Senate Standing Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments

We have four measures on today's agenda with one measure on consent. That's SCA 6 by Senator Archuleta. Before we begin with our presentations, let's establish a quorum with the Committee assistant.

Glazer? Here. Glazer, here. Nguyen? Here. Allen? Here. Allen, here. Mcguire? Benjavar? Newman. Newman? Here. Umberg.

Please call the role Senators.

Okay. Well, quorum is established. Let's take up the consent calendar first. Anyone wish to remove an item from the consent calendar? Seeing none, is there a motion to approve the consent calendar move by Senator Newman?

The secretary called the roll on the consent calendar. Senators Glazer?

Yes.

Glazer? Yes. When? Yes.

When? Aye. Allen?

Aye.

Aye.

Allen? I. Mcguire. Menjivar. Newman. Newman. I Umberg.

All right, we'll put that measure on call for absent Members. I see Senator Niello is present. Welcome to the Committee, Senator. We're very prompted on time here, this Committee. So you have a measure of file item number two, SCA 3. You're welcome to begin whenever you're ready.

Thank you very much. Thanks for offering me the opportunity to present SCA Three. I'll keep this brief because you've already heard about this Bill when actually, you approved the Companion Bill to this SB 858. And I thank you again for that. SCA 3 will transfer the duty of preparing the ballot title and summary for all proposed initiatives and referendum measures from the Attorney General's Office to the Legislative Analyst Office.

If passed, this measure would go to the ballot, then the next General election for voters to weigh in on the measure. This change will provide for increased clarity and transparency in California's initiative process and strengthen voters' trust in the process. With me today, I have Laurel Brodzinsky of Common Cause California to testify.

Thank you. Chair and Members, SCA 3 would allow voters to decide on whether to transfer the duty of preparing title and summary for proposed initiative or referendum from the elected Attorney General to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst Office. The purpose of the ballot measure, title and summary is to give voters and prospective petition signers a short and objective overview of the primary changes the measure would make.

In California, there is a decades long history of accusations of bias and litigation concerning the title and summary of ballot measures. Because the Attorney General is elected to partisan office, Members of other parties have frequently complained of misleading summaries intended to shape public opinion rather than inform it. Bias, or even the perception thereof in what is intended to be neutral information on the ballot runs the risk of harming voter faith in our democratic institutions.

Low confidence depresses voter turnout and can even create environments for more corruption and manipulation to thrive. As narratives are perpetuated. That it always happens. SCA Three would help reduce any perception of bias by turning this function over to the nonpartisan and impartial Lao. The LAO's admirable history of analyzing ballot measures and politically sensitive topics such as the Governor's Budget with little controversy, makes it well suited for also drafting the title and summary.

SCA3 would also streamline California's present bifurcated system for explaining ballot measures to voters by delegating this task to a singular agency. We respectfully ask for your I vote.

Thank you very much. And could you put your name in the record, please?

Yes, sorry. Laurel Brodzinski, Legislative Director for California Common Cause.

Great. Thank you. Do you have any other lead support witnesses? Okay, we're going to go to lead opposition witnesses. Is there anyone here in the room wants to stand up for lead opposition? Okay, seeing none, we're going to allow anyone to testify in support or opposition here in the room by giving their name and affiliation. Anyone wishes to testify support or opposition to SCA Three.

All right, we're going to go to our phone lines via teleconference moderator could you please prompt individuals who would like to testify in support or opposition to SCA 3? And again, just giving their name and their affiliation and their position.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If you'd like to speak in support or opposition, please press 1 and 0 at this time. We'll start with line 365. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Andrea Headstrom, and my affiliation is no affiliation because government is about people, and I support this measure. We the people, not I the government.

Thank you very much. Next caller, please.

Line 357, please go ahead.

Hi, good afternoon. Kashia Williams, Member of California Parents Union. I'm calling in support of this measure. Thank you.

Thank you.

Line 364, please go ahead.

Hello, this is Jessica Hay with the California School Employees Association in opposition.

Thank you. Next caller, please.

Line 345, please go ahead. 345, please go ahead.

Is that me?

Yes, you're on now. Go ahead.

I'm so sorry. My name is Veronica from Yuba county, and strong support for SCA3 . Thank you.

Thank you. Next caller, please.

Line 330, please go ahead.

Yes, my name is Linda Musson. I'm calling from Pastor County. I am in total support of this, and. Thank you, Mr. Niello.

Thank you.

Next caller, please, line 370, please go ahead.

Adriana Champagne Zamora with the League of Women Voters of California and strong support.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next caller, please.

Line 346, please go ahead.

Lee Mantebari, Placer county, with election Integrity Project California in strong support of this Bill.

Next caller, line 349, please go ahead.

Thank you.

Nancy Hall, RN, San Diego. County. I am in support.

Thank you.

Line 367, please go ahead.

Hi, Jennifer Johnson, Placer County. I support SCA 3.

Line 348, please go ahead.

Colleen Britton with Election Integrity Project California from Solano County. We're in strong support of SCA 3 Thank you.

Next caller, please.

Line 359, please go ahead. Line 359, please go ahead.

Susan Kennedy, San Diego County in strong support.

Moderator any further calls on the line for SCA 3?

Yes, there's one more. Line 350, please go ahead.

This is Carrie Jenkins from Placer County. I am in strong support of this measure.

And, Mr. Chair, we have no one else in queue at this time to speak.

Very good. We'll bring the issue back to the Committee for questions or comments. Members, questions or comments on SCA Three, seeing none, Senator, happy to support this measure. Appreciate your push for neutrality and obviously at the fundamentally increasing trust in the work that we do. And with that, would you like to close?

Thank you very much. And I appreciate the chair's support and the Committee's support on the companion policy Bill. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

We have a motion. Senator Newman moves the Bill. Secretary, please call the roll.

This is file item number two, SCA 3 with the motion be adopted and rerefer to the Committee on Appropriation. Senators Glazer?

Aye. Glazer? I. Min. Aye. Min, aye. Allen, aye. Allen. I. Mcguire. Menjivar. Menjivar. Aye. Newman. Newman. Aye Umberg. Aye. Umberg, aye.

All right, that Bill has enough votes to get out. We'll leave the roll open for an absent Member. Thank you very much, Senator. All right, we're going to move next to Senator Newman's Bill. This is file item number four. I see. All right, well, we don't have authors here in the room, so we'll take a temporary recess while we wait for an author and a witness. I see a witness. Okay, so we're not going to go to recess.

It was the shortest recess we've had so far today. All right, so we are going to move now to. Senator Stern is here. Senator Stern, would you mind, since we have a special witness, to allow Senator Newman to go first? Would that be okay? Okay. We're always privileged to have the Secretary of State here in our chambers. So, Senator Newman, we will begin with file item number four, SCA One. And you may begin whenever you're ready.

The secretary is a very busy person. Mr. Stern, Mr. Chair, and Members, thank you for the opportunity to present SCA1, which will ensure that statewide and legislative recalls in California are fair, democratic, and effective by implementing a simple but much needed change to the recall process that will shield the process from abuse and political gamesmanship while still preserving the recall as the ultimate expression of direct democracy and electoral accountability in our state.

As vividly illustrated by the most recent statewide recall effort, California's recall process in its current form is problematic. Article Two, Section 15 of the California Constitution prescribes that a state level recall ballot be presented to voters in the form of two conjoined questions, an A and A-B. A whether a majority of the voters believe that a state level elected official should be recalled and b the question of who should replace the official in the event of majority support for that recall.

SCA 1, when approved as a ballot measure by California's voters, would amend how state level recall elections are conducted, say that only one question, question A, would appear on the ballot should the official in question be recalled, yes or no, and the second question, Question B, would be eliminated.

A recall, I think we would all agree, should be a referendum on whether an elected official accused of malfeasance or of otherwise betraying the public's trust, retains the faith and confidence of his or her constituents and should not be an opportunity to manipulate the electoral system and subvert the results of normal electoral processes. In eliminating the second question, SCA 1 would remove the incentive for engineering recalls that seek to do so.

By removing Question B from the recall ballot and making a recall vote a simple yes or no affair, California would join seven other states in providing for a recall process that is deliberate and purposeful while being less susceptible to political opportunism and gamesmanship than our current system. The experience of the most recent recall ever made clear to California's voters the flaws and frustrations in our current system.

Polling from before the 2021 recall vote on Governor Gavin Newsom found that 69% of voters considered the recall a waste of taxpayer money and 68% wanted fixes to our recall process. These sentiments were more than validated when the recall failed, with the Governor enjoying a margin of victory virtually identical to his original election in 2018.

To the framers of the initiative, the referendum, and the recall in 1911, when these were first promulgated, these constitutional provisions were intended to allow for direct reformist actions by the people at a time when the political decks seemed all too often stacked in favor of special interests at the expense of the public interest. It's important to note that these essential features of state governance were devised and promulgated during an era very different than our current era.

When applied in the context of today's polarized and contentious politics, the recall process in its current form offers bad political actors outsized incentives for targeting an elected official with whom they disagree in order to achieve through a special recall election that which where they would otherwise not be able to achieve under normal electoral conditions.

In offering voters, the opportunity to eliminate the second question, SCA 1 will undo the effective weaponization of our recall process while still properly preserving its essential role as a validator of popular consent and a tool for enforcing ethical accountability. In the case of a successful Gubernatorial recall, during the first two years of a governor's term, a replacement election would be consolidated with the next regularly scheduled statewide primary or General election.

If a recall is successful in the last two years of a governor's term, the lieutenant Governor would serve as Governor for remainder of that term under the provisions of SCA 1. In the case of a successful recall of a state level office holder other than the Governor, the recall official would be replaced in the same manner as if they happened to resign or leave office for any other reason.

For statewide officers, such as the Attorney General or treasurer, the Governor were to point a replacement for the remainder of that term. For state legislators, the position would be left vacant until a special election could be held the same as if any of us were to leave office early for whatever reason. In surveys, a majority of California's voters have clearly indicated that they want to see precisely such an approach to recall reform on the ballot.

I respectfully ask that you take the first step toward granting voters that wish with your I vote today. With me to testify today is California Secretary of State Dr. Shirley Weber and Laurel Bradzinski.

On behalf of California Common Cause, thank you, Senator Newman. Secretary Weber, welcome to the Committee. Always good to see you.

It's always good to see you and always good to see the Members who are here as well. So once again, thank you for the opportunity. Won't take a lot of time I think I want to thank Senator Newman for introducing this measure on our behalf, and he's pretty much explained to you exactly what the Bill is about.

As you know, during the recall, there was lots of discussions about the recall itself, and that the last one we had, we said we were going to do some reform, and we was going to look at it carefully, and then we kind of forgot about it and went away until it came again. And so this time, we decided that we would, and your Committee was one of those and some other committees to talk about the recall.

I solicited the services of two individuals in the community to also help us with looking at different organizations and think tanks and what have you about what should we do. There was also much discussion among people in the community because there were a lot of issues of what should the percentage be and what should we base the percentage on? Should it be based on all of the electorates, or should it just be those who vote in the last election, which is what we do.

It's 12% enough and not enough. And so there was a lot of controversy and a lot of concern about all of those issues, and we couldn't necessarily reach consensus on them at that particular moment because it was too fast. People didn't have time enough to think about it.

But there was one thing that was everyone seemed to agree upon, that they didn't like the fact that you could actually be elected Governor of the State of California without having a majority, that this was a way in which people could game the system, looking for a time when we had low voter turnout, then we'd have all these folks on the ballot, and then you'd pick somebody and they would have 30% or 20% or whatever it was, and that the discussion was often not about whether or not the person should be removed from office, but are they better than the people that we might select as an option?

And so after looking at that and looking at what happens in other states, we decided that, and folks agreed that the best thing to do would be to want to make the whole election about should this person be recalled, so that the discussion is on the merit of the recall itself, not on, is there a better replacement? But should this person be recalled? Has there been enough information and actions to say, hey, this person needs to go?

And then once that happens, that's why you have a lieutenant Governor. The lieutenant Governor then becomes obviously the Governor, if it's a positive. And then we figure out how you can basically have another election, depending on whether it happens in the first two years. Or the last two years. And that would then determine, and in that way, we would ensure the fact that we'd get a serious candidates who are participating in the process.

We'd get probably more competition among those who are likely to win, because during the process, we currently have those who are in the same party as the person who is the Governor, don't want to run against their party person, don't want to have a negative during that. And so therefore, you don't end up with a lot of serious candidates from the party of the person being recalled. And we saw that this time, and we saw it last time.

So as a result of that, we decided that they should be broken up. There should be a referendum on should this person be recalled, period. And that discussion around that, whether or not there's been enough to say we should recall them.

And then the second piece, of course, is, if it's successful, we have a way of succession, because we have a lieutenant Governor who has already had elections statewide, who has been selected by the people, who's a known quantity, and that would then take place to become the Governor. And then depending on whether that first two years or the last two years would determine how we would fill the position of the governorship if there happens to be a recall.

People seem to have agreed upon that that was one thing that they did not like, that we basically had the potential of selecting a new Governor who may have had a smaller percentage of vote than the Governor that we had just recalled, and those kinds of things. So those are some of the real big flaws in the system. We're still looking at other things to make sure that we do some more thinking about it, much more thorough conversation with people across the state.

But this seems to be the piece that most folks agree that we can make a change in, that it would make a better situation. We wouldn't have folks trying to game the system based on the number of votes that somebody got and how you could actually get only 20%, 30% of the vote and become Governor of the State of California.

So with that in mind, we got together with our good author here in terms of, this was the piece that came out of the first section of all of our conversations across the state. And we think it is something that the people of California could agree upon that would be a good thing and a good change for this election. So I asked for your. I vote on this particular. Know your SCA 1 Okay.

SCA 1.

Yeah.

Thank you, Secretary. Senator Newman you had a second witness.

Laurel Brodzinsky, on behalf of California Common Cause.

Ms. Brodzinsky, please.

Hi. Thank you. Chair and Members again, Laurel Bradzinski, on behalf of California Common Cause. While state recalls qualifying for the ballot are relatively rare, it's clear from our perspective that the process for when they do is a need of reform.

As the Senator and secretary so eloquently described the issues of the political circus, creating narratives which can degrade the credibility of our democratic institutions, as well as the possibility for a successor to be elected with only a plurality of the vote instead of a true democratic majority. Ultimately, this isn't about political parties in which side wins. It's fundamentally a problem when something that was instituted as a tool of popular democracy 100 years ago could result in antidemocratic minority rule.

However, the recall is still an important tool for voters to hold elected officials accountable, which is why it's time to reform the recall process in our state in a way that preserves the spirit of direct democracy and maintains the recall for when it is really needed, making our elections more representative, strengthening the integrity of our institutions, and making respectable use of voters time and state resources.

SCA One will help end politicized or unserious recall attempts and ensure that any replacement candidate is elected with broad and majority support. Respectfully ask for your support on SCA One.

Great. Thank you very much. Do we have any Opposition here in the room? Okay, we're going to allow some time for the lead opposition witnesses to testify before us. Welcome to the Committee. Please give your name and affiliate.

Hello, my name is Mike Mattingly. I'm with the Funky Fathers. And who owns your body? Does the who own your body? If who own your body, then you don't own your body, and that makes you a slave organization. And in order to really put this into perspective, you're saying that no vote on a replacement, but have a vote later. So, you're having an election to recall somebody, and you're putting the lieutenant Governor in automatically, even though I'm assuming that the people probably want to change.

So I think a better way to do it, perhaps, is if they don't achieve a 50% majority, then you have a runoff between whoever is in there, rather than allowing, because probably a lot of people would have to recall the lieutenant Governor as well at the same time.

So now you're requiring people to make, in order to make a real change, to recall the Governor and the lieutenant Governor at the same time, and to appoint somebody when you just recalled somebody by the lieutenant Governor, when there are people who are actually ready to take that spot and be brought in by the people.

Makes zero sense to me. And then to have an election later. So now you're, like paying for two elections instead of one. I just find it totally a waste of money and time. And people want change. They want it now because of something that's real, not to wait around for six months, eight months, a year or whatever to get what they want in this recall process. So that's all I got to say, really. But that's my thought on it. I think you guys can do better.

I'm assuming this isn't the finished product, I hope, because it's terrible. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Anybody else here in opposition like to testify? Lead opposition. We allow two witnesses in support and lead opposition.

Hi, chair. Chair Glazer and chair Members. My name is Sharina Latch. I'm a mother, a sister and a native here in California. And there's one thing that I really cherish is the fact that we have a recall process, a recall process that belongs to the people, the people of the state. And although I admit, and I agree, some of these processes could be maybe fixed.

Maybe we can work on some of the amendments with this better, we can maybe figure out a better solution than taking away Californian's voice. We don't take recall lightly here. Nobody does. We've only had, what, one successful recall? I'm sure some of you probably remember that, right? Yeah. So my point is, if we're trying to make this simpler and easier, make it simple on the ballot. Make it simple on the ballot. Do we recall a Governor? Yes.

No. Do we replace a Governor? Yes. No. And if we do, here's the candidates. Very simple. Who do you want? We don't need to waste resources. We don't need to waste money. We've already got a lot of money we've wasted here in California. My point is, it is not your jobs to take our voices away. We're going to stand up for our voices. And with that said, I strongly oppose this amendment. I love my constitution.

I love California, and this should be something that is sacred to our democracy here. Don't shred on it. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We've heard from lead support witnesses and lead opposition witnesses. We're going to go to those who want to just put their name on the record, first here in the hearing room and then on our teleconference line. Anyone else here in the hearing room want to put their name on the record in support of opposition? Come on up to the microphone while you're coming up.

I might remind all the listeners that this measure, were it to be successful, would merely place it on the ballot for the voters of California to decide. Yes, ma'am.

My name is Catherine Mcbride, Placer County. I'm with the 2.2 million people who signed the governorial recall, and I strongly oppose this constitutional amendment.

Very good. Thank you very much, ma'am. Anybody else in support of opposition? All right, we're going to move to the teleconference line moderator. Would you ask anyone who wishes to put their name on the record in support or opposition to STa One to please so indicate?

Chair.

And if you wish to speak in support or opposition, please press one, then zero at this time. Go to line 363, please. Go ahead.

Thank you, Mr.

Yes, hello. Can you hear me?

Yes. Your name and affiliation and support or opposition, please?

Yes, my name is Sandra Marquez, and I'm from Foster County, and the previous opportunity was taken away from me because I wasn't given all the information as to how to express my public opinion. So, for the record, the previous one by Neilo is a support.

Okay, thank you very much. We're on a different Bill now.

We're talking about another Bill now, and I oppose that. I want to remind you we are.

Okay, you're in opposition to SCA One. Thank you so much, ma'am, for calling in. Next caller, please. This is on SCA One.

Line 342. Please go ahead.

Hi, honey. A Y.

Line 348, please go ahead.

Yes, my name is Colin Britain with Election Integrity Project California, and we believe the current system is.

Support or opposition, ma'am? Support or opposition, please.

Only opposition.

Thank you so much. Next caller, please.

Line 366, please go ahead.

Thank you. Raj Faye with indivisible California State Strong. A coalition of over 80 groups throughout the State of California is strong support for this Bill by Senator Newman. Thank you.

Thank you. Next caller, please.

Line 365, please go ahead.

Hi, is that me? There's some real problems with the phones today. They're worse than usual.

We can hear you fine. Supporter, opposition.

Well, you're having trouble, and cutting people off is really.

Next caller.

Next caller, please.

Moderator. Next caller, please. This is just a time to put your name, affiliation, if any, and your supporter, opposition to SCA One. Next caller, please.

Line 367, please go ahead. Okay, we'll move to line 345, please go ahead.

Is that me?

That's you.

I'm sorry, I really got to write this down. My name is Veronica. I'm from Yuba county, and a strong opposition. SCA One. Thank you.

Thank you, Veronica. Next caller. Please.

Line 330, please go ahead.

Yes, my name is Linda Musker, and I strongly oppose this, and I'm so sorry that you people are trying to take our voting rights.

Thank you very much for calling in.

Next caller, please, line 346, please go ahead.

Lehman Berry, Plastic County with election Integrity Project. California in strong opposition to this Bill.

Next caller, line 349, please go ahead.

Thank you.

Nancy Hall, San Diego, county, strong opposition to this Bill.

Thank you.

Line 357, please go ahead.

Hi, good afternoon. Kasha Williams, Member of California Parents Union, calling in opposition to SCA One. Thank you.

Thank you.

Line 370, please go ahead.

Adriana Champagne Zamora with the League of Women Voters of California, co sponsor and in strong support of this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Line 374, please go ahead.

Yes, this is Nicole Young, Pastor County mom, Pretty and Song. Opposition.

Line 350, please go ahead. It's line 350, please go ahead.

Perry Jenkins, Placer County, in strong opposition.

Thank you.

Next caller, line 375, please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Andrea Headstrom, and I am also with the organization Who Owns Your Body. Does the who own your body? If the who owns your body, then that makes you a slave organization. And I strongly, strongly, strongly oppose this expensive, unnecessary communist.

Thank you very much.

Amendment to the Constitution.

Next caller, please.

Just a moment, Mr. Chair. We had one just queue up and we'll go to. Line 376, please go ahead.

I'm calling from Patcher county and I strongly opposed it. Please. Now let this go through. Thank you.

Thank you.

Line 359, please go ahead. Line 359, please go ahead.

Sorry. Susan Kennedy, San Diego County opposed this Bill. Thank you.

And, Mr. Chair, we have no one else in queue at this time to speak.

Thank you. Moderator thank you. Thank you for all your help today. We'll bring the matter back to the Committee for questions or comments. Members, questions or comments. Senator Allen?

Well, thank you, everyone, for weighing in. I had proposed a measure earlier that would have just eliminated the first question on the recall.

But then basically, if you collected enough signatures, it would trigger kind of a spot election, because one of my main concerns with the current system, and I think your measure certainly addresses it as well, but one of my current problems with the current system is that you can have a situation where on the very same recall Election day, the person who's being recalled gets more votes than the person who replaces them in the position. And that seems really dissatisfying.

I mean, there was an idea that was raised that said, well, then there ought to be kind of some sort of runoff. That's a possibility that maybe we should spend some time looking at. But I think that doing something to address this current system, where we're basically oftentimes creating a situation where you can be replaced by someone who gets less votes even on that very day, it's important to make a reform. And so I understand that you framed it this way.

I guess my question for you is this pretty much where you're, this lays it all out as to what you're thinking in terms of an approach.

Sure, I believe so. I appreciate the question. So as the secretary mentioned, we had two joint hearings of the election, three hearings of the elections, and constitutional amendments of both houses, and I think you were part of it. We had a substantial discussion about how best to get at this problem, and I think it's important to remember that a recall election is actually a referendum, and I think that's important.

It's a referendum once the recall has qualified for the ballot on the integrity and probity of the person being targeted for recall. It's not meant to be an election. We have elections on a regular basis, and we all know you get elected. Quite often, elected officials leave office with very Low approval ratings in some measure. That's because they haven't done a very good job. But that's not the standard. The standard is supposed to be malfeasance or some other material breach of the public's trust.

And the problem with the current system is that it's become ambiguous. Right. Recalls have especially recently been used as a pretext for trying to get out of a special election what did not happen or would not happen in a normally scheduled election? In looking at the problem, and I think the secretary spoke to this well, there's a whole host of issues that probably are in need of further discussion, further debate, further exploration.

But at its base, I think the consensus among a number of very thoughtful people is let us try and return California's recall to what its framers originally intended, and that is as a referendum on the fitness of an elected official without the sort of ambiguity and kind of trust currents that come with the two question version. Right.

So my thinking in bringing this measure, especially considering all of the other options, what's the one single thing that you could do that would be most effective in returning the recall to its intended purpose? And I think it's important to note, in response to some of the opposition, we are not in any way attempting to weaken California's recall provision. Matter of fact, it's the opposite.

We're looking to strengthen and clarify the recall process so that it is indeed about integrity, about fitness for office, about effective service, and not about politics. And so I think that comes close to answering your question. I think I can speak to the other scenario, which is this notion of a snap election that actually, I think, creates less certainty or more uncertainty than this solution because that actually creates additional incentives to qualify a recall election to simply have a snap election.

And that would actually probably lead to the same result that folks have pointed to, and I think you yourself pointed to, is where you could have a scenario where General election candidates from both sides, the whole sort of process, and at the end, a majority wins in a snap election, you got something very different. And the winner of that election might enjoy very little support and might indeed actually be a worse optional replacement than the person being cast out of office.

Yeah. Look, I think that the issue that's been raised, first of all, this doesn't become law unless the people, first of.

All, it has to get all the.

Way through the Legislature, two thirds votes of houses, and then it wouldn't become law unless it was supported by the voters, which I think will be a challenge. But I think also people saw what a mess the last recall process was. We went through that incredibly expensive process just to have the final results were about exactly the same as the last Gubernatorial results.

I mean, folks who voted for Gavin Newsom when he first got elected voted for Gavin Newsom to stay in office and those who didn't voted to turf him out. So it was a real waste of time and probably, ironically, strengthened his reelection prospects. I'm certainly going to support your sea today. I do think that the current system is. Is very problematic, and. And, you know, obviously, the regular election dates are the. The main dates to, to really choose elected officials.

And as you say, the recall is an important part of our system, but it's there to give the voters an opportunity to turn someone out if they're really engaged in. If they've broken a major promise or engaged in malfeasance. So it's in that spirit. I'm happy to support your SCA.

Any other comments or questions from panel Members? Seeing none. Senator Newman, I'm happy to support your Bill today. I think it focuses on the serious question of whether a recall is appropriate or not. And I think that the challenge has been the voters established the top two most recently, and that is undercut by our current recall process that your Bill seeks to rectify. And I think that's the right way to do it, and I'm happy to support it today with that.

Is there a motion, Members, as Senator Umberg has moved the Bill. Senator Newman, would you like to close?

I would thank you to Secretary Weber for taking the time not just to testify today, but to be so thoroughly involved in the conversations leading up to the introduction of this measure. Thank you to common cause, also to League of Women Voters for their support and their involvement. And just to reiterate, this Bill is actually not political, and nor is it intended to weaken the recall or in any way undermine the voice of California's voters.

What we are, in fact, endeavoring to do is to ensure that when we have the need for the exercise of this particular constitutional feature, that it is as clear and as sort of ethically focused as possible. And we think the best way to do that is to eliminate that second question. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right, we have a motion from Senator Umberg that the Bill be adopted, and we refer to the Committee on Appropriations. If the secretary would call the role.

Senators. Glazer, Aye. Nguyen, no. Allen, aye. Mcguire. Menjivar, aye. Newman, aye. Umberg, aye.

Bill has enough votes to get out. We'll hold the roll open for absent Members. Thank you. Secretary Weber, always good to see you here in the Committee. You sure you don't want to testify on Senator Stearn's Bill coming up? All right. I think she has another meeting or an airplane to catch. I'm not sure which. Okay. All right, we're going to move now to the ever patient which is much appreciated. Senator Stern, this is file item number one, SCA Two.

Senator Stern, you're welcome to join us here with the Committee. Again, thank you for your patience and your deference to our wonderful Secretary of State. And you can begin anytime you're ready.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Members, presenting SCA two to you today, revisiting an issue that went before voters in somewhat of a different form in 2020 QueSTion of what is the right age to vote in California?

This question has been asked not just in our electoral system, but across the world, all the way from a local school board election to 26 nations across the world who have all decided that the age of 18 is, in fact, not just an arbitrary age to choose for the date of eligibility for voting, but that, in fact, it's detrimental to building civic habit and engagement. When your first vote cast is not about the home you represent, necessarily.

It's, say, when you went off to college, like my first vote was, and probably many of yours was, when you don't have to drive on local roads or have to deal with epidemics of homelessness or pandemics in your backyard, there's a detachment that goes with that disengagement in that sort of pivotal year when you're a high school senior and you're in civics class and you're learning about the electoral process, and they say, yeah, you get to learn about it, but only part of this senior class gets to vote, only those of you who turn 18.

Now, I went to voters in 2020 to say if you're eligible to vote by a General election, you can vote at 17 in a primary. The wording on that proposed amendment to the Constitution I personally found confusing. And it caused a logistical host of problems as well, from an administrative perspective, to sort of parse out. But I also just think it sends the wrong message. Look, young people right now have to deal with a lot of tough stuff.

And whether you're 17 years old or 18 years old, you're still having to face a very uncertain future.

Often you have to go to work to pay your bills, to avoid debt for college, or some can't even go to college to avoid those payments and try to get into a house that's going to be too unaffordable for you to get into, to deal with a climate that is going to be too hot to survive when you're facing an onslaught of AI threatening the future of your work. Look, 17 year olds have an equity stake in our future, more so than many people currently vote.

There are some questions that have been raised, I think, about from the opposition in terms of cognitive ability. And those of you who drive on the roads might often sort of have that emotional reaction of, like, I was a terrible driver at 16. Why would I want someone 16 or 17 to be voting? The research shows, and we'll turn hopefully to some of our experts here in the lead testimony.

But the research shows that from a cognitive development perspective, there's what they call socioemotional maturity, and then there's basic cognitive and developmental function. Right? So the ability to react in longer view, in planning, say, on financial matters, on making important decisions, on, say, an application for a job, those kinds of things, very different set of skills than, say, in an emotional moment.

And truly in a moment, you have the, quote, unquote, maturity to, say, deal with someone who's incredibly annoying to you and not go yell at them or to what I did to my little sisters back in the day, whatever you call immaturity, that's a very relative function. And I don't think everyone over the 18 necessarily has that level of maturity either. But when it comes to those basic cognitive developmental skills, that's the reason we give driver's licenses out.

We let people make medical decisions about their bodies and a whole host of other rights. So I would submit to you that we need to give California voters the opportunity to at least vote on a simple version of this question of should 17 year olds have the right to vote in California? Not the sort of half measure that we passed last time, which I think was confusing to voters.

And so I really hope we give this another chance, I think the future of our democracy will be strengthened deeply by it. I actually don't think it's going to have an immediate near term impact in such a monumental way. You look at the total demographics here. We're talking about somewhere around 1%, maybe less, maybe 0.7%.

But when you say half a million 17 year olds in the State of California, and those would be eligible voters, and maybe half turnout or maybe 25% or maybe even less, like we've seen in recent years, but talking about those numbers spread over many millions of people, I don't think it'll be the margin of victory or defeat in any particular election, but it'll send a signal that this civics class is not a practice exercise and that we actually think that you have it in you to take those reins at that stage of your life.

And that's an arbitrary division between one set of kids in a high school senior class or another. And so I think this cleanup will hopefully help set the standard that so many other nations across the world have set and show young people that they have an equity stake, not just a voice on, say, your local social media platform or can come to a hearing like this, they can actually cast a vote. The last thing I'll just say from an administrative perspective, I did appreciate the analysis.

That was very rigorous. There are some local elections that have authorized younger voters to vote. For example, in Berkeley and Oakland Unified School District, 17 year olds currently have the right to vote. In Culver City, there was also an effort around this. There's a risk in having a sort of patchwork, I think, of sort of two ballot elections where you have one set where younger people are allowed to vote and another not so.

I also think it would rationalize some of this patchwork we'd have from an administrative perspective and save some costs in that regard, too. I know this is not appropriations, but just wanted to note that for the record and with me, I'm honored to have two people, Dr. Laura Ray Lake, Professor at UCLA Luskin School of Public affairs, as well as Esperanza Burr from genup, and respectfully, Ashwara.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator Stern. We'd like to invite those two lead support witnesses to come up. We do have a General Committee rule of two minutes each, which we've kind of not kept to this hearing, but I encourage you to. With that, please introduce yourself. Welcome.

Good afternoon. My name is Laura Ray Lake, and I'm a UCLA Professor with 15 years of research on adolescent civic engagement. I'm a proud supporter of SCA Two because the research evidence clearly shows that young people are capable of voting and that early voting could benefit young people and our democracy by age 16. Young people's capacities for planning and for logical and reasoned decision making are well solidified.

Decisions like voting use very different brain functions from decisions made in emotionally charged social situations with peers and neuroscientists are very clear and have consensus on this. Adolescents are already legitimate civic actors. Research documents many different ways that young people already work to improve their communities through community service and political action. Voting is no more complex than the contributions that young people are already making to our state and our society.

Internationally, lowering the voting age has led to increases in adolescents political interest, political knowledge, and confidence in voting. Research has also shown that lowering the voting age can increase the voting rates of parents. Given the strength of this evidence, there's a national and global movement to expand voting rights to age 16, allowing voting at 17 in California for all elections is firmly supported by the evidence.

Age 17 is a more developmentally appropriate time to introduce voting because younger people have more reliable access to school, family, and community supports. California already has the infrastructure in place through early registration and civic education requirements to offer students vital preparation for voting. This preparation is especially valuable for youth of immigrant parents who don't have as long of a history of voting in the US. Research shows that voting early can help young people establish lifelong voting habits, which has long term payoffs for democracy.

Young people are directly affected by many policy decisions and deserve to have a say in issues that affect them. In fact, there's insufficient research evidence to justify denying 17 year olds the right to vote based on their demonstrated capacities and their high stake in the issues. In passing SCA two, California would become a national leader in strengthening democratic rights and growing lifelong voters. I welcome any follow up questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Your next lead support witness.

Chairman and Members of the Committee hello. My name is Esperanza buhr. I go by she her pronouns. I'm a senior at Rosemont High School and a Director of organizing for Generation up, and I am honored to have the opportunity to speak before you testifying in favor of SCA Two a proposed constitutional amendment to expand the legal voting age in California to 17.

It's disheartening to see that so many issues that affect youth lives are being dictated and decided by politicians who are not representative of our views and values. No offense. Despite varying adult responsibilities such as paying taxes, driving, and working, Us youth are not afforded the right to vote until the age of 18. This exclusion is not only unfair, but perpetuates a lack of representation and voice for youth in our democratic process.

Youth face issues in education, income, and health care, among others, and are more than fully aware of what issues they need advocated. Yet they're forced to suffer the consequences of these issues while not being given the same ability to advocate for them as adults. Youth are the ones who will be affected by these issues for years to come, so shouldn't youth have a say in how they're addressed?

The passage of SCA two would not only be a powerful step towards ensuring that youth voices are towards creating a future electorate of engaged and informed lifelong voters, but also towards ensuring that youth voices are heard and that our democracy is truly inclusive and representative of all its citizens. Furthermore, despite what opponents argue, if youth truly did not have the maturity or political literacy to make important decisions, then I would not be explaining bills to my mother during elections.

Not to mention I'm the one who convinced her that voting is worth it in the first place. I would not be an advocate for civic engagement, and I would not be here testifying for this. In fact, many 17 year olds are already allowed to participate in primary elections if they turn 18 before the General election, meaning that they're already trusted to make these important decisions. In conclusion, expanding the voting age to 17 is essential.

It would give youth the opportunity to have a say in political decisions that affect our future and will help create a more informed and engaged electorate. We urge our legislators to support SCA two and give young people the voice we deserve. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay, we're going to now move to lead opposition witnesses here in the room. Is there anyone here who wishes to testify in opposition to SCA Two? All right, seeing none, we're going to allow anyone to test. Excuse me. All right, please come on up. Hi, can I identify yourself for the record, please?

My name is Serena latch. Mother, native Californian, and a daughter. And I'm going to go ahead and speak in behalf opposition of SCA two. Now, I do appreciate the author's presentation on this and the amendment that he's placing forward, but as a mother, I have a 24 year old. And when she was 17, she was worried about graduating high school, not participating in elections because she knows that I know what would be best for her. Okay, I would like to go ahead and read this from Stanford.

Pardon me, I don't have my. From Stanford. Children's Health. And it talks about children's development. Okay, so types of cognitive growth for the years. A child in early adolescence uses more complex thinking focused on personal decision making in school and at home. Begins to show use of formal, logical operations in schoolwork. Begins to question authority and society standards. So they are already questioning us. Right. But this is more behavioral than it is logical.

Begins to form and speak in his own thoughts and views, which is great. I do think that is wonderful that teenagers, they're exploring, they're learning, they're becoming adults. I get that. But as they change and as they grow, also the way they think changes, too. Right. But I would like to add to this, that as they mature and as they grow, in a later development, they may develop intolerance. They may not develop intolerance. And as a 17 year old, most Californians, most.

Most children in California are not teenagers. Are not involved politically. In fact, there was a study done that suggested that there was only 22% of teenagers involved with politics, period.

Can you wrap?

Okay, so we are going to entrust 22% of teenagers in California. We're going to trust our futures into 22%. Does that make sense? I don't think that.

If you can wrap up, please.

Sure. Well, anyways, I'm in opposition of this Bill. I think that, again, I appreciate the author's intent, but I think that adults should be making decisions, not children. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We're going to now go to the part of our proceeding where we're just putting our name, affiliation and position on this measure into the record. So we'd like to ask anyone here in the room who'd like to indicate their position on it, please come to the microphone. Name, affiliation and position.

Miller Saltzman. On behalf of Power CA action in strong support.

Thank you very much, sir. Anyone else here in the hearing room? I will go to our teleconference line moderator. Can you ask there's anyone on the line that would like to indicate their position for against, please?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And if you wish to speak in support or opposition, please press 1 and 0 at this time. We'll go to line 381, please go ahead.

Hi, can people hear me?

We can hear you. Please. Your position.

Okay. Yes, hi, my name is Kimberly Wu. I'm the Director of Collegiate. also part of generation up, and we are in strong support of SDA, too.

Thank you. Thank you.

Next caller, please, line 370, please go ahead.

Adriana Champagne Zamora with the League of Women Voters of California in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next caller, please.

Line 363. Please go ahead.

Yes, my name is Dan. Can you hear me? Hello.

Yes, we can hear you.

Go ahead.

Okay, yes, my name is Sandy. I'm from county, and we are not a Republic, so I am in strong opposition to this.

Thank you very much. Next caller, please.

Line 342. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Rachel Kitchen with Sacramento county, and I oppose SCA two. Thank you.

Next caller, please.

Line 367. Please go ahead.

Hi, Jennifer Johnson. I vehemently oppose SCA two. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next caller, line 345, please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Veronica from Yuka County, and I'm sorry, I have strong opposition of Sea Two. Thank you.

Thank you. Next caller, please.

Line 384. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Paige, and I am a high school senior in Sacramento, and I am calling in strong support of FDA two.

Thank you.

Line 346. Please go ahead.

Leah Mitchberry, Plastic county with Election Integrity Project California once again in strong opposition to this Bill.

Thank you.

Next caller, line 348. Please go ahead.

My name is Pauline Britton. I'm a 25 year high school teacher, a Member of Election Integrity Project California, in strong opposition to this Bill. Thank you.

Line 372, please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Annalise Mister, I'm with election integrity, and I just am appalled at what we are looking at to vote on today. But I am in strong opposition of SD 82.

Line 330, please go ahead.

Yes, my name is Glenda Muster. I am strong opposition to this. Knock it off.

Line 353, please go ahead.

My name is Ria. I'm a high school senior with generation up. We are co sponsor and in stronG, strong support of SBA Two.

Thank you. Next caller, please.

Line 379, please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Allison Chan. I'm a senior at UCLA and with Gen Up, in strong, strong support of this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Line 380, please go ahead.

Hello, my name is Nicholas Harvey. I'm from Contra Costa County, and I'm in strong support of SDA, 2.

Thank you, Nicholas. Next caller, please.

Line 357, please go ahead.

Good afternoon. Tasha Williams from California Parents Union calling in opposition to SBA 2. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next caller, line 359, please go ahead.

Susan Kennedy, San Diego County in strong opposition to this Bill.

Thank you.

Line 360, please go ahead.

George Ashford with Gen Up in strong, strong support.

Thank you.

Line 385, please go ahead.

Yeah, this is a senior high school project for, against Satanism and communism. So opposed completely.

Thank you.

For senior high school opposed.

Got it. Thank you. Next caller, please.

Mr Chair, we have no one else in queue at this time.

All right, we're going to bring the matter back to the hearing room. I want to be sure there was someone I thought had risen to testify in support or opposition. I want to give that person a chance. I don't see anybody coming to the mic, so we're going to bring it back to the Committee for comments and questions. Members Comments, questions. To the author.

Senator Menjivar, I just want to know. Thank you so much, Senator. I'm a proud co author of this. I think we have 17 year olds right now who are in the military, 17 year olds who graduate high school at 17 and join the military, 17 year olds who are being shot and killed in their schools. And I think they have the right to vote for individuals who will make decisions to stop the shooting and killing of their peers in their schools.

To the opposition, I know they left, but it's not a mandate. We can't force anyone to vote. This just opens the door for people to vote. I don't think 22% of the youth that she mentioned are going to vote. But I think it's a step in the right direction to allow them to provide a voice in our democracy. And I'm excited to get this on the ballot.

Thank you. Any other comments or questions from the panel? Senator Stern, would you like to close?

Yes, I'll try to keep it short and simply say, I think it's important that this Bill gets out of this Committee today. I hope you all find a way to do that. I know that you don't just hand over suffrage rights willy nilly easily. People fight and people have died for their votes in this country.

But I don't think it's something that we as legislators ought to hold on to so closely or sort of feel that we have some entitlement to bar a whole new generation coming up and make them go through the same thing that women went through and people of other races and faiths went through in this country. I think there's a better way to go through this enfranchisement process, and I think that California's ballot process actually is a really good way to do that.

So I don't think this Bill should replace all the hard work and sweat and effort that it's going to take to pass such a ballot measure. But I hope we do the first very important step, which is just offer the question. With that, I respectfully ask for.

I vote. Thank you so much, Senator Stern. I see a motion here in the Committee. Senator Menjivar. All right, Senator Menjivar moves the Bill. This is do pass and rerefer to the Committee on Appropriations. Secretary, please call the role.

Senators Glazer Nguyen, no. Allen, aye. Mcguire. Menjivar, aye. Newman. Umberg.

All right, we're going to hold the roll open for absent Members. I'd like to ask all the Members of the Committee to return to the Committee room so we can close the roll on all of our measures that we heard today. So we'll start with Members that are here. We're going to begin by going to the consent calendar. This is number three, file item 3, SCA 6 by Senator Archuleta. The secretary would call the roll.

This has a chair vote of aye and a Vice Chair vote of aye. Mcguire. Menjivar, aye. Umberg, aye.

Okay, we'll hold the roll open for absent Members. We'll move next to file item number two. This is SCA Three by Senator Niello. The secretary would call the absent Members.

Senators Mcguire.

We'll hold the roll open for absent Members. We'll move next to file item number four, SCA One by Senator Newman. Secretary called a roll.

This has a chair vote of aye and a Vice Chair vote of no.

Senators Mcguire.

I will hold the roll open for absent Members. Okay, we'll take a short recess while we wait for absent Members our votes. We're going to start with the consent calendar. File item number three, SCA 6 by Archuleta. Secretary. Call the roll.

Senators Mcguire, aye. Been adopted the number 7-0.

All right, that Bill is at 7 to 0. We're going to next move to file item number one, SCA Two by Senator Stern. Secretary, please call the absent Members.

The motion is be adopted and rerefer to the Committee on Appropriations. Senators Glazer, Mcguire, aye. Newman, Umberg.

Please call the roll again.

Senators Glazer, aye Aye.That's four to one.

That Bill moves out four to one. We'll next move to file item number two, SCA 3 by Senator Niello. Secretary, please call the absent Members.

The motion is be adopted and rerefer to the Committee on Appropriations with chair and Vice Chair. Voting aye. Senators Mcguire, Aye. 7 - 0

That Bill is at seven to zero. We'll next move to file item number four, SCA One by Senator Newman. If the Secretary call the absent Members.

Please, the motion is be adopted and referred to the Committee on Appropriations chair. Voting aye. Vice Chair. Voting no. Senators Mcguire, Aye. 6-1

That Bill is out six to one. Thank you to all the individuals who participated in public testimony today. If you were not able to testify, please 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. I want to thank our staff here in the Committee. We've concluded our agenda for the day.

The Senate Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments is adjourned.