Assembly Standing Committee on Elections

Good morning. Welcome to the Assembly Elections Committee Hearing. There are seven bills up in our committee today. Three bills are proposed for consent. The bills that are up in committee are as follows. No, we're not doing this. Okay? And we don't have a quorum present, so we will begin as a subcommitee. And if members of the committee are monitoring this hearing, please come to room 444 of the state capitol so that we can establish a quorum.

I'd like to welcome everyone who is here and the hearing room today and who's watching the hearing online. For the purpose of this hearing, we are accepting witness testimony in person, and we are also accepting written testimony through the legislature's position letter portal. That portal can be accessed through the committee's website at aelc.assembly.ca.gov. So the committee has seven bills, three on consent.

When we hear the bills on the agenda, we will hear from a maximum of two primary witnesses in support and two primary witnesses in opposition of the bill, with a limit of two minutes per witness. Other witnesses are limited to providing their name, their organization they represent, if any, and their position on the bill. Additional comments will be ruled out of order. Before we move on to the agenda, I have an additional announcement to make.

I have a letter from Speaker Rivas appointing Assemblymember Mia Bonta to replace Assemblymember Akilah Weber on the committee for the purpose of today's hearing only. And hopefully Assemblymember Bonta will be here shortly. With those announcements out of the way, we will now move on to the - we can't do that. We can't do consent. Right. All right, so no consent, no quorum. I'm the only author here. And the important members, thank you. Welcome to my co-chair, Assembly Member Lackey.

Thank you, Assembly Member Essayli and Assembly Member Bennett, for being here on time. If it's okay until we get an author, I think I'll hand the gavel over to Mr. Lackey, and I will proceed with my bills because we are not going to dilly dally. Okay.

Okay, the chairs on. Okay. Hi. Sorry. So, good morning.

Good morning. You may proceed.

We're going to start with the bill that we have for the election registration information center. Thank you, chair and members; this is on, right? In a state with statewide mailed ballots, the accuracy of our voter records is of paramount importance. The Electronic Registration Information Center, known as ERIC, is a powerful tool elections officials can use to ensure that they have the most up-to-date voter rolls.

ERIC is a nonpartisan nonprofit governed by its member states that mutually agree to share data such as voter registration and vehicle licensee data in order to keep their voter rolls updated and to reach out to eligible but unregistered citizens. By the Secretary of State's estimates, there are almost 5 million unregistered eligible voters in California. This is greater than the population of 26 states.

When a voter moves, they often re-register to vote in their new jurisdiction but do not notify their prior county elections official that they have moved. Due to the highly mobile nature of California's population, it is likely there are millions of voter registration records that are out of date due to a recent move. ERIC members do not have access to any of the members' data or reports stored on ERIC's servers, and state voter registration systems are never connected to ERIC.

AB 2050 allows the Secretary of State to join ERIC on behalf of the State of California to provide the state with data on voters who have moved in-state, out-of-state, or died, as well as providing data on Californians who are eligible to vote but are not registered. ERIC is designed to work within the framework of the National Voter Registration act, under which states cannot remove voters from the rolls just because ERIC reports they have moved.

Before removing a voter, states must contact the voter, seek to confirm ERIC's information and leave voters on the rolls for at least two federal general election cycles as consistent with federal law. Additionally, AB 2050 specifically prohibits the sending of AB 60 licensed data in order to ensure that no one is ineligible to vote is included in the data set. As you may know, nine states have left ERIC in the last couple of years. I won't sugarcoat it.

The states who have pulled out of ERIC have capitulated to conspiracy theories couched in data security concerns. As the former West Virginia Secretary of State said, this retreat from ERIC is the next step in spreading disinformation as a way to weaken and sow distrust in our election system. Through a Public Records Act request, we know that in 2023, the Texas Secretary of State's office was advising this Texas state Legislature that ERIC, and I quote, "is an important election integrity tool," and they were concerned about the misinformation circulating around it. When Texas was a member of ERIC, more than 200,000 deceased in-state duplicate and cross-state duplicate voter records were flagged for county registrars in a six-month period in 2022.

Furthermore, in emails to their legislature, the Texas Secretary of State's office said that if they were to leave ERIC, and again, I quote here, "Texas would be losing a source of information to remove potentially hundreds of thousands of ineligible voters each year, particularly voters who are registered in more than one state." Without ERIC, we would have no visibility info, for example, a person who has registered to vote in both Georgia and Texas and casts or attempts to cast a ballot in both states.

In the summer of 2023, Texas left ERIC. Californian's efforts to increase the accessibility of our voter registration system has been a great success. Becoming an ERIC Member is a natural next step in California's mission to improve the accuracy of our voter files and to ensure all voices are heard at the ballot box. AB 2050 is sponsored by the California Association of Clerks and Elections Officials.

With me to testify in support of ERIC is Shane Hamlin, who's the Executive Director of ERIC, and I understand, Tricia Webber, who represents CACEO, is on her way.

While we wait for that, let's go ahead and establish a quorum. If we could take the roll, please.

[Roll Call] We have a quorum.

Thank you. You may proceed.

Thank you. Go ahead.

All right. Good morning, Vice Chair Lackey and members of the committee. My name is Shane Hamlin. I'm the Executive Director of ERIC, the Electronic Registration Information. I'd like to thank chair Pellerin for sponsoring AB 1250 and inviting me here to speak to you today on behalf of the Bill. ERIC, as you heard, is a nonprofit 501c3 membership organization comprised completely of state election officials in 25 states and the District of Columbia.

Our mission is to help election officials maintain more accurate voter rolls and increase access to voter registration information for eligible citizens. We are a member-led organization completely funded by our Members and governed by our members. My board of directors are state elections directors and they report to secretaries of state. Maintaining accurate voter roles is a challenge because, as you heard, voters every day die and move.

Often, they do not think to update their address when they move, and family Members rarely report the death of a family Member. ERIC helps election officials mitigate these challenges. Since 2012, ERIC has identified for its members nearly 42 million inaccurate or out-of-date voter records, most notably almost 12.7 million voters who have moved out of those states to another ERIC state. And we've also identified about 60 million individuals who appear to be eligible but who were not yet registered.

If California were to join ERIC, based on the experience of our current members, we believe we'd identify almost 2 million out-of-date or inaccurate voter records that need to be updated and about four and a half to 5 million potentially eligible but unregistered individuals; ERIC would be a secure, cost-effective resource for the Secretary of State and California's 58 local election officials. I shared a handout with you that provides some additional facts.

I think that the chair did a fantastic job of hitting on some of the most current relevant points about ERIC that I'd be happy to speak to more, and I'd be happy to expand on any of the topics covered in the really thorough bill analysis as well. So again, thank you for the opportunity to speak in favor of AB 1250 or 2050.

Hi, good morning. My name is Tricia Webber. I am the Co-legislative Chair or the Co-chair for the legislative arm of the California Association of Clerk and Election Officials. Thank you very much for having me here today. I'm trying not to ignore you guys over there. We are proud to sponsor Assembly Bill 2050 for the use of ERIC in California.

It would be a wonderful tool, as you have heard, for election officials, one of our primary goals is to provide access to the ballot for our voters. And by using ERIC data, we would be able to clean up our voter roles and we would also be able to help outreach to people who are eligible to register but have not currently registered, bringing more access to the ballot for California voters. We strongly urge that you approve this bill.

Thank you.

All right, well, thank you. Okay, do we have any witnesses in the room that would like to come forward and show their support for this particular measure? Okay. Seeing none. How about opposition? No witnesses in opposition. Anybody in the crowd like to express opposition at all? Very good.

Okay, we have a first and a second. We'll bring it back to the committee members. Any comments? Questions? Mr. Essayli, you may go.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just have a few questions regarding how we can clean up voter rolls. I think we all support voter registration. I think it should just be as easy to remove a voter as it is to add a voter. So I want to understand exactly what ERIC takes into account in determining the eligibility of a voter. You mentioned that it could pull death records, correct?

Yes.

Okay, so that's from Social Security or where does that come from?

The Social Security Administration.

Okay. And then for people who've moved, you're relying on new voter registration records in other states.

As well as DMV records in other states.

As well as DMV records. And it's only for participating states or are you able to pull records from non participating states?

Only participating states.

Okay. What about noncitizens?

We do not collect data on known noncitizens, and I can explain that in a second. And we do not collect data on affirmative data on citizenship either. So we don't collect data on known noncitizens for a variety of reasons, primarily because, again, look at our data sources, DMV records, voter records, Social Security death data, NCO, and national change of address data. The only data set in there that may have citizenship data is DMV data.

However, it can be unreliable because it can change over time as people are on a path towards citizenship, or their status may change because it is not very reliable. It's one of the reasons we don't collect it.

So what the states, what our members do is when they get the report back that identifies individuals who may be eligible, they filter them off if they have access to information on noncitizens so that they do not get a mailing or when they do conduct the mailing, it includes very clearly the eligibility requirements in order to register, including that you must be a citizen.

So, the states are responsible for determining the citizenship status of a -

They're responsible for taking the eligible but unregistered report and removing anyone they know not to be eligible and to do what they can to mitigate the risks of an ineligible individual receiving the postcard mailing. And if they do receive it, again, it's very clear on the mailing what the eligibility requirements are.

Okay, but if the state is given records saying these are the people who aren't registered to vote, and you're not determining whether they're citizens or not, how does the state make that determination?

It depends on what data they have access to and how their DMV does collect citizenship data, and whether or not that's recorded and transmitted onto the elections officials. So, it is on a state-by-state basis, and it is in the member's control and responsibility to handle that.

Well, I'll ask Ms. Pellerin, since you're an expert in this area, how would the State of California confirm this is some citizenship status of a potentially eligible or data that's provided from the ERIC system?

Well, as he was saying that we do not get the AB 60 data from our California DMV. So those are people who get driver's licenses who are not citizens. So it would not even be coming to us.

But what if they give you data, this person's moved into your state, and they're not in our DMV system? How would we confirm if they're a citizen or not?

If they're not in the California DMV system, they wouldn't be on the eligible, but unregistered report.

Okay, so only people who are in our DMV database will be contacted for purposes of registration?

Well, only people who are in your DMV database who have not been excluded, such as the license holders she was just referring to, would be on that report, and only if they're not registered. So the eligible but unregistered report includes only individuals who have a California driver's license or ID card and who moved into the state, who have one of those and who are not on their voter rolls, and who have not been excluded in the upload based on the other conditions we've talked about.

I get the illegal immigrant driver's licenses. I get that. But there are also legal residents who have driver's licenses. So what about those people who move? Are they going to be solicited for registration?

If there is a way to exclude them from the DMV file upload to ERIC, they will be excluded.

Do you know, Ms. Pellerin, if we do that, and we're talking not about illegal immigrants, but we're talking about maybe green card holders or some other people who don't have full citizenship status.

You're more involved in it day to day now. But I don't...

When you go into the DMV, sorry, not loud enough. When you go into the DMV and you do the driver's license process, you are given the opportunity to register to vote, and you have to go and give your data in order to attest to your eligibility. And that's the same as if you fill out a voter registration card. You attest to your eligibility in order to be registered to vote.

When we receive a voter registration, regardless of what path it comes to us, whether it's an electronic, through the online system, through the DMV, or through a paper card, we have to run it through a check where it goes against other data to determine whether or not the voter is eligible. And it's not just looking to see what their citizenship status is going against these other things. It's also looking: are they not eligible because they're in prison or something to that effect.

It's checking all of the eligibility requirements, and it sends back a report when we do the registration on whether we can make them an active voter or whether we have to pend them in order to get further information. So that's already a system that's built into our registration data.

Okay. And we'll talk about the DMV registration program because you have another bill on the DMV motor voter thing. Are we doing that today?

Somebody does.

We'll talk about that when it comes up. Okay, so just a couple more questions. Are you saying that this tool will be primarily used to clean up voter rolls? Because I think California does a pretty robust job of already trying to get anyone who interacts with the DMV to register to vote. So, is this primarily a cleanup tool? Is this what you're saying? The ERIC system?

Well, I'll speak from the registrar's point of view. All data that we can get have access to in order to clean up our registration roles is welcome data. And one thing that ERIC will provide that other we don't really have access to is if somebody passes away out of state, it could be years and years and years before we would find out that that person passed away.

Another one is when people move out of state and re-register, it's incumbent on them writing on their new registration form that they were registered in California. Then, that state has to send it to the Secretary of State to filter it to the county level. So this would give more information in a quicker method if somebody is no longer a California voter.

Okay. And then just last few questions, just so I understand. So let's say you're county ROV, and you get data. This person has moved out of state. What would you do with that?

I would place the voter in what's known as an inactive state, and I would send out a notification saying we call it in our office the hey voter one. But it's a little nicer than that. But basically, the notice says, "Hey, voter, we received information that you moved out of state. Is this true?" And then we mail it to the address that we have, and then the voter has a postcard that they can fill out to say, yes, it's true or no, it's not.

And then it comes back to us postage paid. And then we do our voter file maintenance from there. If it comes back saying, yes, it's true, I've moved and they've signed it, we can cancel the registration.

What if they don't respond?

Then it stays in the inactive state for an extended period of time. And then there's more voter file maintenance that we do down the road to eventually cancel them out.

So as soon as you get data from ERIC, I read the bylaws. You are required to reach out to that voter. So you do that via postcard. Right. And then, as you send that postcard out, you're simultaneously moving them into the inactive voter list. Which means what? They won't be given a mail ballot. What does that mean? Yeah, so they won't get sent out a mail ballot.

And then the postcard goes out to confirm their ineligibility or if it was a mistake or something.

Correct.

Correct.

So if they respond, you would deal with it. If they don't respond, they remain on the inactive voter file for, I think at least two years before -

Two federal generals.

That's under eight years.

No.

Okay. Not presidential, just two federal law.

Federal law.

And then they would be eventually removed. And is that a consistent practice through the ROV statewide?

Yes, that is the law.

That is the law. Okay, well, that is helpful. And yeah, I've read the concerns that have been raised about this, mostly about how the data is stored, things like that. But I most concerned with making sure we have accurate, up-to-date voter rolls. And so if this could be a tool on that. I do have some concerns about our Motor Voter program, which I will take up on the other bill, but I generally support cleaning up tools to clean up our voter rolls.

So thank you.

Okay, do we have any other questions?

I just want to thank the author for sticking with this. It's an important program. It's a program that, as we just heard, can help clean up our voter rolls and really appreciate you bringing this back and leading this effort. I think it's important. I'm happy to support it today.

Thank you so much.

Yeah.

Any other comments? Madam, you may close.

I respectfully ask for aye vote.

Okay, let's call for the question, please.

The motion is do passed and be re referred to the Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection. [Roll Call]

Okay.

We're going to allow, Assemblymember. Thank you.

Okay, sounds good. Assemblymember Bonta, you're up.

Thank you. You may begin when ready. Thank you.

Thank you. chair and Committee Members, I introduce AB 2041 in response to the alarming increase in political violence directed towards elected officials and candidates for office. As public servants, there is much we humbly and willingly sacrifice to serve, including spending time with family and maintaining our privacy.

However, the one thing we should never have to sacrifice is our sense of safety or the safety of our families and those who work closely with us. Unfortunately, we have seen a rise in threats against candidates and public officials, especially women, and harassment of staff serving our constituents.

A 2023 study conducted by the California Women's list found 42% of women encountered stalking at least once while on the campaign trail, with almost one in five experiencing it frequently or very frequently. This rate is 15 times higher than that reported by men. This disparity is more pronounced among women of color, which was nearly 55%, and LGBTQ plus women, which was found to be nearly 53%.

In addition, it eliminates the $5,000 lifetime cap on security expenses using campaign funds, which has not been adjusted in 30 years. Lastly, AB 2041 removes the requirement for a verified threat by law enforcement to reimburse a security expense.

AB 2041 aims to protect candidates, elected officials, their families and staff by authorizing personal security as a campaign expense and expanding eligibility for security. In addition, it eliminates the $5,000 lifetime cap on security expenses using campaign funds, which has not been adjusted in 30 years. Lastly, AB 2041 removes the requirement for a verified threat by law enforcement to reimburse a security expense.

This is a reintroduction of AB 37, which clarified language regarding what can be considered a security expense, along with technical language around reporting the expenses to ensure transparency.

We have worked extensively on this language with the FPPC candidate security is a nonpartisan issue and has previously received bipartisan support. With me today is Audrey Rodichek, who will be sharing testimony on behalf of the Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer.

Good morning chair and members Audrey Retichek from cruise strategies on behalf of the Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer. I'm here today in support of AB 2041 by Assemblymember Bonta and thank her for bringing this much needed legislation forward.

This bill provides necessary changes in law to protect the safety of elected officials and their families. Under current California campaign laws, campaigns can pay for in home or office security systems, but that is limited solely for the protection of the candidate or elected official.

Once the threat has been verified by law enforcement agency and there's a $5,000 lifetime cap on campaign security expenses that has not been adjusted for inflation or the cost of living. The cap needs to be updated to reflect the current cost market for home alarm systems and other security protection measures which easily exceed the cap.

The process is transparent and all of these security expenses are reported on the appropriate campaign finance reports of the candidate or office holder.

AB 2041 expands access to security by allowing additional types of security expenses to be allowed for reimbursement, removing the cap on security expenses, and expanding eligibility to include family members and staff of the elected official or candidate as an elected official.

For over two decades, DA Spitzer and his family have experienced numerous concerning threats, including a stalker that has shown up at his home multiple times.

Throughout his career, he has had to implement a myriad of necessary security protections that far exceed the cap allowed under current law. We are working with the author and that amendment language is in there, so for these reasons, we support EB 2041 and urge your support today. Thank you.

Are there any other additional witnesses who would like to register their support for this bill?

Good morning. Johnnie Pina with the League of California Cities in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Maria Morales, on behalf of Hispanas Organizer for Political Equality in support.

Thank you. We will now move on to the primary witnesses in opposition. Are there anybody here in opposition to the bill? Anyone who wants to just register in opposition? Seeing none, we'll move it back to the committee. Any questions or comments?

Move the bill?

Just a quick question. As many may know, AB 37 was similar to this bill. And we know that the Governor expressed some concern as he vetoed the bill. But he indicated his concern was the broad potential interpretation of security expenses. Has this bill addressed that concern? Because I was trying to figure out how it did that and when it unable to do that. So if you could clarify that, I'd appreciate that.

It has addressed the concern. I think the concern expressed by the Governor was largely based in the notion that we didn't want elected officials to be able to use this opportunity to provide militia, essentially armed, armed people in excess. So we've addressed those concerns.

Any other questions or comments from Committee Members? I believe we have a motion. Was that Berman who motioned? Do I have a second? Second Cervantes all right, let's go ahead and call the -- I'm sorry. Would you like to close?

And thank you. I just want to thank you also for your continued work in this issue area. The increase in political violence and threats is a real phenomenon, and this bill will give candidates and elected officials additional tools to protect themselves, their families. So go ahead and close, please.

Thank you. This is an impactful bill. I think that we can all talk about somebody, either a candidate or an elected official, a staff member, a family member who's been impacted by sense of safety. And I very respectfully request your aye vote.

And this bill enjoys a support position. So thank you.

On AB 2041 by Bonta. The motion is do pass and be re referred to the Committee on appropriations.

[Roll Call]

That bill is out six to zero. Thank you. Okay, we're in culprit seminar. Berman, are you ready? Absolutely. And let's take care of our consent calendar now that we have a quorum.

Okay. On the consent calendar, we have three items. AB 2001 by Gallagher. The motion is do pass and re refer to the committee on appropriations with recommendation to consent calendar. The second is AB 2582 by Pellerin. The motion is do pass as amended and re referred to the committee on appropriation with recommendation to consent calendar.

The third item is AB 2631 by Mike Fong. The motion is do pass and rerefer to the committee on appropriation with recommendation to consent calendar.

Do I have a motion for passing the consent calendar? Thank you. Go ahead and call the roll.

[Roll Call]

The consent calendar is out.

Thank you, Assemblymember Berman. And you're presenting AB 2127 today.

Thank you, Madam Chair and colleagues. California's new mode of voter law has been a success, with more than 25 million new or updated voter registrations since it launched in 2018. Notwithstanding this significant accomplishment, there have been challenges modernizing the voter registration process at the DMV, ultimately resulting in litigation and settlement.

Create and settlement created oversight mechanisms I authored legislation in 2021 to codify many of the best practices from the settlement, as well as establish the new Motor Voter Task Force to continue monitoring the law's rollout and advise the Secretary of State and DMV on its effective implementation.

Several provisions from my prior bill will not go into effect until at least July 2025, and the DMV may need even more time. AB 2127 would extend the operation of the task force in order to provide continued oversight and to ensure proper implementation and the full effectiveness of our new motor voter law.

Accordingly, I respectfully request an aye vote on AB 2127 and I'm joined today by Brittany Stonesifer, who is an attorney for the ACLU and a member of the new Motor Voter Task Force.

Good morning. My name is Brittany Stonesifer. On behalf of ACLU California Action and a proud co-sponsor of AB 2127 we work to ensure that California's democracy is accessible to all voters, including historically underrepresented groups.

With our partners, we spent many years advocating to increase the fairness and efficiency of the voter registration system at the DMV. The current new motor voter system is a byproduct of that ongoing collaboration.

Since its rollout in 2018, the new motor voter program has become one of the most powerful tools that our state has for maintaining accurate voter rolls and registering new voters. In less than six years, as you heard from Assemblymember Berman, the program has resulted in nearly 25 million new or updated voter registrations.

The DMV is now the top registration method for youth and voters of color. This program's success relies on active monitoring and guidance from stakeholders.

This is why the legislature established the task force in 2021, formally convening stakeholders at the DMV and the Secretary of State. Since then, the task force has provided visibility into issues at the DMV and developed guidance and streamlined registration forms.

The task force publishes annual reports that are invaluable resources for the public, lawmakers and advocates. But despite its successes, the task force will sunset at the end of this year unless it's extended.

The DMV is currently engaged in a major overhaul of its software systems, delaying mandated improvements and critical updates that will maximize the program's ability to engage potential voters. If the task force expires at the end of this year as scheduled, we'll lose a necessary tool for efficiently and transparently implementing these changes. AB 2127 will extend public oversight and technical guidance during this period of complex transition.

For these reasons, I respectfully ask your aye vote, and I'm happy to answer any questions that the committee has. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Are there any other additional witnesses in support or anyone who wants to register support for this bill?

Good morning, chair and members Dora Rose, deputy director with the League of Women Voters of California. We are proud co-sponsors of this bill and also members of the secretary of state Task Force. Thank you.

Eric Harris, Disability Rights California support.

Thank you very much. Anybody here in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. We'll move it to the committee for any questions or comments. Mr. Essayli

Thank you. Okay. Picking up on sort of the last series of questions, I want to really understand how the State of California confirms the eligibility of a voter who interacts with the DMV.

So I appreciate the question.

Citzen status.

I appreciate the question. I'm here to talk about this bill. No, the bill is to extend a task force that provides transparency and accountability and oversight of the DMV's implementation of the law. And so this bill is about the task force, not about the underlying law.

Well, what is the task force doing about allowing people who aren't citizens to register and vote? Hold on, I'm speaking. That's not my allegation.

You want to ask questions.

I will ask questions and be aggressive.

Then we can do that one at a time, please.

I'm speaking and I will allow you to answer.

That's kind of you. Thank you, sir.

Yes. Well, you're here to answer questions to the committee.

Relevant questions to the bill.

Okay.

This is not my accusations. This is the DMV's admissions that they allowed 1500 people who are not citizens to be. Are you denying that they allowed 1500?

I'm going to let you answer your question and then answer it, because that's.

They allowed 1500 people who are not citizens to incorrectly register to vote. Is that true or not?

That is not true. I'm not sure what source you're citing, but when the initial rollout of the DMV's current voter motor system, there were some errors in the initial rollout, but there were not 1500 non citizens registered. Most of those were duplicate registrations for eligible individuals, and those were quickly consolidated.

And the errors that were initially in the 2018 rollout of the program have completely been resolved. And the task force is an essential tool from maintaining the ongoing efficiency and functionality of the system.

Okay, so you don't consider the Associated Press article where it was printed last year, DMV officials said an error may have prevented nearly 600 people from voting and another may have allowed 1500 people, perhaps including non citizens, to incorrectly register to vote. Are you familiar with that?

Just listening to that sentence, it doesn't sound like it says that 1500 non citizens were registered. It says there are 1500 errors, potentially including non citizens.

Through the chair to avoid back and forth. Can other Committee Members ask questions at this time?

Thank you very much. Absolutely.

Thank you so much, Mr. Berman thank you to the author for bringing this forward. Can you just restate again what the purpose of this legislation is and what the critical importance of the task force is, please?

Absolutely. Thank you for the question. So the purpose is to extend the existence of the new Motor Voter Task Force, and what that will do is key improvements that the new Motor Voter Task Force does include enhanced monitoring by coordinators and increased transparency from regular reporting.

And furthermore, the terms of the league of women voter settlement. So this is in result of a lawsuit against the state and a settlement of that lawsuit. Those expired in early 2022.

So the previous bill codified many of the best practices. The task force was established to ensure that monitoring and reporting continued after the settlement expired. So really what this is about is accountability and transparency and oversight of the implementation of the new motor voter bill, which was created by federal law in 1993.

So this is a task force that's meant to create transparency and accountability, reporting and oversight of what the DMV does.

May I ask another question, chair, and I'm assuming any concerns of the committee you'll be able to address in your closing comments?

In my closing, and if folks from the committee want to bring up questions or bring up concerns, we're happy to look into those and figure out answers as the bill moves through the process as well. Obviously, it's kind of hard to react to things that certain colleagues haven't necessarily asked of my office, asked of me ahead of time, and then come in with encyclopedic knowledge of every accusation that's been alleged.

But obviously, happy to look at all of those and happy to get back to folks as the bill moves through the process.

Thank you, chair, for allowing the questions.

Okay, we have a move to the bill, and we have a second.

Madam Chair. I'd like to finish asking my question.

If you have a question on the bill specifically.

I do have a question on the bill because I'm asking about what is going to be this transparency and accountability that we're going to have. And I'm asking about not just allegation of reports, but then there was an audit done by Ernst and Young that looked at these issues.

And according to the State of California, six people who voted in 2018 were ineligible people who are registered to vote at the DMV.

And what the audit found is that the State of California doesn't do anything to validate the citizenship status of people who are registered to vote through the DMV. It's a self attestation program. And my concern is that we've also built in immunity. So anyone who says they're eligible, but really isn't, we've now said they're immune from procuration.

So this is not a question on the bill.

My question is, what is this task force going to do to deal with this major flaw where we do not confirm the citizenship eligibility of voters?

So that six number that you mentioned is that 2018 problems with the initial rollout, which has been fixed. But to answer your question, the task force is specifically tasked by law with being reported to from the DMV and the Secretary of State on any regularities in the system. And there's an annual report that's published from the task force. The 2022 report is out.

The 2023 one is forthcoming that includes a very detailed analysis of any irregularities in the program and what was done to address those during the previous year.

Okay. What did this task force recommend should be done to address those issues?

As I said, that issue has been resolved. The initial software glitches with the program were resolved in 2018. So that issue, there's no issue to be resolved there by the time.

How is it resolved? So how today do -

This is not the forum to be going into what the task force has done.

Well, I want to know if this task force is actually doing anything or not. So how did they resolve the issue with a voter not being a citizen and being registered to vote?

As I said, that was part of initial software glitch in 2018 which has been resolved. And the task force was started in 2021, and so it was created after that problem was resolved. I was part of the settlement team that was monitoring the DMV during that period.

But the task force is a means to continue that oversight and transparency. And the task force findings are in that annual report that is available to the public and to the legislature. So if you would like to see any of the irregularities that happened in 2022, which do not include non citizens becoming registered, that is on the Secretary of State's website.

And in my experience, human error does occur, and sometimes somebody does register who is not a citizen and it is corrected by canceling that voter record.

But how do we identify that error? So if the voter is.

There's a number of different ways that that error gets identified.

According to this audit, they don't check. So I just want to make sure this task force is going to look into that issue and come up with a way that we can confirm eligibility status. So my questions have not been satisfied. So I'll be opposing this bill today.

Thank you. We have a motion and a second. I heard a second. Yes. So we had a motion by Assemblymember Low, second by Cervantes. I'd like to thank the author for this continued work on this issue. Our new motor voter program has been successful in registering and updating the voter registration of millions of Californians, and the task force plays a critical role in ensuring the new motor voter program continues to function as intended. But go ahead and close.

I appreciate the conversations. I would argue that the whole purpose of the task force is to have oversight of the implementation of new motor voter and when problems get identified, to look for and create solutions and work with the DMV and work with the SOS to implement those.

And so for anybody who has concerns, I would think that you would want to support the extension of the task force, because that's the entire purpose of the task force, is to have that accountability, have that oversight, have that transparency, and identify solutions to any problems that may arise in anything that we do when it comes to 20 plus million voters. Thank you.

Thank you. Excellent close. And I am recommending support for this bill. Go ahead. Call the roll.

On AB 2127 by Berman. The motion passed and be referred to the committee on appropriations.

[Roll Call]

The bill is out, five to one. Thank you very much. We'll now move to our last bill, which is my bill.

You may proceed.

Thank you. Thank you, chair and members. Under existing law, specific election materials must be retained by county elections officials, records regarding federal elections must be retained for 22 months and all other election records must be retained for six months.

The packages containing these materials must remain unopened for the duration of the retention period, after which these materials are destroyed. In the pursuit of transparent elections, the preservation of the paper and electronic record of the election is of the utmost importance.

However, there have been cases where the Secretary of State and a court have come to differing conclusions regarding which documents may be shared without compromising the security of an election. In order to provide more clarity regarding retention and document access, AB 2249 clarifies which materials must be retained by the elections officials.

AB 2249 adds cast vote records, conditional voter registration, voter identification envelopes, completed forms issued to the precinct board and any machine reports used to account for the ballots delivered to the voting location, completed forms issued to the counting board and any machine reports used for the 1% manual tally and two tally sheets if the precinct manually tabulates ballots.

Cast vote records are auditable documents that correspond to the selections made on the voters ballot. Voter identification envelopes contain the voter's signature, residential address data signature, and a notice that voting more than once constitutes a crime, among other notices.

AB 2249 clarifies that all voters may observe the processing of these election materials at all times during the official canvas, except that the items that contain signatures of voters may not be copied or distributed in order to preserve the secrecy of the ballot. AB 2249 is sponsored by the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials. And with me today to testify in support is Tricia Weber, representing CACEO.

Move the Bill.

Thank you.

Second.

Okay, ma'am, you may proceed.

Thank you very much. Hi, again. My name is Tricia Webber. I am one of the co-chairs for the California Association Clerk Election Officials election legislative committee. We are proud to sponsor this bill that Assemblymember Pellerin just spoke about. It would clarify the types of ballots and the types of materials that are to be sealed, and it also clarifies how long they are to be sealed. And it actually changes the word may to shall to actually destroy materials when the retention period has reached the end.

It was kind of a weird ambiguity that was there because some of it said, you shall. Some of it said, you may. And now all materials will be destroyed on their respective dates. And we strongly urge aye vote on this bill.

Okay, thank you. Do you have anybody else who would like to express support for this bill? Seeing none. How about opposition? Do we have any opposition in the room? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the Committee Members. Do we have any comments? Questions?

I just have a quick comment. A concern. While I understand the legitimate intention of this bill, I worry that it may lead to transparency issues if they cannot be subject to Public Records Act requests. Is there a way you can help me satisfy that concern about PRA requests being denied now?

What we were seeing across the state is that people were putting in public records request acts for items that could not be distributed under PRA rules, and then such as envelopes with the signatures and things like that.

And also once we complete an election and it's certified, it is sealed and we can only break the seals if we receive a court order. And usually that court order would come under a contest or litigation about the election and not for a PRA request.

Once it's over and it's sealed for the election officials, it's over and sealed unless the court orders us to do so. So that's why there was some ambiguity of what would be broken. Also is that the Secretary of State's office was saying, yeah, once it's sealed, it's sealed. Unless of the court order. And some courts were saying, well, maybe that's not true.

So this is making the words the intent of what the preservation and stuff was that PRA requests of sealed documents for the election, once it's certified and sealed, can't be broken. It can't break the seal and get into.

And all those documents are open to observation during the course of the canvas.

Got you. Okay. Do you have any other questions? Okay, how about the amendments that were mentioned in the analysis? Are you accepting those amendments?

Absolutely. Thank you.

And the motion. And second, is that as amended?

Absolutely.

Just clarifying. Okay, thank you. I think we're ready to call for the question. I'll let you close first.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

All right, thank you.

On AB 2249 Pellerin, the motion is do passed as amended, and be re referred to the committee on appropriations.

[Roll Call]

Measure passes. It's out six to zero.

We're going to open the roll for absent members to add on to the bills. Excuse me, we're not done yet. We're going to have an opportunity for the absent members to add on to the role. Go ahead.

Item 2050, Pellerin.

[Roll Call]

And the other bill is. We're waiting for Mr. Bennett. Okay.

Mr. Bennett, we'd like you to add on to three bills. The first one is AB 2041 by Ms. Bonta. The motion is. Okay. Aye. The second one is AB 2127. Berman. Aye. And the last one is AB 2249. Pellerin. Aye. And on the consent calendar? Aye. Thank you.

Okay, now that all the votes are in. And did you announce whether they passed or not passed? Yes, I think they've all passed. Okay. This means now adjourn. Thank you.

Thank you.