Assembly Standing Committee on Elections

Pellerin here, Lackey here, Bennet, Essayli here, Lee here, Low here, Blanca Rubio, McKinnor here. We have a quorum.

Very good. We have two options for the public to testify at today's hearing in person or by a moderated telephone service. The Committee has one item on its agenda. There is nothing on consent. We have a maximum of two primary witnesses in support and two primary witnesses in opposition of the measure, with a limit of two minutes each.

After we have heard from the primary witness, the public will have up to 15 minutes in total time for additional public comment, starting with Members of the public who are here in the room. Other witnesses are limited to providing their name, their organization they represent, if any, and their position on the Bill. Additional comments will be ruled out of order. If you are unable to get through on the telephone, please feel free to submit written testimony through the portal on the Committee's website.

The written testimony will become part of the official record of the Bill. For those who are watching this hearing remotely and who wish to call in to register your position, the call in number for this hearing is 877-692-8957 and the access code is 131-5444. You can also find this number on the Assembly Elections Committee website as well as on your TV or computer screen. If you are 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 are having any problems with the moderated 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 California. Before we move on to the agenda, I have an announcement to make.

I have a letter from Speaker Rivas appointing Assemblymember Tina McKinnor to fill the democratic vacancy on the committee. For the purposes of today's hearing only. Assemblymember McKinner, thank you so much for joining us. With those announcements out of the way, we will now move on to the Committee's agenda. The only item on the agenda today is AB. 969.

And because I am the author of that Bill, I'm going to hand the gavel over to our Vice Chair, Assemblymember Lackey, to proceed to preside while I present. So take it away. Okay. I'll go down here. You okay?

Thank you. Mr. Chair and Members. AB 969 updates the elections code to reflect the realities of running an election in the 21st century by clarifying when a county elections official must use a voting system as their primary method of tabulation. hand counts are complex, imprecise, expensive, and resource-intensive. A 2018 study conducted by researchers from Harvard, MIT, and the University of Wisconsin found that paper ballots counted by hand were less accurate than ballots counted with optical scanners.

Research has consistently shown that humans are poor at completing rote, repetitive tasks. In a report to the Bipartisan Policy Center, an elections official noted that she had four sets of workers hand-count the same ballots and she received four different results. AB 969 is simple. It requires that a voting system be used in regularly scheduled elections in which there are more than 1,000 registered eligible voters.

As of 154 days in advance of the election, this threshold increases to 5,000 registered voters in non-regularly scheduled elections, such as special elections. This was the portion of the Bill that was amended in the Senate, which is why it's back in this committee today. The United States has some of the longest ballots in the world because each ballot contains contests for local, state, and federal offices and measures if non-regularly scheduled elections and non-regularly scheduled elections.

The ballots tend to only have one contest on the ballot, which allows for easier hand counting. We updated these thresholds on August 17 to ensure the county elections officials have more flexibility when it comes to these non-regularly scheduled elections to briefly address concerns regarding local control. This Bill does not mandate that a county must use a specific voting system to conduct its elections in California. All voting systems must be state-certified and federally qualified.

The selection of a voting system will continue to be governed by Division 19 of the California Elections Code. California has some of the strictest voting system standards in the country, with our standards exceeding bless you, the federal minimums. Furthermore, the argument that voting systems are easily hacked is a fallacy. It is illegal for any part of a voting system to be connected to the Internet at any time, and no part of the voting system is permitted to receive or transmit wireless communications or wireless data transfers.

With me today is Laurel Brodzinsky with Common Cause, who will be my primary witness.

You may proceed.

Thank you, chair and Members. I'm Laurel Brodzinsky, Legislative Director with California Common Cause, here today in support of AB 969. In recent years, misinformation regarding election Administration and unfounded claims of election fraud have been spread in order to undermine our democratic processes for political purposes. These claims have found traction in California despite being consistently disproven and create real dangers for protecting the right of Californians to vote.

The Shasta County Board of Supervisors' decision to cancel the county's voting system lease agreement with Dominion was rooted in these unfounded claims of fraud. At the time the decision was approved, the board did not provide a plan or describe how they would conduct future elections in a way that ensured accessibility or that the county would be able to accurately process ballots subject to the required timelines and code. And as the Assembly Member noted, voting systems go through rigorous testing and certification by the Secretary of State.

They also include not just the mechanisms for counting ballots, but also accessible voting machines, including ballot marking devices to ensure that voters with disabilities can vote privately and independently and provide required translations of ballots and are used to create the variety of ballot styles that may be applicable in a jurisdiction due to local contests and measures.

Common Cause cares deeply about the integrity of our election Administration, and making sure that every vote is counted properly and on time is essential to preserving faith in our democracy as a whole. This means we also have to recognize the realities of running an election in modern jurisdictions with thousands of voters, something we know the Assembly Member intimately knows.

AB 969 recognizes there is a time and place for a manual vote count, but installs the necessary guardrails regarding when a manual vote count can be conducted in compliance with the election code. This ensures that crucial election Administration decisions are not made without ensuring that future elections will be able to meet legal obligations, including providing access to individuals with disabilities or language needs and logistical needs. This ensures that no voter will be disenfranchised due to a lack of prior planning. For these reasons California Common Cause urges your aye vote on AB 969. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Do we have anybody here in opposition to this particular proposal that wants to testify? I'm seeing none. Anybody in the room that wanted to express their support or opposition, this is your chance to do so. Please come to the microphone and express yourself. Seeing no one interested there. I don't think we have phone lines, do we? Do we? Okay. Moderator, this is your opportunity to weigh in. If there's anybody on the phone lines, we'd like to hear whether they support or oppose this measure.

For support or opposition, for AB 969, press one, then zero. On your telephone keypad. We will go to Line 25.

The elections committee hearing in the California State Assembly. I'm trying to express my opposition to AB 969, but I have a follow-up question about why you don't.

This is not an opportunity to engage man. Just express your but you don't support our opposition. We appreciate that. Wouldn't your process let's go forward. Let the next caller ma'am, please.

We'll go to line 19. Please go ahead.

Yes. My name is Linda Musser. I'm calling from Lincoln. That's Prasher County and I strongly oppose this. Please do not continue this. Thank you.

Thank you.

We will go to line 17. Please go ahead. Line 17 you may speak.

Sorry, can you hear me?

We can hear you. Please proceed.

Can you guys hear me?

Yes, ma'am. Please.

Good morning. Hi, church. Great. Hi, chair and chair Members. My name is Serena Latch. I'm calling from Placer County I'm in strong opposition of this Bill. This is against the Civil Rights Act for voters.

Thank you for calling, we appreciate your input.

Next caller, please.

We will go to line 22. Please go ahead.

Hi. My name is Jennette Felt and I'm from Sacramento County and I oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

We'll go to line 13. Please go ahead.

My name is Mindy Pechenuk and I'm in Alameda County, and I oppose dominions. Nine, six, nine.

Thank you.

We'll go to line eleven. Please go ahead.

Lee Moseberry and Placer County in strong opposition to Bill 969.

Thank you.

We'll go to line 30. Please go ahead.

Hello? Jennifer Johnson, Placer County. I oppose 969.

Thank you.

We will go to line 18. Please go ahead.

My name is Colleen Britton with Election Integrity Project California and California. Legislative Voice We're in strong opposition to AB 969. Thank you.

Thank you.

To line 29. Please go ahead. Line 29, you may proceed.

Is that me? Hello?

Yes, that is you.

I'm so sorry. Yeah, hi, this is Sandy Marquez from Placer County and Penn County should not be eliminated, so I strongly oppose AB 969, thank you.

And we'll go to line 16. Please go ahead.

Thank you. My name is Jackie Coda and I am from the election integrity team of Alameda County. And we strenuously oppose AB 969. Stop destroying integrity.

Thank you.

We'll go to line number 20. Please go ahead.

Yes, can you hear me? We can. Please proceed. Hello? Yes, please proceed. Yes. My name is Hunter Cobb. I live in Alameda and I'm also a Member of the Election Integrity team of Alameda County, California. And I strongly oppose AB 969. Okay, thank you. That's what I have to say.

We'll go to line 15. Please go ahead.

Cindy Rocha with the Election Integrity Team of Alameda County, California. And I oppose dominion. AB 969.

Thank you.

We will go to line 14. Please go ahead.

Good morning. This is Cathy Darling Allen Chasta, County Clerk and Registrar voters in strong support of AB 969

Thank you.

And we'll go to line 28. Please go ahead.

Yes, this is Stephanie Swela and I strongly oppose this non transparent use of these machines.

Thank you for calling.

We'll go to line twelve. Please go ahead.

Linda Russell, disenfranchised voter from Shasta County, California, strongly support this Bill.

Thank you.

Go to line 32. Please go ahead.

Why you don't allow an opposing witness? This doesn't make any sense to me.

You're cutting express your support or opposition, please.

We'll to line 35.

Please go ahead. Yes, hi, can you hear me?

We can. Please proceed.

Hello?

We can hear you.

Okay, great. John Guerrero, Election Integrity Team of Alameda, California. We strongly oppose dominion inspired AB 969. Thank you.

Thank you.

We'll go to line 34. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Shauna, I'm with in Shasta County, a resident of and I am for AB 969. Thank you.

Thank you.

I will go to line 37. Please go ahead.

You're not following your own process. You need to allow an opposed.

Please express your name and your support or opposition, please. That's it.

We'll go to line 39. Please go ahead.

Yes. My name is Terry. I'm calling from Placer County. I strongly oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

And we'll go to line 26. Please go ahead.

My name is Rita Piziali. I'm with Placer County and I strongly oppose AB 969

And we'll go back to line 28. Please go ahead.

Yes, this is Stephanie Swela. Again, I got cut off. I strongly oppose using these machines. They're not transparent.

Thank you.

And Mr. Chair we have no further comments for opposition or support.

Okay, thank you very much. Okay, we'll bring it back to the committee. Anybody have any questions or comments they would like to make? Yes, Assemblymember Essayli you may proceed. Thank you.

I just want to clarify to the people listening, we do allow witness oppositions. You just have to arrange it with the committee ahead of time, is that correct? Okay, so for those listening, we absolutely do allow opposition witnesses. You just have to call ahead of time and request that you'd like to testify. Because I do think process is important. Assemblywoman, I've read your Bill.

I think we both agree that elections are run by locals, The Registrar of Voters, primarily responsible for running the election and the counties oversee that right. And they pay for it. And I know the State has set standards for how elections should be conducted and I don't really have any opposition to that. I see here in Subsection A, it allows for manual counting as long as it's conducted pursuant to a plan approved by the Secretary of State.

My question is, since we have that requirement already why do we then just flat-out make it illegal to conduct a manual vote count if there's more than 1,000 registered voters? Like, why have that prohibition? If the county wants to do a manual tally and they want to pay for it and they want to comply with a plan that's approved by the Secretary of State, why don't we let them?

So the intent of the law is that every voter in the state of California has access to a voting system that is federally qualified and state certified. It has gone through rigorous testing. It is transparent, it is auditable, it is secure, it is accessible for persons with disabilities. So we need to have a level playing field for every voter in the state of California. We do an audit of those machine counted votes and we do that by hand.

And that is the check and balance on the voting system. So it's absolutely imperative for counties to meet the deadlines they're under for these statewide elections. And these larger elections to have the usage of the voting system that they have purchased.

Okay. I just think for me personally, if they want to do a manual vote count and they want to pay for it, and it's going to be extremely costly and burdensome to meet the deadlines, I just think that they should be able to have that opportunity. So I have no further questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate that very much. Yes, Assemblymember Bennett, you may proceed.

Could you elaborate just a little bit more on the advantages of having it be consistent so that, for example, the audits can be done timely and with more accuracy and more reliability? Thank you.

Well, I mean, I know voters and candidates and measure committees are always very anxious to get those vote results as soon as possible. And utilizing technology in today's day and age helps us to meet those deadlines that everyone's waiting for. And as I said in my statement, as far as the complexity of our ballots, it's not just one contest on the ballot. There are multiple contests on the ballot. So it is very labor-intensive to hand count every single ballot in a countywide election like that.

So the benefits of having a federally qualified state certified system is that it is a system that is transparent, it's gone through rigorous testing, it is accessible to persons with disabilities, it is secure, it is auditable. And making sure that all voters in the state of California have the same access to that kind of a system is imperative to make sure the integrity of our votes and our democracy is preserved.

Thank you very much.

I do have a question as well, the urgency clause. I'm trying to understand the reason for urgency. Can you explain why that there's an urgency and why January 1st is not soon enough?

We have a March 2024 presidential primary, and the county of Shasta would like to use the voting system that they've been using for many years now and been using it successfully. And it is something that is transparent. I invite any voter who's interested to see how elections work. Contact your local elections official. They will welcome you with open arms to come in and observe all of their processes. So we want to make sure that this is in place for our big election coming up in 2024.

Okay. Secondly, how many counties in the state of California have fewer than 1000 registered voters?

I believe it's only one. Yeah, Alpine.

Because this kind of seems like a de facto ban on just hand counted ballots. Is that what this is?

No, it's basically wanting to make sure that voters have access to a system that has all the security measures and testing and standards applied to it and a system that is accurate, transparent, accessible and auditable.

Okay. My position is similar to my colleague to my left that I think Assemblymember Essayli said it very well that I think that counties should have the autonomy to make the decision on how they address the vote count. It's a very sacred thing. Very, very important. And trust levels are very important. Anyways,

I appreciate that. And I believe the Constitution of the people, by the people, for the people, and this protects the people in the state of California.

Is that your close, or would you like to say?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Let's go ahead. Yeah, to my.

I knew that loud and clear.

I think most people know that. Okay, let's do we have a motion? Okay, we have a first and second. We're ready to call for the question.

The motion is with recommendation that Senate amendments be concurred in Pellerin aye, Lackey no, Benette aye, Essayli no, Lee aye, Low aye, Blanca Rubio aye, Mckinnor aye.

It's out six to two. Congratulations.

So much. Thank you so much.

Maybe having some current. Yeah, not today. Okay. Surprise, surprise.

And we are adjourned. Thank you.