Assembly Standing Committee on Elections

Good morning, and welcome to the June 7, 2023 hearing of the Assembly Elections Committee. Quorum's present, right?

Yes.

Before we proceed, let's call the role and establish a quorum.

Bryan. Here. Bryan, here. Lackey. Here. Bennett. Essayli. Here. Essayli, here. McKinnor. McKinnor, here. Low. Pellerin. Here. Pellerin, here. Blanca Rubio. We have a quorum.

Beautiful. Thank you. We have two options for the public to testify today's hearing in person or by moderated telephone service. The committee has six bills on our agenda, including five bills that are proposed for 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 2 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 members of the public who are here in this committee room. Other witnesses are limited to providing their name, the organization they represent, if any, and their position on the bill. Additional comments will be ruled out of order.

If we are unable to get through, if you are 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 becomes part of the official record of the bill. For those who are watching this hearing remotely and wish to call in to register their position, the call in number for this hearing is 877-692-8957 and the access code is 1315444. You can also find the number on the Assembly Elections Committee website as well as on your TV or computer screen. If any problems with the moderated phone service, you can call the committee directly at 916-319-2094 and my incredible committee staff will be there to try to help. Thank you for bearing with us as we implement methods to continue to serve the people of California. Before we move on the agenda, I have a couple of additional announcements to make.

I have a letter from Speaker Rendon appointing Assemblymember Tina McKinnor to replace Assemblymember Lee on the committee for the purpose of today's hearing only. Assemblymember McKinnor, thank you for joining us. With those announcements out of the way, we'll now move on to the committee's agenda. Let's take up the committee's consent calendar. There are five bills on the calendar. Those bills are item number one, SB 25 by Senator Skinner. Item number three, SB 437 by Senator Dodd.

Item number four, SB 678, by Senator Umberg, as proposed to be amended as detailed in comment number four of the committee analysis. Item number five, SB 789 by Senator Allen, as proposed to be amended as detailed in comment number five of the committee analysis. And item number six, SB 798 by our friend and Senate counterpart, Senator Steve Glazer. Does any member wish to remove any item from the consent calendar? Seeing and hearing none. Do we have a motion on the consent calendar? Motion by Vice-Chair Lackey and Ms. McKinnor. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

Bryan. Aye. Bryan, aye. Lackey. Aye. Lackey, aye. Bennett. Essayli. Aye. Essayli, aye. McKinnor. Aye. McKinnor, aye. Low. Aye. Low, aye. Pellerin. Blanca Rubio.

The consent calendar is adopted five, zero. We also have received word that Senator Allen is sprinting rapidly on his way to the committee as we speak, and we will take up that bill when he arrives. Senator Allen.

Good morning, Mr. Chair.

SB 297. You can begin whenever you're ready.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. We're all running back and forth. And. I guess a couple of your members are presenting in the Committee that I just gave down in over there. All right, Members, we have a good system now in place, thanks to the leadership of Daryl Steinberg and the Legislature before any of us were here, that created a system where we now have an ability to pull a measure back. When people have presented a measure to the Legislature, sorry, to the voters, when people collected signatures to put something on the ballot.

And now there's a new mechanism in place where there can be a negotiation. And if the Legislature comes up with a responsive legislation, then the proponents can pull the measure back and the Legislature moves forward with legislation. And we don't have to go through all the unpredictability and expense and madness of many of these ballot campaigns.

Now, one thing that's come up is that the current rules say that you have to have every single one of the ballot signatories to agree in order for the ballot measure to be pulled back. And that creates I lived through this myself. It can create some real challenges, especially if there's a lot of signatories. You have to track down every single person, get wet signatures, and it creates a great deal of unpredictability.

And so we've sat down with some good government groups and have figured out an alternative path that says that if as long as you have a majority of the signatories who can agree, then that would be acceptable. And we create an escrow system as well that will just create a little bit more functionality to the way that the referendum can be pulled from the ballot. And so that's what this Bill is all about. And I'm certainly happy to answer questions and respectfully ask your aye vote.

Thank you. Senator, are there any primary witnesses in support here in the room?

I don't think so.

Seeing none. Any primary witnesses in opposition?

I know the legal and voters is supporting the Bill, but that's a good group to have.

Yeah, I guess we'll move to the phone lines. Moderator is there anybody on the phone lines who would like to speak in support or opposition to this Bill

Ladies and gentlemen please press 10 at this time. Again, it's 1 0 currently. None in queue.

Seeing none on the phone lines. Is there somebody in the room who'd like to register their support or opposition?

Thank you. Support.

Perfect.

Adriana Champagnes-Zamora with the League of Women Voters in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you for being here. We'll now turn it to Committee Members. Anybody?

I'm accepting the Committee amendments, then. Thank you for those helpful amendments.

Appreciate that. Seeing no Committee Member. Motion by Mr. Bennett. Second by Mr. Low.

Yeah. Thank you. Mr. Chair. Just a clarifying question. You referenced having to get permission from the signatories, but actually referring to the proponents of the Bill, not the people that sign the initiative. Correct?

Well, the way it works is, it's the signatories. So usually they are the proponents, but we've gone back and looked at history. Sometimes there's a long list of people, sometimes it's just one or two. But the law focuses on the folks who sign. There's a special mechanism whereby you sign and when you're one of the signatories, you have effective control over the measure.

Yeah, I just want to clarify. It's not the people that sign the initiative It's the people that-

Oh that's right I'm so sorry. You're right. Exactly. And then it would be so it's-

A smaller class of people.

Yes.

And do you have any concerns that deals could be cut that benefit certain groups but not others that are in that coalition? And so just to get to a majority, that leaves some out. I'm just concerned about where you could just cut deals with to satisfy a few members of the coalition instead of the overall coalition itself. It seems, to water it down a little bit.

No, I hear you on that. Obviously, people would go in eyes wide open with this being the new system. I think right now, people I suppose the truth is I don't think most people know the way the rules work. As part of preparing for this, I spoke to former signatories of ballot measures, and most people I spoke to were relatively unclear as to what the rules were. But that being said, that is one of the trade-offs. I guess.

I would argue on the other side that people can make agreements amongst themselves that they're going in signing a measure under certain with certain understandings. And in the end of the day, part of what we're trying to do here is to encourage legislative solutions rather than going to the ballot. In the end of the day, the Legislature can make amendments. It's not as predictable, it's not as costly. And remember, nothing prevents the folks from walking away from the deal.

But I suppose it would change the dynamic somewhat if it was a really unwieldy coalition that got behind a ballot measure. I guess right now the question is, should we create a system where just one person can scuttle the whole deal if you've got a strong majority of the ballot signatories that want to move forward? And that's the policy question that the Committee faces today.

Thank you appreciate it.

Mr. Bennett.

Just in response to that, what if something happens to a signatory between the time when they sign and when a good deal is struck?

That's absolutely right.

This modification, you couldn't make a change. So they're incapacitated, they can't sign.

People are out of the country.

Yeah, they're out of the country. So I think this certainly is in the spirit of the law that Legislature first passed in terms of doing this, which is why I'm making the motion. I appreciate you. All of these things usually take a little bit of tweaking to clean up.

Thank you.

Thank you for those questions and comments. Mr. Lackey. Vice Chair.

Yeah, I just have to say that all these measures that seem to cheapen a process, it's one of the only ways to counterbalance the supermajority influence that exists here in the Legislature. And so it feels like and I have to tell you, maybe you aren't able to sympathize because a lot of these measures are in contrast to the supermajority feeling. It feels like any effort to cheapen the criteria to allow direct democracy to move forward is a bad move. Is a bad move.

And so it feels like it's just another chip away from direct democracy. And so I won't be able to support it because that's what feels like.

I would just say, remember, we're talking about the folks that have the group of people that have proactively decided to put the measure forward in this case. So I hear you and I know there's a lot of bills out there. Obviously, if you're the kind of person that just wants to have as many measures as possible on the ballot, then certainly this would be something what you said about this. Yeah. Anyhow, I hear and respect your position.

I will say that the group we're talking about here are the group of proponents. They're oftentimes very strongly feeling people who've decided to spend a lot of money and time to put a measure on a ballot. And they're ultimately the ones that are going to make the decision about whether the legislative response is adequate enough to merit their pulling their measure or not.

You've sparked a lively debate, Ms. McKinnor.

Yes. Thank you so much, Senator, for bringing this measure forward. When I think about propositions going on the ballot, they're always so confusing to most of our constituents. So whenever the proponent can come in and talk with the leg, I really rather see legislation go through the Legislature.

So when you see the folks that are putting this on the ballot, if they can come to agreement, and if just half of the majority of them are there to pull it off, it is a plus plus, because a lot of times this stuff is so complicated, it goes on the ballot. Our constituents don't understand it, and then we pass something that's really not good for California. So I thank you for bringing this forward.

And oftentimes there are things that the proponents didn't anticipate that they can get fixed in the legislation. One thing to just keep in mind here, the vast majority of initiatives have just one or two signatories. So just to give you a sense, only eight initiatives, 2.4% in the last decade, had three or more lead proponents. So we're only talking about a very tiny percentage. The vast majority, you're talking about one or two. And by definition, if it's two, then both have to agree. So we're talking about a small group here.

No, I think that's an incredibly powerful clarifying point. Also, the whole point of the initiative process is to get the legislator to be responsive to things that people feel like it otherwise hadn't been supermajority or otherwise like legalizing cannabis, repealing Prop 209, split roll, a whole bunch of things that the people have organized to incentivize us to act.

So by you offering a solution that requires us to act and the people then to be satisfied and save the taxpayers money in the long run, I think it's smart. I think it's thoughtful. It's good legislation. It has a do pass RECO. Madam Secretary, or would you like to close?

I really appreciate the robust conversation. I respect the position of the Vice Chair, but I do think that the balance of interests here really do certainly lead me to strongly ask you for your aye vote.

These are 100 year old processes. They need tweaked. I respectfully ask for you to call the role.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, Members. Appreciate it.

Thank you, members. Appreciate it. Thank you.

Five to two. Should we do add ons now? Wait for.

We can let people add on to consent. Wait for Pellerin.

So let people add on to consent and then.

Adding on to the consent calendar. Bennett. Bennett, aye. Pellerin. Blanca Rubio. Blanca Rubio, aye.

Welcome, Ms. Pellerin. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

Adding on to consent. Ms. Pellerin. Aye. Ms. Pellerin, aye. On Senate Bill 297 by Senator Allen, the motion was do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations. Ms. Pellerin. Aye. Ms. Pellerin is aye. Thank you.

This concludes today's Elections Committee hearing.

You're going to use that on me, aren't you?