Environmental Voters. I'm here to speak in support of SB 52, and Senator Durazo's efforts to provide proper representation for the residents of Los Angeles.

With the unfortunate events that happened last year, it is apparent that LA needs a truly independent redistricting process to provide a more representative and responsive government. Locally, there is widespread consensus that independent redistricting works and is necessary for the City of Los Angeles. SB 52 is built on precedent, on the precedent of independent redistricting that works throughout the state. It describes a minimum standard for a process that seeks to promote transparency. SB 52 is built on the need for immediate reform.

The bill is working directly in collaboration with local efforts to bring about true reform to the LA City Council. SB 52 is critically needed in a city like LA to ensure transparent, fair, and unbiased City Council redistricting process that captures the spirit and representation of the city to mend the relationship between the community and its government. Finally, the strength of a democracy is often measured by its faith of its members in the electoral process. Lack of participation in the process erodes freedoms and democratic principles.

We can see that with low voter turnout and the ability to hold and with that with the ability to hold elected officials accountable. If we expect to elect good public servants to office, then we must create enhanced systems that provide an equal playing field for those who participate. Ask for your support on this much needed transparency in government. For that reason, I ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Are there any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Moderator, we'll move on to the phone lines. Is there anyone on? I'm sorry. Additional witnesses in support of the bill are here in the room. Thank you. You may proceed. Your name, organization, and your position.

Hi, Adrianna Champagne-Zamora with the League of Women Voters of California. We have a support if amended, position on this bill in accordance with the amendments in the staff analysis. Thank you to the author and the Committee for your work on this.

Jonathan Mehta Stein, California Common Cause. Thank you very much for this bill. We have a support if amended position. We look forward to looking at the amendments to see if we can move to support.

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

So no one else in the room in support or opposition? We'll then move to the phone lines. Moderator, do we have anybody on the line who wants to register a position in support or opposition to SB 52?

Ladies and gentlemen, to speak in support of SB 52, please press one, then zero. And first we have a comment from line 10. Your line is open. Please go ahead.

Action. First off, I'd like to say that this is a republic, not a democracy.

Just your name, organization, and your position.

And I'm in opposition of this bill unless you amend it. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. And at this time, this is all that we have in queue.

Thank you. Do we have any comments or questions from Committee Members? Seeing none. Senator, you may close.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote, and again, very much want to thank the staff for working so closely with us. Thank you.

And I strongly support the expanded use of independent redistricting commissions to protect against the inherent conflict of interest that does occur when elected officials draw their own district lines.

So I want to thank the author for working with the immediate past chair and the Committee on amendments to strengthen this bill. And that both allow Members' bills to continue moving forward as you work together on a common goal. So with those amendments, I'm recommending an aye vote. You may call the roll. Oh, we need a motion. We got it. Second. Okay, so who made the motion? Bennett made the motion. Seconded by Rubio. Now you may call the roll.

The motion is do pass as amended, and be re-referred to the Committee on Local Government. Pellerin? Aye. Pellerin, aye. Lackey? No. Lackey, no. Bennett? Bennett, aye. Essayli? Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. Low? Low, Aye. Blanca Rubio? Blanca Rubio, aye. Bryan?

That bill is out, 5-0. We'll keep the roll open for Members to add on.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members.

I'm sorry, 5-1. We are now on our last bill. SB 24 by Senator Umberg. We have three more bills. Oh, two.

Okay, two by Umberg do you want to start with SB 24?

I will. Thank you. And congratulations, Madam Chair. I was sitting in that same place a mere 19 years ago, supported by your very able staff, Mr. Jones and Ms. Barber. In fact, I think they were both in junior high at the time. Right. They were talented then. I'm sure they remain even more so today.

SB 24 is a simple matter that puts before the voters the question as to whether or not they wish to provide general law cities and counties the same opportunity as charter cities and counties to provide for some form of public financing. I'm pleased to be a joint author with Assembly Member Lee on this measure that we hope to place on the ballot. It doesn't require any particular form of public financing, doesn't require any city or county to engage in public financing.

It simply gives them the opportunity, should their voters wish to do so, to provide some form of public financing. It is my hope that, should cities and counties take advantage of this, we'll see a variety of different methods, and that will be useful for us to see what works, what encourages folks to participate. With that, I'm pleased to have two experts on the subject here to testify in support. First, Mr. Trent Lange and then Mr. Evan Minton.

Alright, thank you. Good morning, Chair and Members. Trent Lange, President of California Clean Money Campaign. We're proud to sponsor SB 24 and very grateful to the leadership of Senator Umberg and Allen for authoring it and for the work of this Committee, and also very grateful to Assembly Member Lee for authoring the companion bill and to this Committee for having passed this companion bill earlier this year. So this bill is exactly the same as it, but in this different form moving forward. So I'll be relatively short.

15 states and 19 municipalities across the country have adopted voluntary public financing systems to empower voters and help candidates run campaigns without having to raise lots of money and could be more focused on their voters. Five California charter cities have public financing of campaigns. All charter cities are allowed to have them if they want. Some chose to, some chose not to. But because general law cities and counties in the state can't have it, nobody else in the state can have it.

So Oakland just passed a democracy voucher system last November, which was very exciting, with 74% of the vote, to give adult residents four $25 vouchers. That's just one way of doing public financing. There's lots of ways. As the Senator said, let's give other cities and the counties the opportunity to explore this system for improving our voting system. So with that, we request your aye vote. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Very exciting to see you up there. I'm Evan Minton with Voices for Progress. We are a nationwide group, and our mission is to galvanize the advocacy of our members, which are major political donors, business leaders, entrepreneurs, philanthropists, and other prominent individuals who unite to champion a healthy climate and environment, strengthen our democracy, and ensure economic and social justice for all. Our members know the importance of engaging in the political process by helping good candidates get the resources that they need to run for office, and they're fortunate enough to be able to do so.

However, they know that our democracy can't function to its fullest potential if the vast majority of voters aren't able to engage in a similar way. And the voters get increasingly cynical about elected officials and government when they see candidates rely on max out checks from wealthy interests. Public financing can change that. With matching funds like systems like in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Berkeley, small donations from city residents get matched six to one, and so voters know that even their smaller contributions have a big impact.

In Seattle, a Georgetown study found that 7.6 of voting age residents gave democracy dollar vouchers to candidates in 2021, and that's a vastly higher rate than Californians gave to state candidates. Voucher users were similar to voters in the general election, and this is important, in terms of age, income and race, and that's a stark contrast to campaign contributors in most California cities. These examples show the promise of public financing systems to increase voter participation and trust.

When voters are given the chance, they approve these measures overwhelmingly, with Los Angeles, Berkeley and Oakland voters recently passing these public financing measures by 75, 64, and 74%. So we respectfully request that you vote yes on SB 24 and give all California cities the same chance that charter cities give just for local control of their campaign financing systems. Not everyone can afford to do what Voices for Progress members can do. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any primary witnesses in opposition to this bill? Seeing none. Any additional witnesses in the room who want to sign on in support or opposition?

Hello, Adrianna Champagne-Zamora with the League of Women Voters of California in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and Members. Jenny Trice on behalf of County of Santa Clara in support. Thank you.

Robert Copeland, voter in Sacramento County. Strong support.

Thank you. Moderator, do we have anybody on the phone lines who wants to register their position in support or opposition to SB 24?

To speak on SB 24, please press one, then zero. And first from line 38, please go ahead.

Hello. This is David Schmidt, a Clean Money volunteer from San Francisco in support.

Thank you.

Next we have line 20. Please go ahead.

Yes, this is Graham Huey from Walnut Creek with California Clean Money in support of 24.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have line 15. Please go ahead.

Yes, this is Jacqueline Boer, I live and vote in Sacramento, and I'm a public health advocate, and I urge your support.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have line 33. Please go ahead.

Yes. My name is Judy Steele. I'm a volunteer with California Clean Money and live in Clovis. I'm calling in support of SB 24 and urge a yes vote. Thank you.

Next we have line 19. Please go ahead.

Hello, Lawrence Basket from San Francisco, calling on behalf of the Indivisible California State Strong Coalition in full support.

Next we have line number 29. Please go ahead.

Yes, this is Michael Levinson living in Daly City since 1979 and looking forward to this bill passing, in strong support.

Next we have line 36. Please go ahead.

Ron Zucker from Petaluma, in support.

Next we have line 31. Please go ahead.

Nancy Neff, Palo Alto, in support.

Next we have line 17. Please go ahead.

Hi, this is Shirley Shelangoski from Pleasant Hill. I'm a California Clean Money volunteer, and I'm in strong support of SB 24. Thank you.

Next we have line 18. Please go ahead.

Amy Huey with Indivisible Resistors of Walnut Creek in strong support. Thank you.

Next we have line 45. Please go ahead.

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

Next we have line 42. Please go ahead.

Lawrence Abbott, San Leandro, strong support of SB 24. Thank you.

Next we have line 30. Please go ahead.

Pat Lang, Los Altos Hills. Strong support.

Next we have line 40. Please go ahead.

Amy Samuelson, California Clean Money volunteer. I'm in support of bill.

Next we have line 34. Please go ahead.

Jeff Tartagia, strongly in support, both Clean Money, Owl, and other organizations. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have line 24. Please go ahead.

My name is Mary Bevins. I am in San Mateo, and I am in strong support.

Thank you. Next, we have line 21. Please go ahead.

Carla King Katyoshikawa from San Francisco. Volunteer with the California Clean Money Campaign and in strong support of this extremely important bill.

Next we have line 14. Please go ahead.

Yes, this is Jim Davidson from Los Altos in support.

Thank you. Next, we have line 16. Please go ahead.

Hi. James Pearson, Gilroy, California. Strong support.

Thank you. Next, we have line 22. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Howard Matis from Oakland, and I'm in strong support.

Thank you. Next, we have line 43. Please go ahead. Line 43, your line is open. I'm sorry. Next, we have line 10. Please go ahead.

Yes, hi. This is Sharina Latch with Placer County. I'm in opposition unless amended. I'm a little worried about the fiscal amount that this will cost the taxpayers. Thank you.

Thank you. And that is all that we have in queue at this time.

Thank you, Moderator. We'll now move to questions and comments from Members. Assembly Member Lee.

Well, of course, I'd like to thank Senator Umberg and Senator Allen and all our sponsors for working on this joint effort together. Yes, this Committee, we passed exactly the same measure before, so I hope today will be nice and easy to do the same thing. But it is really important to stress that this will give the option to California voters to allow their counties, probably their city, and the state, if they so choose, to create a public finance election system.

We talk a lot about empowering everyday voters and also reining in the influence, the undue influence, of special interests. And this is one of those key things. As we've seen in other places like Seattle or other cities in California, like Berkeley and Francisco and Los Angeles or even other states like Arizona, they have had huge successes at this, and it really deepens the investment of our electorate. Just as important as a vote at the very end of the process.

How candidates get to the election victory or defeat is so important. And if we are empowering people to feel like they're part of the process, I think it will restore a lot of faith in our democratic process. So even, as a lot of grassroots candidates understand, getting $25 from your friends is really difficult.

But if you're able, because a lot of people are pretty strapped, if you're able to use their own money right now because of taxpayer dollars to be investing in the people they want to see make decisions for them, that's a huge game changer. So I'm obviously a strong supporter of this, and I would like to move the bill. We have a motion by Assembly Member Lee and second by Bennett. Any other comments or questions from Committee Members?

Just a quick comment. Echo the comments of Assembly Member Lee. Essential if we can pull off the right kind of public financing. We can really make a big difference in stuff. So applaud this first step. Thanks.

See no other comments or questions. Senator, you may close.

Thank you very much. As was pointed out, this bill is identical to a bill that was already passed out. I have no doubt that Assembly Member Lee is a more passionate and forceful advocate, but this is the only difference. So it will affect my self esteem slightly if it actually doesn't pass out of Committee. With that I urge an aye vote.

Thank you. And certainly public financing programs are a promising tool for empowering voters in California. However, public financing programs are banned in all jurisdictions except for charter cities due to that 35 year old ballot measure that was largely invalidated by the courts. So this bill simply gives voters the ability to decide whether they want to allow public campaign financing programs or not.

And I announced at the beginning of the hearing, at the request of Assembly Rules Committee, the motion on this bill will include a re-referral to the Appropriations Committee. So we have a do pass with a motion and a second and re-referred to Appropriations Committee. I recommend a support. You may go ahead and call the rule.

The motion's do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations. Pellerin? Aye. Pellerin, aye. Lackey?

No. Lackey, no. Bennett? Bennett, aye. Essayli? Lee? Lee, aye. Low? Low, aye. Blanca Rubio? Blanca Rubio, aye. Bryan?

That bill is out five to one, and we'll leave the roll open for Members to add on. You have a second bill, I believe.

Yes, we do, SB 77. First, let me thank staff member Nichole Becker for the hard work that was done on this bill. This is a bill that is needed, particularly in light of the fact that we in California now have extended mail in ballots to every appropriate registered voter here in California.

As a consequence of having 88% of the vote returned in the 2022 election by mail, there are a number of ballots that required to be cured, meaning that the signature, for example, was unrecognizable, or there was some other issue with the ballot that could be fixed if the voter were notified, the ballot could be fixed. Unfortunately, only about 35% of those ballots that could be fixed were fixed. The current system provides for a postcard to be mailed to the voter.

What this bill does is it simply says if the registrar has, for example, email or telephone number, the registrar must reach out to that voter by text or by email or by phone call to let the voter know that there's a ballot that could be cured. This has become more and more important. We've had races, including my own, where ballots being cured had an impact on the election. And with that, I have two witnesses here Mr. Lange. We're not going to let him rest. Mr Lange is here from California Clean Money and Ms. Adrianna Champagne-Zamora is also here from League of Women Voters in support.

Hello again, Chair and Members. Trent Lange, President, California Clean Money Campaign in strong support of this bill. And thanks again for the leadership of Senator Umberg and the work of this Committee. We normally focus on issues of campaign finance and disclosure, but we sometimes weigh in on bills about fair elections and that are especially important for ensuring that every vote is counted.

This is such a bill. With over 120,000 mail in ballots having been rejected in the 2022 election, mostly due to signature problems that were not able to be cured. This is badly needed. Not everybody, these days especially, is able to receive their mail or notices their mail especially probably a form letter like they'd get from the registrars. So it only makes sense to call them, text them, email them reminders too, to give them the absolute maximum chance they have to get that in. It makes sense in the modern day, of course, it's only going to people who voluntarily provided their email and phones into the voter rolls. And with that, we respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and Assembly Members. I am Adrianna Champagne-Zamora with the League of Women Voters of California, here today in support of SB 77. It makes a huge amount of sense to require notification of missing or non-comparing signatures through email or text. California now mails a ballot to every voter, which is a critical innovation to expand access. And expanding access is vital to addressing California's voter participation gap.

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

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

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

Let me make clear we've accepted the amendments suggested in the analysis.

I was just going to ask you that, so thank you very much. And then do we have any primary witnesses in opposition to this bill today? Come on up and have a seat at the table, please.

Hello. Donna Johnston, Registrar Voters for Sutter County and the immediate past President of CACEO. CACEO does share the desire to ensure voters have sufficient notice to an ample opportunity to cure a signature issue with their vote by mail ballot, so that it can be counted. It breaks our heart just to have those ballots sitting there knowing that if we had reached that voter that they would have been able to cast that ballot.

Our opposition is largely due to the lack of current consent from voters to receive robophone calls and text messages from our offices. To ensure that we would like to see that we are compliant with the US Telephone Consumer Protection Act. We request the bill be amended to clarify that county elections officials are only required to call, text, and email voters about the opportunity to cure their signature if the voters have authorized us to call them or text them. This could be achieved by adding authorization from a voter to use language in the bill.

There's current language in Elections Code 13501 C, which currently requires a county elections official to send a text notification about anybody who is a nonpartisan registered voter in the presidential primary to give them the opportunity to state that if they've given us written consent for a text message from us that we could get them the proper ballot that they're requesting in a primary election.

We appreciate the efforts on Senator Umberg's part to give us the tools that we need to be able to cure their signature. We just need to make sure that we are compliant with this act so that we have the right to do so. And Sutter County had 71% of signature not matching cured in November 22.

That's a great job. Do we have any other witnesses in the room who are in support or opposition to the bill? You may come up to the mic and give us your name, organization, and your position, please.

Madam Chair. Erric Garris with Secretary of State's Office. We don't have a formal position on the bill. We appreciate the officer's office for continuing to work with us, but we would align our... Erric Garris with Secretary of State's office. Just want to say we don't have a formal position on the bill. We're a tweener. We do appreciate the Senator's office for working with us on amendments to the bill, but we would align our comments with some of the concerns raised by CACEO. Thank you.

Jonathan Mehta Stein, California Common Cause, in support.

Cassie Mancini on behalf of the California School Employees Association in support.

Robert Copeland from Sacramento. Strong support.

Thank you. And Moderator, do we have anybody on the phone lines who want to register their name, organization, and position for or against SB 77?

Yes, we do. First, we will go to line 31. Please go ahead.

Nancy Neff, Palo Alto, in support.

And next is line 36. Please go ahead.

Ron Zucker, Petaluma, in support.

Next we go to line 29. You may go ahead. Line 29, you are open. We will move on to line 45. You may go ahead.

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

Next we move on to line 46. You may go ahead. Hello, go ahead.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes, go ahead.

Yes, we hear you.

Oh, great. Thank you. This is Jacqueline Boer, public health advocate, live in Sacramento, and in strong support of AB 77.

Next we go to line 48. Please, go ahead.

Graham Huey in Walnut Creek and with the Commit to Democracy, in strong support.

Next we go to line 47. Please go ahead.

Chris Hamilton from Berkeley, in support.

Thank you. Next we go to line 49. Please, go ahead.

Amy Huey, Walnut Creek, in support.

Next we go to line 34. Please, go ahead.

Jeff Tartagia, Sacramento, in support.

Next we go to line 21. Please, go ahead. Line 21, your line is open. Did you have a comment?

I guess. Carla Kincaid-Yoshikawa, San Francisco in support.

Thank you. Next we go to line 10. Please go ahead.

Hello?

Yes, go ahead.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we hear you.

Yes, we can go ahead.

OK, great. Sorry, I didn't know. Anyway, my name is Sharina Latch with Placer County, and I agree with the speaker CACEO about voters consent. I think that the bill needs to be amended to have that included because I don't want robocalls...

Just your name, and organization, and support or opposed, please.

Right. And I did. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we go to line 22. Please go ahead. Line 22, go ahead. Go ahead, sir.

Howard Matis in support from Oakland.

Thank you. Line 37 will be next, please go ahead.

Hello. I am Julie Beer from Palo Alto, in support. Thank you.

Next we go to line 24. Please go ahead.

Yes, hello, my name is Mary Bevins. I am in San Mateo, and I am strong supporter.

Next we go to line 16. Please go ahead.

Hello, my name is James Pearson, California Clean Money volunteer, and I'm in strong support.

Next we go to line 38. Please go ahead.

David Schmidt from San Francisco, in support.

Next we go to line 30. Please go ahead.

Pat Lang, Los Altos Hills. Strong support.

Thank you. And next we go to line 17. Please go ahead.

Hi. This is Shirley Shelangoski from Pleasant Hill, in support.

And Madam Chair. We have one more. It will be just one moment. My apologies. They queued in just right at the last moment here. And next we go to line 51. Please, go ahead.

Ginny Madsen, First Wednesday, San Leandro, in support.

And Madam Chair. We have no other comments. You may continue.

Thank you very much. Do we have any questions or comments from Committee Members?

I'll move the bill. I also encourage the author to carefully consider the recommendation of the Clerks Association about clarifying they can only notify people who give permission, so that they don't get harassed for not notifying somebody who didn't give permission. Thank you.

Any other questions or comments from Committee Members? Seeing none. Senator, you may close.

Thank you, and I appreciate the comments and congratulations to Sutter County, that speaks well of your efforts there. That's two times the state average in terms of valid cures. A couple of things, one is that there's no requirement of a robocall, just to be clear. Also, in terms of affirmative authorization, one of the things that's special about this Committee is all of you are experts. All of you have probably walked door to door. All of you have seen what's on the voter rolls.

All of you have seen that you can get the address, you can even get information as to how many elections that person's voted in over the last 10 years. You can find out their party designation, and you can find out their phone number, if they provide it, and their email if they provide it. Not required to provide phone number or email. And certainly, when we send a postcard to someone, that's information, that's personal information that's provided and is clear, if not explicit, implicit authorization.

This bill gives, in essence, explicit authorization for the registrar to contact in terms of the other authorization, the voter's authorization, the voter is providing that information voluntarily, and campaigns throughout the state routinely use that information. I take the point considering robocalls, and I would encourage registrars not to use robocalls, but to use text messages that can be done much more efficiently, and the same thing with email, much more efficiently. So with all that, I appreciate your help and your guidance. And one last point, as one former chair to the new chair, you have very small shoes to fill.

And I'm doing it in heels. And I support the author's goal of taking steps to try to count as many valid eligible votes as possible. I worked in this field, as you know, and I actually was one of those registrars who would use the information on the voter file, call or email voters. We also asked for information on the ballot ID envelope, and I would say out of 10 ballots, maybe three people gave me some way to contact them.

And it is very hard to convince a voter to cure that signature after the election because they feel like that's old news. And a lot of times the information on the voter record is old or it's a landline. And really, when I text anybody, I had to do it for my personal line. I didn't have anything set up to do that. So I get your concerns that were raised by our colleague here from Sutter County.

So I really appreciate that and I would love to get your commitment to work with CACEO on finding a good compromise that will work for them, because we can't pass laws without being able to implement them. So we want to make sure our election officials can indeed implement this.

And I share that goal of implementation in a way that doesn't break the Registrar's bank. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. So, with that, I have a motion by Bennett, a second by Lee to do pass as amended and re-referred to the Appropriations Committee. I am recommending an aye vote. You may call the roll.

Pellerin? Aye. Pellerin, aye. Lackey? Aye. Lacke, aye. Bennett? Bennett, aye. Essayli? Lee? Lee, aye. Low? Low, aye. Blanca Rubio? Blanca Rubio, aye. Bryan?

That Bill is out 6-0, and we'll leave the rolls open for people to add on. Thank you. I think we're now on to our last Bill, am I right? Okay, we have SB 658 by Senator McGuire. Welcomed.

First and foremost, Madam Chair. Congrats. This is big news and couldn't pick a better expert. So really excited to be working with you and thrilled for the new role. Congratulations, Madam Chair and two esteemed Committee Members. SB 658 is a cleanup Bill from a previous iteration of a piece of legislation that we advanced. We're working in coordination with the support of the Secretary of State's office.

I want to thank Dr. Weber for her fantastic support, and, of course, to Mr. Muhlhauser, who we've been on a road trip together here for the past several months. So I think that we can all believe that California voters should get essential information regarding potential conflicts of interest, both domestic as well as international business dealings, financial status, and charitable donations.

And SB 658 provides minor changes to the elections code to simplify and improve the process for Governor candidates to submit their tax returns, such as clarifying definitions, cleaning up deadlines, and continuing to ensure a fair and transparent election process here in the Golden State. We'll respectfully ask for an I vote at the most appropriate time.

We have a motion and a second. Do we have any primary witnesses in support of the Bill?

Yes, ma'am. We have Ted Muhlhauser here from the Secretary of State's office.

Thank you, Chair Peller Ren and Members Ted Mulhauser on behalf of Secretary of State Shirley Anne Weber, PhD. Just to express appreciation to Senator McGuire for his continued leadership in this area and to the Committee for working with us on this Bill. Thank you very much.

Do we have any primary witnesses in opposition to the Bill? See? None. Anyone in the room who wants to register their support or opposition to the Bill? Moderator do we have anybody on the phone lines?

Ladies and gentlemen, on the phone lines, you may press 10 if you wish to comment. And, Madam Chair, we have no one. zero, I do apologize. We have a late person here. Line 34. Please go ahead.

Yes, Senator Mcguire, please continue your work. And I'm glad to hear that Shirley has identified something that needs to be fixed and repaired.

And we have no other lines. Madam Chair, you may continue.

Thank you. Any comments or questions from the Committee Members? Seeing none, Senator, you may close.

Thank you. Again, Madam Chair, we respectfully ask for an aye vote and very grateful to your Committee staff for their sincere engagement. Thank you.

Thank you. I'd like to thank the author for bringing this Bill forward. The Bill contains reasonable and practical election Administration changes to ensure the Secretary of State and Gubernatorial candidates are able to comply with the law. And we have a motion by Rubio and second by Lee to do pass and re refer to the Appropriations Committee. I recommend a support position. You may call the role.

[Roll Call]

That Bill does not have enough votes to get out. It will be on call. It needs one more vote, and we'll be calling in the absent Members.

Thank you so much. Thank you.

We did have two bills we took up earlier today when we were a Subcommitee, and we'll bring those up right now. First one is Senator Doz, SB 328. Do I have a motion? We have a motion by was that Leckie? No. Motion by Lowe. Do I have a second? Second by Rubio. So that is a due pass and reverber to the Appropriations Committee, and I am recommending support on that Bill. You may call the roll.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out, 51. And we'll keep the roll open to allow Members to add on. We have another Bill that was taken up earlier. It's by Senator Glazer. SB five, 69. I'm recommending support. Is there a motion on the Bill moved by Lee, second by Bennett. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is due. Pass and be. We refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That Bill is out, six to zero. We have a Bill on call by Senator Mcguire. It was SB 658. Madam Secretary, please call the roll on that.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out, five to zero. Thank you. Okay, we'll go through the roll calls to allow Members to add on. Thank you.

Mr Lowe on SB 724. Low aye.

Thank you. Okay, we're going to go ahead and wait and see if there's other Members to come in and add on to the bills. So I need to be honest. We're going to go through the roll call for absent Members. Madam Secretary, please proceed on item one.

[Roll Call]

We are adjourned.