Senate Standing Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments

Those on consent are Assembly Bill 507 by Assembly Member Bryan and Assembly Bill 1761 which is from the Committee on Elections. We currently are just short of a quorum, so we're going to begin as a Committee of the whole and we'll call the roll when we have a quorum here. I want to thank our first author for being here on time, and so we'll begin with Item Number One: Assembly Bill 334 by Assembly Member Rubio. We welcome you to the Committee and you may begin when you're ready.

Thank you, and as a teacher, I would be embarrassed not to be on time, although I am in Committee right now, as a matter of fact. I'm just teasing. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Senators for giving me the opportunity to present this morning. AB 334 would clarify existing conflict of interest statute which was written and intended for the situation of public officials who hold a financial interest in an entity attempting to contract with the public agency for which the official is a decision maker.

Since the Code's inception, courts have expanded 1090 so it may apply to entities that contract with public agencies under circumstances in fact, patterns that are murky at best. The state must set clarity for a public agency when contracting with independent contractors on public projects that their normal historical contracting practices will not violate Codes Section 1090.

This bill seeks to do so by adopting a two-part test laid out in case law and FPPC guidance which is useful for determining whether or not a contracted entity performs services that amount to, quote, 'transacting on behalf of a public agency,' in which case they are subject to Government Code 1090, the same as any public official.

Since statute has not kept up with case law and the FPPC, ambiguity deters public agencies from utilizing contracted entities on more than one portion of a public project out of fear of unknowingly getting it wrong, thus incurring civil or even criminal penalties for any and all parties involved. For example, design professionals are being denied by public agencies even if they are the best, most qualified professionals for the public works project.

This is despite the fact that the state and local agencies are already required under state and federal statute to competitively select these professionals on the basis of qualifications. AB 334 seeks to restore clarity to public agencies so these agencies may resume utilizing a contracted entity more than once in a single project without fear of being penalized or prosecuted. Ultimately, the public deserves the best, safest, and most cost-effective public works project.

It is the public who suffers when their projects are not able to be designed by the best, most qualified professionals. The recent amendments were drafted in collaboration with the FPPC and removed the opposed unless amended position from the district attorneys. I have with here today John Moffatt on behalf of the American Council of Engineering Companies California, and Matthew Duarte for the Association of Recreation and Park Districts in support. The FPPC is also here to answer any technical questions the Committee may have. Thank you.

Thank you, Assemblywoman. Since this is the start of our hearing, let me mention our practice has been to have two witnesses, primary witnesses, two minutes each on both sides. So with that, I want to invite Mr. Moffatt to the podium.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. John Moffatt on behalf of the American Council of Engineering Companies in California. We're the sponsor of this measure. We appreciate the work of the author as well as the work--the technical input from the FPPC on getting this bill to the place where it is right now. This is a challenge that we're facing out there in the marketplace. California law requires that design and engineering of projects be done based on qualification-based selection.

You don't want the cheapest bidder building bridges, you want the best bridge builder building bridges for public safety and a number of other things. The ambiguity out in this space out with our local government and other clients has created some challenges that continue to grow.

What we hope to do with the bill is codify the test that has come out of the case law and the advice letters from the FPPC to provide clarity not only to our firms, but also to our local government clients as they move forward on projects. I'm happy to answer any questions the Committee may have, but we ask for your support today.

Thank you, Mr. Moffat. Mr. Duarte.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Senators. My name is Matthew Duarte. I'm the Executive Director for California Association of Recreation and Park Districts. Our association includes over 70 local government agencies from throughout the state responsible for delivering recreation and park services to millions of Californians today, and I am here to speak in support of Assembly Bill 334 and the much-needed improvements it brings to the public contracting process.

As public agencies, our foremost priority is to deliver infrastructure and public amenities that are the highest quality and in compliance with exacting safety standards. As a result, it is important that our projects are designed and constructed by the best and brightest professionals that our state has to offer. Unfortunately, current law necessarily precludes our local government agencies from utilizing the services of the most qualified and most knowledgeable in important phases of our public projects.

The designs of our public infrastructure are not IKEA step-by-step instructions, and we should not treat them as something that can be thoughtlessly handed off to the next person on the street with a hammer. AB 334 allows our public agencies to streamline the design and build process and ensure that our public projects are handled safely by the most qualified professionals that we can find. We appreciate the Legislature's thoughtfulness and consideration of this important issue and for your support of AB 334.

Thank you, Mr. Duarte. I appreciate your reference to IKEA's step-by-step process. I'm not sure that always actually works for those who have tried to put things together there. I see some acknowledgment. Okay. We want to allow others who are here in support to do a #MeToo here at the podium. Just your name and your affiliation and support, if you'd like, and then we'll go to the opposition side.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Kyra Ross on behalf of the City of San Marcos in support.

Thank you.

Hi. Good morning, Chair. Scott Alonso with the City of Santa Rosa in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Alyssa Silhi on behalf of the cities of Belmont, Redwood City, and Mountain View, also in support.

Great, thank you, and we're going to go with opposition here and then we'll go to the phone lines, but I think we have a quorum now, so let me ask the secretary to call the roll.

Senators Glazer? Here. Glazer, here. Nguyen? Here. Nguyen, here. Allen? McGuire? Menjivar? Newman? Here. Newman, here. Umberg? Here. Umberg, here.

Okay. We do have a quorum, so let's give the opportunity for opposition here in the room to provide testimony if they wish. Is there anyone here in opposition? Can provide two minutes of fleet opposition testimony. I don't see anyone. Okay. So that's not a phone line, is that right? No. Okay. So let's go to the phone lines now for those who want to indicate support or opposition to Assembly Bill 334. Moderator, can you so inquire?

Certainly. Thank you. Please press one and then zero if so. Again, it's one zero. And currently none in queue.

All right, we'll bring the matter back to the Committee for comments or questions. Members, any comments or questions?

Glad to move the bill.

All right, and Assembly Member, you're accepting the amendments that were suggested in the staff report, is that right? Great. I wanted to--I know that Fair Political Practice is represented here today. I wanted to invite them to come to the podium. Is that David Bainbridge? Are you here? General Counsel. That's great. Just to put on the record the position of the FPPC on the bill, I think that'd be healthy for our deliberations. Welcome.

Good morning. Dave Bainbridge. I'm the General Counsel with the Fair Political Practices Commission. The Commission has not taken a formal stance on this bill yet, so I can't provide a position from the Commission because they would have to vote on it. We have a meeting next Thursday. They may be doing that at that meeting, but I can say that we have worked with the sponsors and the author of the bill to ensure that the bill properly codifies existing case law. So to the extent that I can say anything, that was the FPPC's role to this point.

We appreciate that, and of course, please keep the Committee informed of whatever action you take on this bill. Always appreciate your expertise. Thank you so much. All right, Members, any further comments or questions? I'm going to recognize a motion from Senator Newman. This would be a 'do pass as amended and re-refer to the Committee on Rules.' With that, Secretary, call the roll.

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

That has four votes. We'll leave it on call for absent Members. Thank you, Assemblywoman. All right, next up we have another author here in the room. This is file item number two, Assembly Bill 398 by Assembly Member Pellerin. Welcome to the Committee.

Good morning. Thank you. So the elections code currently states that an elections official can issue a replacement mailed ballot to any voter who provides a statement under penalty of perjury that they have lost, failed to receive or destroyed their original ballot. The signature requirement delays the process for voters as elections officials are barred from issuing a replacement ballot until they've received a statement signed under penalty of perjury, even if the voter has already contacted the elections official to request the ballot.

This requirement is redundant as counties are able to track the mailed ballot returns to ensure that voters are not voting twice with replacement ballots. AB 398 removes the requirement of a wet signature under penalty of perjury to request that replacement ballot and instead requires the voter to provide the elections official with specified personal identifying information.

The Bill also substitutes the term 'Second Vote-by-Mail Ballot' where it appears in code with the words 'Replacement Ballot' in order to more accurately describe these ballots as replacements rather than a second ballot to submit. The removal of the wet signature requirement will make the replacement ballot request process more efficient for both voters and elections officials.

Without the wet signature requirement, voters will be able to submit the request for a replacement ballot either online, over the phone, and with election staff who will be able to immediately act on that request. AB 398 is sponsored by the California Association of Clerks and Elections Officials and has support from disability rights and environmental advocates. And with me today to testify is Tricia Webber, who is the County Clerk and Registrar of Voters in Santa Cruz County.

Thank you Assembly Member. Welcome to the Committee.

Thank you very much. Hi. Trisha Weber. I'm the County Clerk Registrar of Voters for Santa Cruz County. But I'm here on behalf of CACEO, California Association of Clerk and Election Officials. We are proud to support and sponsor this Bill.

This is about voter experience and to have the voters on the phone stating that they didn't receive their vote-by-mail ballot or they messed up and they need a replacement and only to go through all of the information to identify who they are, make sure we have the address correct and everything. Then to say, Well, I'm sorry, you need to now fill out this piece of paper, sign it and send it to us.

Makes it a bad experience for us as an election official and for the voter. Especially if that voter is overseas or in the military where we do a large portion of our communication with them via email or on opposite sides of the- we'll be in in the middle of the night to talk to somebody because of time zones to turn around and say, 'I'm sorry, you need to send me something'.

Which will end up coming oftentimes too late for us to give them a replacement ballot or after the election has passed. This is also taking us back to before we used to be able to take requests for vote-by-mail ballots or replacement ballots through email or over the phone, after getting personal identifying information in order to verify that it is indeed the voter that is asking.

And it's just restoring what we were doing in the past and making it a better experience. We respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Ms. Weber, thanks for traveling here to provide testimony. You had pretty big shoes to fill in your job, didn't you?

I certainly did.

That's what we've heard.

Luckily, we wear the same size, so I just can keep moving.

Isn't that nice? All right, any other lead support witnesses? We have one more slot or come up and show your name and affiliation in support as well.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Ted Muhlhauser on behalf of Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber, PhD. Secretary Weber supports the Bill and thanks Assemblymember Pellerin for their work on this.

Thank you. Thank you for being here to provide that perspective from the Secretary. Any other individuals in support here in the room?

Adrianna Champagne-Zamora with the League of Women Voters of California in strong support.

Thank you.

Alyssa Silhi on behalf of the City Clerks Association of California. Also in support. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. All right, we're going to go to opposition here in the room. Anyone in opposition to this Bill, please step forward. All right, not seeing anyone. We'll go to the phone lines. Moderator, we'll take testimony in favor or in opposition to AB 398. If you could ask if there's anyone on the line that would like to do that.

Thank you very much. Again, it is 1, 0 at this time. Please press 1, 0. And give us just a moment here. We do have one in queue here. Be just moment. And we can go to line number nine. Please go ahead.

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

Thank you.

And currently at the moment, none further in queue.

All right, thank you. Moderator we'll bring the issue back to the Committee for comments or questions. Members any comments or questions? Seeing none. Assembly Member thank you for your continued, dedicated work in this space.

We appreciate your expertise. It's a worthy Bill and happy to support it today.

Thank you.

Thank you.

A motion from the Committee. Senator Newman has moved the Bill. With that, would you like to close?

Well, as Tricia said, this is something that was in law before, so we're just restoring this and making the voter experience much more seamless. So thank you. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay, terrific. If the secretary would call the roll.

This is file item number two with the motion due pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call]

We'll put that Bill on call for absent Members.

You have a second item on our docket today, file item number three. This is Assembly Bill 773, and you can begin when you're ready.

Well, candidates who, or members who live in, candidates and members who live in multiple county districts will love this bill because basically, in larger multi-county districts, there can be upwards of 10 counties in a district. For instance, Assembly District 1 contains 11 different counties, and state senate District 4 contains 13 different counties. And currently, the requirement that the candidate drops off their candidate statement of qualification form and payment in person in each of those counties.

And that's an unnecessary hurdle faced by many candidates and can be especially burdensome for those candidates in those larger rural districts. So AB 773 eases that candidate filing process by requiring that all county elections officials accept submissions of the candidate statements of qualification and the form that goes along with that electronically. And then under this bill, once a candidate files that statement of qualifications electronically, they'll have 72 hours to submit that hard copy of the statement, the form, and the fee by overnight mail.

Additionally, filing deadlines for arguments for and against local measures can differ by county, and the same measure can have different arguments for and against these measures printed in county voter information guides. So this inconsistency causes misfiling, deadlines, and confusion for voters. So to ensure consistency for both candidates and voters, AB 773 establishes a lead county for multi-county local ballot measures to which arguments would be filed, which would then select and transmit a ballot measure argument to all the other counties in the district.

And the lead county will work with the other counties to establish the submittal deadline so that everyone's in sync. So these changes by AB 773 will collectively work to streamline the filing process for candidates, local ballot measures, and lessen confusion among voters. The bill has bipartisan authors and passed the Assembly with nobody voting no and has bipartisan support. So I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Assembly Member. Do you have any witnesses in support?

I don't today.

Okay, so we'll open it up. Anyone here in the hearing room that want to indicate their support for this measure, please come forward.

Ms. Shirley Weber. Want to thank Assembly Member Pellerin for the bill. This is an issue that many candidates have to deal with. We appreciate the approach in this bill centering the solution at the local level where currently these statements are administered. If the bill were to be to include a role from the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State does not currently have a process regarding these candidates for these legislative offices. So we would have some significant ramp up and some additional expense and so forth. So we wanted to just speak up and thank Assembly Member Pellerin again for centering this at the local level.

Thank you, sir. Anybody else here in support would like to so indicate? Alright, we'll go to opposition. Anyone here in opposition? Seeing none. We'll go to the phone lines. Moderator this is Assembly Bill 773. Ask anyone who would like to testify in favor or against to please so indicate.

Thank you. Please press 1-0 at this time. And currently none in queue.

Terrific. We'll bring the matter back to the Committee for comments or questions. Senator Newman?

Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I've been that candidate. I have a three county district and it turned into a Mission Impossible race against time. So very grateful for your thoughtfulness in doing this. I think it'll help not only the candidates, but the voters in those districts to ensure that they have a chance to enter a ballot statement. So glad to support it and glad to move the bill when appropriate.

Any other comments or questions? Well, let me join with my colleague from Mission Impossible down in LA and Orange County to say I've also had that challenges in my own election, and I appreciate the clarification and the opportunity that your bill provides. Happy to support it today.

Thank you.

And with that, we'll recognize a motion from Senator Newman. This is a do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Did you want to close?

Just respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay. Terrific. Secretary, please call the roll.

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

Alright, we'll put that on, bill on call for absent Members, thank you so much for being here...

Thank you so much. Have a great day.

Alright, so we're waiting for an author, Assembly Member Berman. And while we're waiting, we can entertain a motion on the consent calendar. This is Assembly Bill 507 and 1761. Is there a motion, Members? So moved by Senator Umberg. With that, Secretary please call the role on the consent calendar.

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

All right, we'll put the consent calendar on call for absent Members. Good timing. We're moving to Agenda Item Number Six, that's--we'll do it in that order. This is Assembly Bill 1219 by Assembly Member Berman. Welcome to the Committee, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Senators.

You can begin whenever you're ready.

Appreciate you. I'd like to start by thanking the Committee Consultant for his work on this bill. I'm happy to take the amendment suggested on page eight of the analysis and commit to working with Committee staff to also resolve the question about ballot presentation identified on pages 7 and 8. In 2019, I authored AB 623 which required the Secretary of State to establish the Ballot Design Advisory Committee to examine our laws and look for opportunities to recommend changes for better ballot design and format.

The need to rethink ballot design came out of conversations with a constituent who, although a consistent voter, found the ballot confusing and didn't realize how many--it was for a city council race and they thought they could only vote for one candidate when in fact they could vote for three. The Ballot Design Advisory Committee, comprised of stakeholders including representatives from 18 county elections offices, held a series of public meetings in 2021 and 2022 and culminated in a report issued this past August.

AB 1219 would implement the recommendations of this Committee while the bill would amend numerous provisions of law. At the heart of the work is simplifying instructions, standardizing formats, and providing elections officials more flexibility when designing ballot layouts that are user friendly, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Great. Thank you, Assembly Member Berman. Do you have any lead witnesses here?

I believe we have Ted Muhlhauser with the Secretary of State's Office. Please go ahead and be on call for technical questions if they really want.

Thank you, Assembly Member, and thank you again, Chairman Glazer. Ted Muhlhauser on behalf of Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber. We are the sponsor--Secretary Weber is the sponsor of the bill. AB 1219 would help make ballots clearer for all voters to understand, pursuant to recommendations issued by plain language and elections officials who served on the Ballot Design Advisory Committee, also known as the BDAC at the Secretary of State's Office.

AB 1219 also provides elections officials with the flexibility needed to meet the visual needs of voters while eliminating obsolete statutes that no longer apply to voting systems for use in California. Passage of this measure is necessary to develop to deliver the improvements to the voting process recommended by the Ballot Design Advisory Committee, and again, on behalf of Secretary Weber, I would like to thank the Committee staff for their discussions on this bill.

It's been very helpful, and appreciate the Committee supporting this bill when the measure is taken up for a vote. Thank you, Chairman.

Thank you, sir. Anybody else here who wishes to testify in support of this legislation or put their name on the record? Okay. Anyone here in opposition to this bill here in the hearing room? Okay. We'll go to the phone lines. Moderator, if you could ask if there's anyone who'd like to put their name and affiliation on the record in support or opposition to Assembly Bill 1219. That's 1219 by Assembly Member Berman.

Thank you. Pardon me. Thank you. Again, it's one zero. Please press one zero at this time. And we go to line number 10.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Gregory Cramer on behalf of Disability Rights California in support.

Thank you, sir. Next caller, please.

Again, it's one zero, and giving it a moment, currently none in queue.

Okay, and Assembly Member Berman does have another bill, so I don't want the people to be confused about that. This is 1219. Moderator, anybody--any further?

None further at this time.

We'll bring the issue back to the Committee for questions or comments. Members, any questions or comments? Seeing no questions and comments, Assembly Member, thank you for your continued work in this area. I know your expertise is appreciated as Former Chair of Elections, and happy to support the bill you have today. Anything you want to say in closing?

Thank you, Chair Glazer. Appreciate it.

Okay. I'm recognizing a motion from the distinguished Senator Allen. This would be a 'do pass as amended and we re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations.' Secretary, please call the roll.

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

Alright, we're going to keep that open for absent members. We're blessed with a second bill from the Assemblyman here in our committee today. This is item number seven, Assembly Bill 1539. Assembly Member Berman, you're welcome to present when you're ready.

Thank you, Chair Glazer and Senators. It'd be 1539 would fill a void in existing law. Right now, a voter is prohibited from voting or attempting to vote twice in an election in California. However, California law does not have the same prohibition against voting or attempting to vote in California and another state in an election that occurs on the same date.

The scenario covered by this bill recently came to light in Santa Clara County when it was discovered that a couple who owned property in California and Oregon cast ballots in both states in the November 2010, 2012, 2014, 16, and 18 elections. Because California law does not prohibit the alleged conduct, the Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office was not able to respond and deferred prosecution to Oregon officials, as Oregon has a law that unambiguously outlaws multi-state double voting. This bill would ensure that California does not have to rely on another state's laws to address the issue of multi-state double voting. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Assembly Member. Do you have any lead witnesses here in support?

I don't think so.

Okay, anybody here who would like to speak in support of this measure, please come forward. Alright, seeing none here in the hearing room, is there anyone in opposition to this measure? Please step to the podium, please. Seeing no one jumping to their feet, we're going to go to the phone lines. Moderator this is Assembly Bill 1539. If you could ask if there's anyone who would like to speak in favor or in opposition to please so indicate.

Certainly. Thank you. And pardon me. Please press 1-0 at this time if so. Again, it's 1-0. Give me just a moment here, we do have one in queue. Give me just a second. Alright, we'll go to line number eight. Please go ahead.

Good morning. James Michael Agpalo with AFSCME California in support.

Thank you, sir. Next caller, please.

And currently none in queue.

Alright, we'll bring the matter back to the Committee for comments or questions. Members, comments or questions? Assembly Member, staff raised some issues under the suggested amendment section. I wondered if you could address those.

Yeah, thank you for the opportunity.

Just a minute. Is this microphone on? Try that again. Go ahead.

Testing, one, two. There it is. Very much appreciate the thoughtful and thorough analysis, including the suggestion that the penalty for multi-state double voting be aligned with the penalty in existing law for voting twice within California. Alternatively, the Committee suggested that the bill could be amended to declare multi-state double voting as voter fraud. In both instances, the suggested change would lead to a person being charged with a felony. I'm not prepared to amend the bill to increase the penalty exposure at this time.

Before introducing this bill, my staff worked with Assembly Committee staff to determine what penalty would be most acceptable, and it was agreed that a misdemeanor would be the best option under the circumstances. This bill is double referred to the Senate Public Safety Committee, and I hope to have the opportunity to also discuss the appropriate penalty with that committee as well.

Thank you very much. I know that's a tough Committee you still have ahead of you, so we appreciate that you'll have conversations with them. Alright, Members, is there any further comments or questions? If not, is there a motion? Senator Newman is moving the bill. Do pass, and we refer to the Committee on Public Safety. Would you like to close, sir?

Respectfully ask your aye vote. Thank you.

With that, Secretary, please call the role.

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

All right. We're going to put that Bill on call for an absent Member. Now, we're going to go through the role on the bills that remain for those who have graced us with their presence. So we'll. Start at the top of the agenda. We'll first recall the role on AB 334 by Assembly Member Blanca.

File item number one, do pass as amended to the Committee on Rules. Senators. Allen.

Aye.

Allen aye. McGuire. Menjivar.

Aye.

Menjivar aye. 6 0.

I was probably too familiar. Blanca Rubio, I was the author of that. All right, we're going to put that on call for an absent Member and move to file item number two, Assembly Bill 398 by Assembly Member Pellerin. Secretary, please open the roll.

The motion is due. Pass and rerefer to the Committee on Appropriations. Senators. Allen.

Aye.

Allen aye. Mcguire. Menjivar.

Aye.

Menjivar aye.

All right, we're going to hold the roll open for an absent Member. We'll move to Assembly Bill 773 by Assembly Member Pellerin. Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is due, pass and re refers to the Committee on Appropriation. Senators. Allen.

Aye.

Allen aye. McGuire. Menjivar.

Aye.

Menjivar aye.

All right, we're going to leave the roll open for an absent Member. We're going to go to the consent calendar. Two items AB 507 and 1761. If the Secretary would open the roll on the consent calendar.

This is to adopt the consent calendar. Senators McGuire. Menjivar.

Aye.

Menjivar aye.

All right, we're going to hold that roll open for an absent Member. All right, ladies and gentlemen, we're going to wait for that remaining Member to cast a vote. With that, I want to thank our colleagues for being here and think that you have voted on everything. So thank you for your diligence and participation, Members, and we'll be in temporary recess as we wait for an absent Member. Okay, we're going to call the Committee back to order so we can close out our vote card.

Members, we're going to begin with the file item number one. This is Assembly Bill 334 by Assembly Member Blanco Rubio if the Secretary would open the roll.

The motion is due pass as amended to the Committee on Rules. Senators McGuire.

Aye.

McGuire aye. 7 0.

That Bill is out seven to zero. We'll move to file item number two, AB 398 by Assembly of Member Pellerin. Secretary, please open the roll.

The motion is due. Pass and refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Senators. McGuire.

Mcguire aye.

Aye.

That Bill is out six to one. We'll move next to file item three, AB 773 by Assembly Member Pellerin. Secretary, please open the roll.

The motion is due pass and refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Senator McGuire.

Aye.

McGuire aye. 7 0.

That Bill is out seven to zero. We'll move to the consent calendar at Assembly Bill 507 and 1761 if the Secretary open the roll, please.

The motion is to adopt the consent calendar. Senator McGuire.

Aye.

McGuire aye.

That bill's out, 7 0. We'll next move to file item six, AB 1219 by Assembly Member Berman if the Secretary would open the roll.

The motion is due pass as amended, and refer to the Committee on appropriation. Senator McGuire.

Aye.

McGuire aye, that Bill is out 7 0.

Finally, we'll go to file item seven, AB 1539 by Assembly Member Berman. Secretary open the roll, please.

The motion is due pass and refer to the Committee on Public Safety. Senator Mcguire.

Aye.

McGuire aye.

That Bill is out seven to zero. Thank you to all the individuals who participated in public testimony today. If you're not able to testify, you can submit your comments or suggestions in writing to the Senate Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments or visit our website. Your comments and suggestions are important to us, and we want to include your testimony in the official hearing record. Thank you, and we appreciate your participation. Thanks to everyone else for their patience and cooperation.

We've concluded the agenda of the Senate Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments and we are adjourned. Thank you all.