Assembly Standing Committee on Elections

Good morning. I'd like to call the April 102024 hearing of the Assembly elections Committee to order. We are going to begin as a Subcommitee. 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 in the hearing room today and who is 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 of AELC Dot Assembly.ca.gov dot. The Committee has nine bills on its agenda today. There are three bills 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, the organization they represent, if any, and their position on the Bill. Additional comments will be ruled out of order. With these announcements out of the way, we will now move on to the Committee's agenda.

Although we were hoping for more authors to be present. We don't see her anywhere, huh? Okay, so we can't take up the consent counter. We're just gonna wait for a few minutes to see if we can get some more authors here. Most of the authors are Members of the Committee except for one, so we're trying to track them down right now, so take a chill. Our author is on her way, so we'll give her a few more minutes. All right, we're going to go ahead and establish a quorum now that we got more Members here. So, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Time we'll go ahead and take up the Committee's consent calendar. There are three bills on the consent calendar. The Committee secretary will please read the items on the consent calendar.

[Consent Calendar]

Does any Member wish to remove any item from the consent calendar? Seeing and hearing none. Do we have a motion on the consent calendar? So moved. Second moved by Assemblymember Berman, seconded by Vice Chair Lackey. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Since our other author is not here, I'm going to go ahead and take up a bill I have on civic education, and it is Assembly Bill 2627.

You may proceed.

Thank you. Thank you, Vice Chair and members. Existing law directs the Secretary of State and counties to implement programs aimed at increasing voter participation, conducting outreach to eligible but unregistered voters, and removing administrative barriers to voting. However, fewer than 60% of eligible California voters have exercised their right to vote in each statewide election since 1972. With the exception of the historic turnout during the 2020 election, young people are the least likely age group to participate in elections.

And yet, they are the ones who will live with the consequences of these elections the longest. In the historic turnout of 2020, only 48% of eligible voters under the age of 24 participated, and the sad part is that this was substantially higher than the 2016 general election, which saw youth turnout of around 37%. Members, if our participation rates were grades on a test, we would be failing.

When less than half of our young voters are participating in a presidential election, we need to examine why they are engaged at lower rates than older segments of our population. To boost the civic education of young voters in California, AB 2627 establishes the Civic Learning Outreach and Engagement Fund, from which the Secretary of State will grant funds to participating local election officials.

Available grants will allow local elections officials to implement programs that integrate voter registration and pre-registration with civic engagement programs intended to support high school students. These programs can be designed to support the attainment of the State Seal of Civic Engagement, which is awarded to graduating high school seniors who demonstrate excellence in civic education and participation.

By establishing a designated funding stream to conduct outreach programs in coordination with local education agencies, local elections officials will be able to be more creative in their approaches to outreach to our young voters, who are our future leaders. With me to testify and support is Jesse Salinas, the Chief Elections Official for Yolo County, and Dean Logan, the Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters.

Good morning, committee members. Jesse Salinas, Yolo County's Registrar of Voters, data continues to show that those 18 to 24-year-olds are still the lowest participating age group and that items further down on the ballot seem to have less voter engagement this past primary election. Without a competitive presidential race captured the reality of the statewide turnout at only 35%. Simply stated, young voters are not seeing the important connection between their vote and its impact on their daily lives at the local and state level.

A recent Tufts University study found that 81% of the surveyed youth who remembered student voice experiences in high school said they were extremely likely to vote in 2024, compared to 44% of those who did not. Our work in Yolo County verifies these findings locally and potential significant impact of AB 2627. For the past six years, we have provided a one-day, national award-winning youth empowerment summit that brings 100 to 150 students from across the county to learn about local government and the voting process.

We have conducted pre and post-surveys since the summit's inception, and we found that when asked the question to students, "Do you understand how local government functions?" At the beginning of the summit, 44% said yes afterwards, 90% said yes. We then asked them if they understood the voting process and how it works; 64% said yes at the beginning. Afterwards, it was 100%, and then we would finally ask them, do you understand the role of elected officials? 62% said yes, 100% said yes afterwards.

As last year's summit, we even asked students if they felt empowered to make positive changes in their community, and 92% said they felt either empowered or very empowered after attending the event. Such efforts in the high schools will increase understanding of elections and create a crucial government connection to young people to help them become engaged voters and up and down the ballot. Accordingly, I respectfully request your support of this legislation. Thank you.

Good morning Vice Chair Lackey, members of the committee. I'm Dean Logan, Registrar Recorder County Clerk for Los Angeles County, and thank you, Assemblymember Pellerin, for your sponsorship of this bill. On behalf of Los Angeles County, I'm here to support Assembly Bill 2627. I respectfully request your support. Los Angeles County is California's largest and most diverse county, with nearly 10 million residents from many different communities and backgrounds. We strive to provide an accessible, convenient, and fair voting experience to all of our voters.

We know, though, that a one-size-fits-all approach often does not work in Los Angeles County. When trying to reach voters in 19 languages across multiple generations with different voter participation histories and factoring in the geographic diversity of Los Angeles County. We take a two-step approach to voter education and outreach messaging to ensure we can reach all of our communities.

This includes a high level voter education and outreach campaign that targets our nearly 5.7 million registered voters, and we complement that campaign with our multilingual media campaign, which provides crucial information in multiple languages and leverages ethnic media partnerships to reach our diverse communities. A similar approach can be taken to reach our emerging electorate. Young people enter the electorate during complicated times with significant challenges and barriers such as misinformation and disinformation and simply lack of knowledge of how the process works.

Media literacy programs are critical to equipping voters with the necessary skills to navigate a complicated information landscape and to participate in the democratic process. Infusing civics education with a curriculum that addresses voter registration, civic engagement, and media literacy and partnering between educators and election administrators is a solid model for encouraging our next generation of voters. AB 2627, if passed, will significantly bolster our voter education and outreach efforts.

It will allow us to better prioritize communities within the county with lower voter registration and participation rates, thereby ensuring a more equitable democratic process. The funds are critical in our ability to engage and register all eligible voters, providing access to the ballot box for all. But importantly, this bill is not just about funding. It's about ensuring that every voice in our diverse county is heard and represented. So thank you.

And again, on behalf of Los Angeles County, we ask for your support for AB 2627.

We have a motion. Do I have a second? Okay, we'll do that. Do we have any, those who would like to express opposition to this bill, please come forward to testify. Seeing none, those in the audience would like to express support. Would you please come to mike?

Good morning. Dora Rose, League of Women Voters of California, in support. We have a suggested amendment. We're appreciative of the office working with us on that. Thank you.

Andi Liebenbaum, Los Angeles County, in proud support.

Tricia Weber, on behalf of the California Association Of Clerks and Election Officials, in support.

Thank you very much. Okay, we'll now come back to the dais. Anybody like to express sentiments? Yes, sure.

Thanks. Just want to thank the author. I want to thank the witnesses speaking in support of this. I think it's an incredibly important effort. I think we've, we all can probably remember as candidates knocking on doors and half of the conversations we had were probably civic education. I'd have to tell people while I was running for assembly or running to be an assembly member, and they'd say, what do you assemble? So I think this is a great effort.

I know it's one that's been talked about a lot and happy to support it. Would love to be a co-author when the time is right. Thanks.

Okay, go ahead.

Question. Do you think it's possible that people don't vote because they don't like either party or any candidate? Is that a possibility in your analysis, other than because you sort of frame it as people aren't voting because they don't understand? No, I think a lot of people understand, and they just choose not to participate. Like, is that also not a possibility?

Well, Assemblymember Essayli. I think obviously there's opportunities for people to have different views, but when you look at the full ballot, there's quite a number of items people can vote on, not just a particular race. There are measures, there are local races. There's a whole list of potential options for people to stay engaged. And what's happening is people aren't even showing up to vote.

So turned off by politics. I mean, I talk to young people, I talk to a lot of people, and they just, they're so disgusted with the political system, they don't want anything to do with it. You don't have to respond. I'm just saying I think there may be some education is important. People should obviously know they have the right to register and vote. I get all that. But, you know, I think sometimes not voting is a statement. So those are my comments. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Assemblymember Pellerin, do you accept the amendments as proposed by your committee? I would assume you may, but we need to get that documented.

Yes.

Yeah, you may close.

Okay, great. Well, and I know firsthand how important civic education is. We've conducted civic summits in Santa Cruz County. When I was the County Clerk Registrar of Voters. I did voter outreach in high schools. Our high school poll worker program is also an incredibly useful tool to give students a front-row seat on democracy, to learn about the processes, and to Assemblymember Essayli, what I tell people: if you don't run, don't complain, because if your name's on the ballot, you're going to show up and vote.

So, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay, thank you. Do we have a second? Thank you. We have a motion? A second. Let's call for the question, please.

On AB 2627 Pellerin, the motion is do-pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on Education.

Okay, your measure's on call.

Okay, great. Thank you.

Okay, we will now move on to our next author. We have Assemblymember Wendy Carillo here to present AB 2355.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. First, let me begin by accepting the committee amendments and thank you to your committee staff for working with my staff on this policy. I am proud to present AB 2355 which will require a disclosure when generative AI is in a whole or substantially used to create electoral advertising. The ability of tools to doctor images, video, and sound is not new.

However, rapid improvements in artificial intelligence, or AI, and large language models, or LLMs, that are capable of generating sound, images, and text have already resulted in the creation of materials that are likely to pass off as convincingly real when they are indeed fake. In January of this year, a robocall using an AI generated voice of President Joe Biden told New Hampshire voters to save their votes for November rather than vote in the state's primary election.

The individual who created the audio told NBC News that it took less than 20 minutes and cost only about $1. As this technology becomes cheaper, faster, and easier for the public to use and is embraced by candidates and political campaigns, its effect on democracy requires us to act. There is a risk not just in falsities being passed off as real but also in the spread of cynicism and voters coming to believe that nothing, in fact, is real in this new environment.

Sensible regulations that protect free, free political expression and speech are vital to get ahead of this new technology. The legislature will be evaluating a number of bills this year that aim to get ahead at the impacts of generated AI and large language models will undoubtedly have our society that will undoubtedly have an impact on our society and our daily lives.

These conversations are necessary because we know we want to be intentional and not caught off guard when it comes to the impacts of improving of technology and what AI means currently and in the future. Here to talk more about the need of this bill is Tracy Rosenberg with Oakland Privacy.

Okay, good morning, Chair Pellerin and members. My name is Tracy Rosenberg, and I am with Oakland Privacy, a regional coalition that focuses on regulations and guardrails to protect the right to privacy. AB 235 comes as we're facing the deployment of a new and transformational technology that promises to redefine what we call privacy. And there are many AI bills in front of the legislature this year. A number of them are extremely complex, and we would say, perhaps, are trying to do too many things at once.

AB 2355 does not suffer from that problem. It seeks to help voters try to distinguish what is real and what is not as they try to make up their minds about how to vote. But the bill requires that synthetic paid political advertisements just be labeled as such, and this provision is really similar and is structured in the same manner as other sort of longstanding California laws that focus on disclosure for paid political advertisements like sources of funding.

So it's kind of a familiar model that is being sort of reused to meet with this new technology. If the labeling doesn't happen, any voter can seek an injunction to remove the unlabeled content. But this is important; they have to go to a judge. So the decisions with First Amendment ramifications are made by a trained judge in interpreting and applying constitutional law, and the push and pull between the First Amendment and the need to protect voters from intentionally deceptive content.

We also appreciate the focus in 2355 on trying to solve the problem and get the deceptive content out of there rather than assessing fines and fees, and penalties. We hope you will support AB 2355, and thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.

Thank you very much. Are there any other folks who want to add their support to this bill?

Hi, good morning. Khara Boender with the Computer and Communications Industry Association. We are taking a support, if amended, position on this bill and look forward to working with the office author's office further.

Dylan Hoffman, on behalf of TechNet, also in support if amended. Look forward to working with the author on this bill. Thank you very much.

Are there any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Anybody who just wants to state their name in opposition? Okay, I'll bring it to the committee. Any questions? Mister Lackey?

Yes, how would you, excuse me, How would you respond to the point that it stated that it's already against the law to use Photoshop or any kind of deceptive ad already? Is there a difference between Photoshop and deepfakes, which is actually what AI is? How would you respond to that?

Photoshop, thank you for the question, Assemblymember; Photoshop is a tool used by a human being behind a computer. AI is a software that is done internally, given directions by whoever is given the direction of what an image should look like. It does not have necessarily the input that a photoshopped image would have.

And so the concern with the bill is that we are actually seeing more, or the reason why we're doing the bill is a concern that more AI-generated content is being used to pass off as real when, in fact, it's not. And so there is a difference between airbrushing a pimple, or airbrushing a hair out of your face, or maybe putting trees behind an image. And it's quite another to create fake individuals that seem to appear to be actual human beings.

Thank you.

Any other questions? Mister Berman?

Yeah, I thank the author for bringing forward the bill. I'm going to support it today. I would respectfully disagree with the witness that I think that it's important that we do go further than what's in the bill. There was a comment made that this is a simple, straightforward bill and there are other bills that are a little more complicated. I think this is a terribly complicated problem that needs a very complicated solution.

And so I obviously think that because I have a bill that does that, that we're going to be talking about a little bit later on this morning. And so I think there's some overlap in our bills, and then I think there's also some compliments in our bills and so definitely support the goal that you're trying to accomplish. Just want to kind of state on the record that I think we need to do more than this as well to address the real concern of misinformation.

Disinformation manipulated media with the intent of deceiving voters, but appreciate the bill and happy to support it.

Assemblymember Essayli.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, I share the opposition's concerns with the First Amendment implications. I think this bill goes too far in extending liability to publishers and people who are not involved in directly creating the content. I don't think it's fair. And I also, I get really concerned when I hear people in government say things like they're going to protect us from disinformation. The government is not the arbiter of truth. You are. The people are. The government's not in the business of saying what's fact and what's fiction.

So I'm very concerned with efforts to chill free speech. It's very; it's very anti-democratic. So, for that, I won't be opposing this because I don't believe it's narrowly tailored enough to guard against violations of the First Amendment. But thank you.

Any other questions from committee members? Comments? Seeing and hearing no further questions, Assemblymember Carillo, you may close.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I look forward to the conversations with the stakeholders as this bill advances to ensure that the strongest possible efforts to preserve free expression while ensuring that Californians have faith in their democracy continue to be at the forefront of the conversation. Respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you very much for your leadership on this issue. You know, we have just begun a monumental election year, and we do so with our democracy already weakened, with trust in institutions and media at all-time lows, with truth under assault, and with deep voter participation disparities leaving certain communities out of our electorate. In this challenging landscape, we confront our first AI election, where our generative AI deepfakes will flood political discourse, leaving voters uncertain about the authenticity of images, audio, and videos.

Easy-to-access tools empower campaigns, conspiracy theorists, foreign entities, and online trolls to deceive and destabilize our information networks. Instances of generative AI deepfakes and disinformation have already influenced elections globally, including Bangladesh, Slovakia, domestically in Chicago, as you pointed out, and elsewhere. The American public remains ill-prepared for this evolving threat. Here's what we know about AI. The technology is changing rapidly. This is the first tool in human history that can make decisions by itself. Remember, "Open the pod bay door, HAL."

This is the first tool in human history that can create new ideas by itself. We are learning to use AI, and it is learning to use us. Its potential to disrupt human society is immense, from economics to democracy. We have three bills before us today that address the issue and impacts of AI on our elections, our very democracy. I believe we need to address the potential of digitally created images, audio, and videos that are materially deceptive and with robust regulation of its deployment.

I have a bill. Assemblymember Berman has a bill. And thank you, Assemblymember Carrillo, for your bill. AB 2355, as amended, applies to materials that were generated in whole or substantially using AI to target those deceptive materials. We don't want our voters to get disclaimer fatigue, so we want to use that disclaimer only when necessary to encourage voters to question what they are seeing and hearing. I believe we do need to defend our democracy with more than just disclaimers.

But as stated earlier, AI is changing rapidly and we need an army to ensure it does not destroy our democracy. So, therefore, I support all these bills related to AI moving out of this committee to be further studied and debated in their future committees. And so I will entertain a motion on this bill. Moved by Berman, second seconded by Assemblymember Weber. And secretary, you may call the roll.

AB 2355 by Wendy Carillo. The motion is do-pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection. [Roll Call]. Do you want to put it on call?

We'll go ahead and put that on call. And it would be do-pass as amended to Privacy and Consumer Protection. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, let's see. So we're gonna do 2642, the Peace Act.

Okay, you may begin.

We'll see if I have time to do the other one before running to a probe.

I know I gotta get there, too.

First, I would like to thank committee staff for their work on this bill. I will be accepting the amendments that are outlined in the committee analysis. Due to the alarming rise in threats and attacks against election and poll workers, there's been a nationwide exodus of workers from the job. In the 2024 election, 44% of voters in California will have a different election administrator than they had in the 2020 election.

The Peace Act, which is the Protecting Elections from Armed Coercion and Extremism Act, would strengthen and supplement California's existing anti-intimidation laws by providing explicit civil protections for both election workers and voters. Additionally, AB 2642 would create an important presumption that people who openly carry firearms around election activities do so for the purpose of intimidation. A voter or election official that feels or felt threatened, intimidated, or coerced would be able to seek equitable relief.

California has long been at the forefront of strengthening election security and accessibility. This bill is a continuation of California's essential pro-democracy efforts by providing critical legal protections to voters and election workers. I respectfully ask for an aye vote, and with me today are Robyn Sanders with the Brennan Center for Justice and Dora Rose from the League of Women Voters.

You each have two minutes. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Robin Sanders, and I'm an attorney at the Brennan Center for Justice, which is an organization dedicated to protecting and strengthening democracy. I offer our support of AB 2642. California would be the first state in the country to enact a law that explicitly empowers election officials to sue and seek monetary damages or injunctive relief if they experience intimidation or threats as a result of doing their job.

This can be a significant deterrent against intimidation, abuse, and harassment. The bill would also make California the first state to acknowledge the intimidating effect of openly carried firearms in voting and election settings. This bill is also significant because it recognizes the historical targeting of black Americans and communities of color through intimidating and other violent schemes to suppress their political power and silence their voices.

Although California already prohibits guns at the polls, some communities in California have already expressed law and experienced law enforcement or elected officials' unwillingness to enforce gun laws that they dislike. This can leave black Americans and people of color vulnerable and unprotected. Critically, this law does not require them, those who have endured a pattern of brutalization at the hands of law enforcement, to rely on law enforcement to protect themselves against unlawful acts of intimidation and violence.

This would address a deep-rooted problem stemming from America's legacy of racial discrimination in elections and empowers those who are most vulnerable to the harms that this bill outlaws. In conclusion, AB 2642 provides California a leader for other states in many ways with another essential tool in its toolbox to ensure our elections remain peaceful and democratic. Thank you, and I respectfully request your aye vote for this bill.

Good morning, Chair and members. I'm Dora Rose, Deputy Director with the League of Women Voters of California. A private right of action for election intimidation would be a really important new legal tool to protect one of our most fundamental rights. You know, we're all here because we believe in democracy, right? We believe in the rule of law. That's our bread and butter in this, in this building. And what defines democracy are elections that are free from violence, free from threats, free from intimidation.

In fact, it is the one thing that really separates democracy from autocracy. And make no mistake, every dictatorship has elections. Every dictatorship has elections. What distinguishes them from us is that we can vote without fear. That, unfortunately, is starting to shift. That fundamental promise of Americans being able to vote without fear. That is starting to shift. A private right of action is the single most effective tool for discouraging socially destructive behavior in civil society.

And what AB 2642 does is to use this tool to safeguard democracy itself. Studies show that, as was indicated by Robyn, that some people don't feel safe at the polling places, especially Latino, Black, and young voters. And as you've already heard, this hearkens back to Jim Crow. The terror of Jim Crow. Election intimidation is making a comeback in California. We have the chance to stop it. It's not just voters that are impacted by this atmosphere of intimidation, it's election administrators as well.

Thousands of League of Women Voter members and other civically minded people who wake up in those wee hours of election day and make their way make their pilgrimage to the polls to act as poll workers. Election jobs are really modestly paid. They require long, hard hours that are difficult and in an increasingly politically charged atmosphere. Once you add intimidation and the threat of violence to that equation, it's a rare person who's going to want to take up the job.

As you've heard from Assemblymember Berman, we've heard a lot. We have lost a huge number of our most experienced election workers right over the recent years. In 2024, we're going to have 44% of our administrators in California be new to the job. Think about that. Once you start losing that experience, base elections are going to become more confused, more chaotic, more unpredictable. And those who want to upend our democracy will have accomplished their objectives by the simple act of fomenting fear.

AB 2642 is going to give ordinary people a way to fight back and to protect our right to vote in peace. We support it.

Thank you. Anyone else in the room who would like to register their support? Your name and organization, please.

Good morning. Jaime Minor, on behalf of the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. A proud co-sponsor of the bill and really appreciate the efforts. Please do support. Thank you.

Good morning. Ruth Dawson with ACLU California Action and support. Thank you.

Andi Liebenbaum, County of Los Angeles, proud supporter.

Annie Chou at the California Teachers Association, in support.

Daniel Pearl, on behalf of the American Federation of State County Municipal Employees, in strong support.

Tressa Cooper: Volunteer, Moms Demand Action, in support.

Cheryl Davis: Volunteer with Moms Demand Action in support.

Thank you so much. Are there any primary witnesses in opposition to this bill? Seeing none. Anyone in opposition that just wants to register their name and affiliation? See none. I'll bring it back to the committee. Mister Lackey.

Yeah. First of all, let me say that I do support the idea of protecting election officials from harm and intimidation. But I believe that a public, a PRA is a tool to demand transparency, and democracy encourages transparency. It's a very, very, very integral part of democracy is being transparent. And I think it's unacceptable for someone to be worried. We talk about worrying about someone being worried to being sued for filing a PRA request. I find that to be distasteful, and so, therefore, I can't support this measure.

Thank you, Mister Vice Chair. I appreciate your concerns. I would argue this bill is very narrowly tailored to address legitimate threats of voter intimidation. Not to your point. Reasonable public records requests under this bill, the individual would need to approve. The requests are intimidating, not merely seeking government transparency. So I agree with the points that you made. Happy to continue chatting with you to see if there are amendments that we can make to the bill to address your concern without weakening the underlying intent.

I just think that's a dangerous distinction, and I don't know where you draw the line. So thank you.

Understood.

Assemblymember Essayli.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a few questions. Just picking up on my colleague there, it is stated in your preamble here that examples of intimidation include inundating election officials with Public Records Act requests. So is it your testimony that in order to be found in violation of this, you have to have the intent to intimidate because it was unclear to me in your bill of whether what the mens rea, what the intent requirement is of the person whos being accused of this.

Yeah. So that's undoubtedly a longer conversation that I'll have in Judiciary Committee where the bill will go if this bill passes out of the Elections Committee. But happy to defer to my sponsors if they have additional thoughts on that. But it is, you know, clear that the intent is for it to be intimidating, not just annoying, but actually intimidating. Public records requests.

Yeah, I can elaborate on that. So, I agree with both of you that Public Records Act requests are a protected form of free speech and that it's important for individuals to be able to seek government transparency. But our position is that we believe courts are fully capable of distinguishing between good faith, legitimate Public Records Act requests, and those that are intended to intimidate and harass.

And so in the inquiry, it would be important for the court to look at that and to see if it actually did have an intimidating effect. So, we think that courts are fully capable of making that distinction.

The language you guys use is really scary. I mean, because in your opening remarks, Assemblyman, you said if an election worker feels or felt threatened, and you just said if it has an intimidating effect. But hold on, that is really concerning to me because what you're looking at is how someone receives or perceives comments or actions of others, not what's in the person's intent. And that's generally when we do criminal law, we focus on the person's intent, their mens rea not that.

So I do have two concerns about that. But let me move on to some other questions. You guys have made some really, really serious allegations that people are being intimidated from voting, especially based on race or other characteristics that are protected. Do you have any examples of that in California where that has happened recently? Because I'm not aware of that. I'd like to know about it.

I don't have specific examples handy about individuals who have gone on the record and said they're intimidated in California from voting. But as I stated in my opening remarks, that's been historical. There's historical evidence of that, and there's still contemporary evidence that individuals of color and communities of color have been intimidated when they're voting. And as I said, there's a documented, long documented history of law enforcement not properly enforcing laws to protect individuals from that intimidation.

I'd like to also respond to your question. Thank you, Mister Essayli. I also think that there are definitely examples in other states recently in recent elections. And I think it's important for California law to try to look out across the country to identify what might be coming our way and to get ahead of it. And so you've seen this in neighboring states. I believe there are instances in Arizona in 2020 and 2022. You've seen this, I believe, possibly in Georgia in 2020 as well.

And so I think this is a real and legitimate threat in the United States and one that I want to make sure that California law protects California voters before it happens here.

Historically, no doubt, there has been intimidation on black voters and other voters. That's no doubt. My concern is that sort of the narrative of this bill and the presentation is somehow that this is happening in California. And I just, I think California, we actually do a really good job of protecting people's civil rights. And so I don't want to put a false narrative out there that there are cases where people are being intimidated from voting based on their race.

I don't want to scare people if that's not happening in California.

Yeah.

And so that's my concern on that. What I want to say, too, also, I think these concerns are mitigated because now almost everyone is voting by mail. Right.

In California, I mean, this last election, I mean, took a month to count the primary. So that's another level where, you know, that eliminates any potential coercion because there's no longer people collecting at a specific place to vote, like a polling place. I understand there's still voting centers, and people can go there, but primarily, most people are voting by mail now. And, you know, my overall comment is, I think everything you've described is already illegal from my perspective.

I mean, you have Election Code Section 18502 a, which protects intimidation of election workers. That's already a felony; as you mentioned, it's already a crime to openly carry a weapon at a voting center. And so I just don't know that all of this is necessary. And I do - I'm very worried about the First Amendment, the right to petition your government for grievances.

That also what separates us from dictatorships is being able to complain and seek grievances from your government without fear or intimidation that you're going to be sued by a government worker. I mean, you're weaponizing government workers against the citizens of the state. So, for that reason, I won't be able to support this bill. But I appreciate you guys being here. Thank you.

Thanks. And I think my witness has a comment.

Yeah. I wanted to address a couple of things. So this bill is actually distinguishable from other laws that are on the books. I think it's important to have both criminal and civil protections against intimidation. As you know, this is a civil cause of action. So, it is distinguishable.

And one of the main features of this bill is that it allows for individuals who are victims, including election officials and election workers, as well as voters, to have a private right of action to enforce the provisions of this bill. Criminal laws, as you know, can only be enforced by those who are tasked with that role. And so it is an important distinction that this creates a civil cause of action and a private right of action.

And it also empowers the Attorney General to file public suits on behalf of the public. And then to your point about the intimidation or the private right of act, private PRA requests, it is important, again, to understand that this law doesn't change anything about existing PRA laws. So, people are still able to seek public records if they so choose.

Individuals are still obviously individuals if they believe that the record, the requests are excessive and that they are intimidating or harassing, they do have the right to file an action. But again, courts are perfectly capable of distinguishing between those that are legitimate and those that are harassing.

But, ma'am, have you ever been sued? It is not an easy, I mean, if you have the government that says, we think you're filing too many pras and you have to defend yourself in court, that is not, I mean, a lot of people, frankly, won't be able to afford an attorney. They have to defend themselves in court, and they have to make legal arguments to a judge.

So just the risk of being placed in that position is going to have a chilling effect on people redressing their government. So, I appreciate your comments. I believe you're sincere, but I just, I'm not there, and I can't support it. So thank you.

Any other questions or comments? Assemblymember Weber?

Good morning. Thank you all so much for being here. I just wanted to chime in and really thank you for this bill and thank those who are supporters of this bill.

As you stated, we do see very troubling trend across this nation to do all that people can do to impact the ability for people to exercise their right to vote, whether it's changing laws, making it more difficult, or people actually feeling intimidated when they go to the polls, and also intimidation of those that work at the polls. And I think that you highlighted that when you talked about the decrease in people who are actually going to be poll workers.

And there have been issues within California, where there have been issues of voter intimidation, you can look at, you know, certain counties like Shasta County. So, it may not necessarily be in yours, but it has happened. And, you know, this is something that we do need to get on top of before it becomes a bigger issue. We do not want to look up and say, "Oh my goodness, we should have done something when we had the opportunity." So I want to thank you for that.

Yes, a lot of people do mail-in voters, but there are people like myself that still go to the polls every election day. I get my mail-in ballot, have since I've been a registered voter. But I enjoy being able to go and take my kids to the polls so that they can see that once they turn 18, this is a right that they must do every election. And so I just really want to thank you for this. It is an issue here in California.

It is an issue throughout this country. And what you're doing is trying to prevent it from becoming a bigger issue. And with that, I'd like to move the bill.

All right. Any other questions or comments from committee members? Seeing none, Assemblymember Berman, you may close.

Yeah, I appreciate the comments, appreciate the dialogue. We'll definitely take a look and see if there are other things that we can do to tighten up the language to address concerns that folks have that don't really, that aren't the core of what we're trying to get at in this bill. And with that respect, they ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. And thank you so much for bringing this important bill forward. I have firsthand knowledge and experience with the very issues that you're talking about in this bill and preventing. So thank you so much. This bill creates crucial protections that will allow our election workers and officials, and voters to sue for civil damages if they encounter intimidating, threatening, or coercive behavior at voting and election sites. So I'm recommending support. And this is a do-pass as amended and re-referred to the Judiciary.

We have a motion by Assemblymember Weber. Do we have a second? Second by Cervantes. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

On AB 2642. [Roll Call].

It's out five to two. We will allow other members to sign on. Thank you so much. We'll go ahead now and move to -

I actually got to go. Yeah.

Somebody else is presenting for me.

Okay.

Perfect, perfect. Your second Bill. So you're AB 2655.

Great. Just give a second for my witnesses, assuming I have witnesses, and I do hello. So five years ago, as some folks who were in the Legislature at that time might remember, I authored the first election related deepfake Bill in the country. I did this after watching Jordan Peele, the actor and director, created a deepfake of President Obama in 2018.

And it was funny, but it also really set off alarm bells for me as it was clear and easy to see how this promising technology could could be abused by bad actors, especially to influence our elections. However, the potential harm was fairly limited back then as the technology to make a deepfake was very expensive. It wasn't widely available.

But as we've seen in just a few short years, the technology has gotten better, it's gotten cheaper, and it's gotten much more accessible, making it very easy to make a realistic deepfake in a couple of minutes on your phone. As a result, we're seeing AI used to undermine elections across the world and here in America. As technology changes, so too must our laws.

Therefore, I'm authoring AB 2655 to protect election integrity by regulating the online spread of AI generated disinformation and deepfakes meant to influence an election. With today's sophisticated deepfakes, voters may not know what images, audio or video they can trust. Imagine if a fake video appeared online of an elected official saying or doing something they neither said nor did, like accepting a bribe or saying that they'd hacked voting machines to ensure their victory.

This deceptive but hyper realistic content can undermine voters faith in our election integrity. Accordingly, AB 2655 would, for a limited period of time immediately before and after an election, require large online platforms if they know or should know that the content meets the test in the Bill to restrict the distribution of materially deceptive and digitally altered or created images, audio or video meant to influence the election.

For less harmful yet still materially deceptive and modified content, the Bill would require the platforms to label other AI created or modified election disinformation meant to influence. In both instances, the Bill does not demand perfection. What it says is that platforms must act if they know, or should know, using best available tools, that the content meets the test in the Bill. The Bill doesn't allow platforms to bury their head in the sand, but if they genuinely don't know, then there is no obligation.

Moreover, the Bill is not trying to address hot button controversies or inflammatory claims, just the depiction of demonstrably untrue and provably false content. Importantly, the Bill does not provide for any monetary penalty against online platforms that fail to comply with the Bill's requirements. Instead, the only penalty is that a court will order the platforms to do what the Bill requires.

I realize that this Bill is attempting to legislate in an arena where technology and the law are fast evolving, and that can be challenging on many levels. But I don't believe that we can afford to take a wait and see approach. I've had good conversations with platforms. I've amended the Bill based on feedback, and I'll continue to do so should the Bill move forward today. Therefore, I respectfully ask for an aye vote and I'm joined today by Leora Gershenzon, CITED's Policy Director, and David Evan Harris, a lecturer at UC Berkeley and former tech sector researcher.

You may proceed.

Thank you, Mister Vice Chair and Members, I'm Leora Gershenzon. I'm the Policy Director at the California Initiative for Technology and Democracy, which is a project of California common cause. As elected officials, you are all keenly aware of the threat posed by deepfakes. Consider a deepfake of you hugging the opposing party's presidential candidate that goes viral weeks before an election, or a fake video of you accepting a bribe that's forwarded around your district days before the election.

While disinformation has been around forever, AI generated deepfakes can now be created virtually instantly, at no cost, and sent to millions in a matter of seconds. Once disinformation spreads, it's nearly impossible to get it out once it's out there, label or not, it's out there. This threat is not imaginary. Generative AI has been used around the world, and even in the United States to impact elections.

Obviously, the infamous robocall. AB 2655 seeks to strike the right balance by seeking to ban, only for a strictly limited time around elections, the online spread of the worst of the deepfakes. That's the candidate doing or saying something they did not do or say, or an elected official doing or something doing or saying something they did not do. Same thing with an elections official. Again, election officials a day before the election saying you can't vote. All voting machines are hacked.

This would obviously have a clear impact on an election and is demonstrably false. Assembly Berman has worked diligently to ensure that AB 2655's approach is very narrowly tailored and does not extend to hot punted controversies or things that are not demonstrably false. It's not a matter of opinion. It either happened or it didn't happen. The Bill is respectful of the First Amendment.

It's narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest, and it also understands the reach of Section 230 of the Federal Communications Decency Act. Will this Bill stop all election disinformation? No, but it's part of a multipronged approach to address what clearly is a crisis in our democracy. And the alternative, waiting for perfection, is simply not enough that we should accept to protect our democracy and our free and fair elections. We hope you can support AB 2655. Thank you.

Thank you Mister Vice Chair and Members, my name is David Harris and I am a Senior Policy Advisor to CITED. I previously worked for close to five years at Facebook and Meta on the civic integrity, misinformation and responsible AI teams. I am also an advisor to a number of different organizations.

Beyond CITED I have advised the European Union on the EU AI Act, I have advised the White House on the White House's Executive Order on AI, and I'm a Member of a NATO task force on AI and disinformation. On Assemblymember Berman's Bill 2655 I am strongly in favor of this Bill. This Bill only applies to the largest online platforms, such as the ones operated by my former employer, that have wonderful resources inside of their companies.

To enforce a Bill like this. You only need to look to other categories of currently illegal content, such as child sexual abuse material or terrorist content, which they are able to remove very effectively. And those are not necessarily more easier to remove or simpler than election disinformation. The notion that it's too difficult to remove this is false. Beyond that, I think it's important for us to remember that most of the major AI companies today have already asked for more regulation of AI.

And I think that is an important sign that we know that the industry is strongly in favor of putting regulations in place that protect our elections and protect our democracies. When we fail to regulate AI, what we do is we punish the companies that are doing the right thing thing. We punish them because they are going out of their way to spend more money to hire more staff and to build teams and technologies that are able to remove this type of content.

Their shareholders who want them to maximize their profits are not pleased if they are the only companies in the space that are spending the money to do the right thing. And it's for that reason that I think we should heed the call of tech companies CEO's calling for regulation of AI, and that I am strongly in support of this Bill.

Okay, thank you. Is there anybody that would like to testify in opposition before we move forward with the group opposition. Please come forward to the table here, and you'll have five minutes to express your opposition. You may proceed.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair Pellerin and Members of the Committee. My name is Khara Boender, testifying on behalf of the Computer and Communications Industry Association in respectful opposition to AB 2655. CCIA is an international, not for profit trade association with about two dozen members from a range of communications and technology firms. CCIA and its members take seriously the impact deceptive content may have on elections.

Many of our members are working to implement tools to better detect and label AI generated content. And using a combination of AI and human review, they moderate content in violation of their terms or service, including content that is illegal and potentially harmful. But the tools that are currently available are not always reliable, are accurate. Just as spam filters sometimes mislabel legitimate emails, and while such technology is evolving, so are the means for bad actors to evade such detection.

I would say that this differs from the examples that were shared earlier regarding CSAM because there are databases that have hashing values that allow platforms to better detect these materials in addition to what they used to detect copyright infringements, which are again based on robust databases of available information. Because covered platforms are not privy to the intent and context for which a piece of content is used, they could inadvertently overblock or over label content. This could result in user frustration and suppression of political speech.

Political speech was at the core of why our First Amendment was established, and it is critical to maintain those protections. And while the Bill exempts satire and parity, it's unclear who gets to decide what constitutes those uses. Faced with potential liability, covered platforms may choose to prohibit all digitally altered content, cutting off many valuable and helpful uses.

These tools can be used by campaigns to reach voters with high quality content at lower costs or to translate speech into multiple languages to foster a more accessible democratic process. Further, users may weaponize the required reporting mechanism to suppress speech that they disagree with. For example, under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, there were studies describing political ad takedowns on both sides of the political spectrum.

After receiving reports of copyright infringement, many of these cases were ultimately deemed fair use, but platforms were inclined to err in taking down the content lest they face potential liability. Responsibility for labeling AI generated election content and liability for deceptive content should rest with the entity that puts forth such material, the entity that is most aware of the intent and context for which the content was created and shared. On behalf of CCIA, I appreciate your consideration of our comments and I welcome anyone questions.

Okay. Hi once again, Committee Tracy with Oakland privacy. We are in respectful opposition to AB 2655. And we wanted to say a couple of things from a civil society, from a civil society perspective. We're not a tech company and we don't work for them or speak for them. I also want to say to Assemblymember Berman, when I was talking about the full spectrum of AI Bills, and that some were extremely complex, I honestly was talking about all the Bills, including algorithms and risk assessments and six different water marking Bills and so on, not simply this Bill. I didn't want you to take that the wrong way. So this Bill charges large online platforms with scanning all content posted to their sites with deepfake detection tools for four months preceding a vote.

So if we include primaries, that's probably 60% to 75% of the time. Because we have elections every year, sometimes twice a year. We do think that is a bit of a privacy problem. It's also questionable how well these tools work. Just last week, a prominent disinformation expert said in the New York Times, even using the best tools, you can't be sure. And he was making those tools as he said that so he would know.

The Bill's language sort of offers that a technology company should be the judge, jury and executioner, despite no formal training in First Amendment and constitutional law. This stuff is always a sort of, you know, push me, pull you in terms of balancing the equities. And with all due respect, we don't think TikTok or Meta would balance them as well as a judge, and we don't really want you doing that. The Bill is, you know, so fundamental.

So fundamentally, the Bill is relying on two imprecise measures, technically, you know, technical scanning programs that don't necessarily work very well in unvetted reports from the public, candidates, officials, campaigns, and even chaos actors. We don't think any technology platform can be expected to know everything that every candidate running for office in every California, city, county, and, you know, across the state where they said and what they went.

I mean, there's some obvious examples that were provided, but in a lot of local races, this is going to be something fairly subtle. And we don't, you know, or it can be fairly subtle, and we don't necessarily believe that TikTok, Meta or Instagram will actually know what was said and where candidates were. So basically were using imprecise measures to power a potentially broad censorship regime of blocking content. And we really cant support that even under the guise of defending democracy.

So we are recommending that the Committee and the Legislature not go down this particular route. We think there are a lot of things that the Legislature can do that stop somewhat short of a broad censorship regime for online content. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, this is now the opportunity for those in the audience who would like to express support. If you could express your name and organization, we'd love to hear from you.

Louise Miller, representing the California Clean Money Campaign and Indivisible California State Strong in strong support.

Hi, Evan Minton with Voices for Progress standing in strong support of this critical Bill.

Good morning. Obed Franco, on behalf of the Asian Law Caucus, in support.

Thank you. Are there any in the audience who would like to express opposition? Please come forward. Express your name and organization.

Dylan Hoffman, on behalf of TechNet, respectfully opposed. Thanks.

Thank you. Okay, we'll now bring it back to Committee. Anybody like to express any points of clarity or - yes.

Would this cover, like, if you use chat GPT to rewrite text? Like, does it cover text, or are we just talking about photos and videos?

My understanding is it's images, audio, video, but.

It would cover demonstrably false text that could be told. So again, this is not a Bill that seeks perfection. And text is, I mean, you've pointed out the hardest thing to go, but can you imagine a text that goes out that says, although we don't cover web messaging, that was removed, but some content that goes out that says this person said something false. So you can. Again, it depends.

When I say text, I'm not talking about text messages.

No, no, I understand. You're talking.

Yes, written words.

Yes. But the social media platforms would have to know that it is false. And it is not a perfect science, this figuring out, is it false or is it not. It's kind of this whack a mole thing, as you expressed so well, we are getting much better with tools to determine what's false, and then the bad actors are going to get better. So it's going to go like this. But there are some very good tools, and they continue to get better, and they are getting better at taxpayers. The text is probably the hardest to detect.

Okay, so I'm just curious. I mean, if my opponent puts up an ad, it says, Bill Essayli supports insurrection, you know, and they used AI to generate that. And I'm gonna say I've never supported insurrection, but they're making that argument based on. So it's a very, very, very complicated area. So would that be.

That's tricky, because what does it mean to support insurrection? So I think. I don't think that's demonstrably false. If they have a picture of you with a pitchfork entering the Capitol on January 6, and you were not there, and you didn't do that. That's demonstrably false. That would be covered.

But you can see how this is.

But again, it's not an exact science, but what we're trying to do in the Bill is put very clear guardrails. We understand very well the limits of the First Amendment and the protections of the First Amendment provides. But, so that picture of you, and, you know, maybe it's cartoonish, and it's not obvious that it's you, that's one thing. But if it looks exactly like you and it goes out two days before the election, it's out. There's nothing you can do.

I recognize the concern. I do. I just. It's just a very sticky thing with the First Amendment and also with asking private companies to be the enforcer, essentially. And so I'm just going to say, for the record, I like the Twitter model where they use the community to sort of regulate information on there. And so, community notes is something they have where anyone can say, this is false. And I actually see it a lot. Even Elon Musk gets fact checked by his own community. So I tend to like that model where it's the public, it's the crowd sourcing is kind of doing the moderating, then making an individual, company, or person the arbiter of. Of what's disinformation. So. But I appreciate it. Madam Chair. That's all I had. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments? Assemblymember Cervantes.

I'm gonna. Excuse me. So I wanna just first start off. By thanking the author and those who provided testimony today. I believe that we do need to have guardrails and strike a balance as best as we can to stop the. Spread of deepfakes and misinformation, disinformation in our elections, and just to protect our democracy. So today, I'll be supporting this Bill.

Thank you.

Any other comments? Assemblymember Lackey.

Yeah. I do clearly believe that deepfakes are a threat to truth. However, what keeps somebody from suing a website or platform in its current situation without this Bill.

I'm not aware of any legal remedy or process for somebody to be able to do that. So I think that's where this Bill is sort of novel and tries to create an avenue for folks to be able to seek that redress.

And just so you know, I'm not in a position to actually support this Bill at this point just because I have my colleague has expressed some concerns that I do share, and I think it's a little too nuanced, and I think it jeopardizes something that we hold very sacred.

Yeah, no, I'll wait.

Any other comments from. Okay. Seeing no other comments. Seeing no other comments. Assemblymember Berman you may close.

Yeah, I appreciate the conversation. I also appreciate how complex this is, and I don't by any stretch think that we have the perfect solution today. I think that's something that we're going to hope to try to achieve by the end of the legislative process. And even then, I have no doubt that something like this will probably be litigated in the courts.

And there's a lot of interesting precedent, different opinions, and it'll be curious to see how, like I mentioned in my opening comments, this is ever evolving. And as technology changes and frankly, as certain Supreme Court Justices change, we don't know how the Supreme Court might opine on the influence of technology and manipulated content and the impact that it has on our elections and what scrutiny they'd apply and all sorts of things.

So it's a really fascinating Bill, probably one of the more challenging ones I've got this year. And it's something that we're going to keep on having conversations with the opposition to try to make sure that we are addressing the concerns that we have, or that I have about the impact of this type of content on our elections and on our voters without unintended consequences, and doing it in a way that's as easy as possible for the platforms to implement. So with that respect, we ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much, and I do appreciate your leadership in this issue. You were out there early on, the first in the nation. I really want to thank you for that foresight. The threat posed to our electoral system and to our democracy by deepfakes and other misleading content is substantial and has been supercharged by tools like artificial intelligence that make it easier and cheaper than ever to create convincingly realistic but deceptive images, audio and video.

And part of the solution for protecting against the deceptive material is to go after those who create and disseminate that material, which is why, which is why you're doing this Bill. So thank you. But another crucial piece of the puzzle is to address the harms that these materials present is to limit the tools that bad actors have for spreading disinformation so rapidly and at such little cost.

So I know that the author takes all this seriously, the constitutional and logistical challenges and regulating in this area, and I'm confident that you're open to continuing to refine the Bill as it moves through the process. So with that, I'm recommending support. Do I have a motion? Motion? Motion by Cervantes, second by me. Madam Secretary, please call the roll

On AB 2655 by Berman. The motion is do pass and be rereferred to the Committee on Judiciary. [Roll Call].

We're going to keep that Bill on call and we're going to round up our absent Members. So thank you. We'll now move on to Assemblymember Cervantes and your Bill 1807.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Committee Members, for the opportunity to present Assembly Bill 1807 today. This Bill will make updates to the existing Riverside County Citizens Redistricting Commission. As you know, Governor Newsom signed my Bill, AB 1307, into law in 2022. This Bill simply created the Redistricting Commission for Riverside County, which is empowered to redraw district boundaries to the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. The introduction of AB 1307 really kicked off the current wave of county redistricting Commission bills that we are currently seeing.

In recent years, this Committee has approved independent redistricting commissions for Fresno, Kern, Orange, and Sacramento counties, and the Governor has signed all those bills into law. However, AB 34 by Assemblymember Valencia and Senate Bill 314 by Senator Ashby contains useful innovations that none of the previous county redistricting Commission bills included. Both those bills were signed into law by Governor Newsom last year. So the purpose of my Bill 1807 is to incorporate those provisions to the Riverside County Citizens Redistricting Commission.

Those include updating the redistricting criteria to reflect the changes made by the enactment of the Fair Maps Act of 2023, which Assemblymember Bryan and I authored. AB 1807 would also impose stronger prohibitions on the ability of commissioners to have communications about redistricting issues outside of a public meeting of the Commission.

The Bill would also require the Commission to translate both on its website and many of the written material it distributes into languages spoken by at least 3% of the total voting age residents of Riverside County. The Bill also impose more restrictions on the activities of commissioners. Commissioners will also be prohibited from receiving a non competitive bid contract from Riverside County.

Finally, while serving on the Commission, commissioners would be barred from endorsing, working for, or making financial contributions to the campaigns of a candidate for elective office of Riverside County. So, these updates to AB 1307 will make the redistricting process for our Board of Supervisors fairer, more accessible and more transparent, and respectfully, ask for an aye vote.

We have a motion, and we'll go ahead and move on to your primary witness. Any primary witnesses in support? Anybody who want to register support for the Bill?

Voters of California in very strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Anybody who wants to register opposition? See none. We'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions, comments? We have a motion. Well, let's go ahead. You may close. Oh, wait, wait. We have a question.

I'm just curious what is, first off, why don't we just do one law that regulates all counties? Why are we doing like just Riverside County. I know we both represent Riverside.

Right. So that has been attempted before and has been vetoed by the Governor, which is why you're seeing this piecemeal approach, which is why I did introduce my Bill and why we see subsequent bills falling into the space. But great question. And I know that the Chair also is interested in that same.

Yeah, I just. I don't think, you know, Riverside should have one set of rules and Orange County have another or whatever. So I'm curious, the 14 Commission Members, do you know what the composition is of the membership?

Yep. The political makeup of the Commission must reflect the political preferences of Riverside County voters, including no party preference voters, as determined by the registration figures from the last statewide election.

Okay. Do you know what that is, by chance?

Well, I don't have that on me, but I know that it is probably in the analysis.

Okay. And then would you be willing to mirror the language of the statewide recommissioning Commission, redistricting Commission, which says it requires the majority of representatives of both parties in order to pass. So my understanding for statewide redistricting commissions is you need at least three of the five Republicans and three of the five Democrats to agree on the maps. Where the way this is written is, it's sort of a simple majority. So, theoretically, you could approve maps without a single vote of the opposite party.

So. So when it comes to. Are you talking about the actual vote requirement?

Yes. Yes, to pass the maps?

Yeah. There is no requirement about the partisan makeup of the vote.

I'm sorry. My mic's been off. The public's been denied all my questions. My last question for the record was, it's 14 seats composed. My question is, would you be willing to mirror the requirements of the Statewide Redistricting Commission, which requires a majority of the Members from both parties to approve the maps?

So at the moment, no other Bill has done that. And so no other county Commission redistricting Committee does that. Nine of the commissioners constitute a quorum, and there is no requirement about partisan makeup, just the requirements about reflecting the political preferences of Riverside County voters. And even then, we do have. We do ensure that there's at least one Commissioner must reside in each of the five existing supervisorial districts. And so that's currently where my Bill is at, and happy to have further conversation as we move through the legislative process.

Just because others haven't done it right doesn't mean we can't do it right. And I just want to make sure that it's viewed, because I think, you know, you want people to have confidence in these processes. So we don't breed things like, you know, you know, we don't breed skepticism into the system or cynicism, if you will. And so, you know, by mirroring what we do statewide, I just think it will be viewed more of a nonpartisan Commission. So if there's, if it requires consensus from both sides, I think your Bill would be stronger and I would support it. So I'm just asking you to consider that. But as stated, I don't think it will be fair. But thank you.

Any other comments, questions? Seeing none. Assemblymember Cervantes, you may close.

Thank you so much for the Committee to just taking a look at this Bill and further enhancing a fair, more transparent process. Certainly look forward to continuing on engagement and making sure that at the end of the day, we have a public, transparent process for the voters of Riverside County.

I certainly appreciate your leadership and knowledge in this area, and thank you for bringing this Bill forward today. I know it's hard to do a one size fits all for the State of California because we have very different counties, but it is something to maybe look at in the future to see if there's some provisions that can be consistent among all the different redistricting commissions.

But with that being said, I support the efforts to expand the use of citizens redistricting commissions, and I applaud your efforts in this Bill to align the redistricting criteria used in Riverside County with the criteria that is otherwise required to, to be used for local redistricting under state law. So my recommendation is a support. We have a motion by Assemblymember Berman. I'm going to go ahead and second that. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

On AB 1807 by Cervantes. The motion is to pass and be re referred to the Committee on Local Government. [Roll Call].

That Bill will be on call. Thank you very much. And now our last Bill is mine. AB 2839.

You may proceed.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Vice Chair and Members, this year, California is entering its first ever election during which disinformation powered by generative AI will pollute our information ecosystems like never before. And millions of voters will not know what images, audio, or videos they can trust. Some of you have probably heard about the robocall that was disseminated back in January of President Biden, which encouraged voters not to participate in the primary election in New Hampshire.

That AI generated robocall was a prime example of a nefarious use of generative AI, which seeks to disrupt our elections. This type of election disruption is not new, but the means of disseminating disinformation about an election is much more sophisticated due to the access to generative AI platforms. Imagine another example in which a deepfake TV ad depicts an elections official saying that they rigged the votes in favor of one candidate or a mailer showing false images of tampered ballots.

Today, it can be difficult for the average person to know which images before them are real or fabricated. This type of election related disinformation can dramatically affect voter behavior and undermine faith in our elections, even if they are later debunked. AB 2839 addresses this growing threat by prohibiting bad actors from distributing digitally altered mailers, robocalls and video advertisements that are deceptive to voters and depict false information pertaining to candidates running for office, an officer conducting an election, an elected official, or voting equipment.

The Bill has been carefully drafted, excuse me, to respect the First Amendment. Specifically, the materials covered by this Bill would have to be digitally altered, materially deceptive, and would be distributed within 120 days before an election and 60 days after inclusive. Lastly, this Bill provides a fast track for injunctive relief to stop violations of the Bill.

Members, getting the right information to voters is crucial to a functioning democracy, and it becomes very difficult to ensure the integrity of the election when convincing deepfakes are spread online, by phone or through the mail to intentionally misinform the public. With me to testify and support today is Leora Gershenzon, representing the California Initiative for Technology and Democracy, and Evan Minton, representing Voices for Progress.

You may proceed, ma'am.

Thank you, Mister Vice Chair and Members, I'm Leora Gershenzon again, policy Director at the California Initiative for Technology and Democracy, which is a project of California Common Cause. While election disinformation and deepfakes are often spread by social media, and we discussed that in the last Bill, they can go viral the old fashioned way. Mailers, TV ads, robocalls consider a deepfake image of a candidate accepting a bribe. It goes viral through a mailer, this time instead of online.

It might be a little more expensive, but it's the same negative thing. We've talked about an issue that was raised. Is it enough to label it? Is it enough to simply say this was AI generated? Imagine this is a picture of you accepting that bribe, and it says in relatively small writing at the bottom, this is AI generated. Is that enough? Or would you simply want that not to be part of the ecosystem at all. It's demonstrably false. It's designed to impact unfairly the election.

And it's done within a short period of time of the election. Exactly. Designed to change the results of the election. This Bill is designed to prevent that and to simply say the worst of the worst. The videos, the videos on TV, the images, the absolutely demonstrably false images that are designed to prevent people from voting are simply banned for a short period of time around the election.

Again, as the author stated, this bill is designed to recognize the limits of the first, the protections of the First Amendment, and make sure that we are not broadly banning bills banning content, because we can't do that. But what we can do, the First Amendment is not absolute. And what we can do is protect the citizens of this state and protect our democracy by banning, for this short period of time, the worst of the worst.

Congress has not acted to protect our democracy from emerging digital threats. Despite the grave risks of the 2024 elections, it falls to California to lead in the protection of voters and the protection of our democracy, and we ask for your support of AB 2839. Thank you.

Thank you. You may proceed.

Hi Members, my name is Evan Minton. I'm with Voices for Progress. V for P galvanizes the advocacy of business leaders, entrepreneurs, philanthropists, and other prominent individuals who unite to champion a healthy climate and environment, strengthen our democracy, and ensure economic and social justice for all. Imagine a mailer going out just days before your next election with an incredibly convincing AI generated picture of you speaking at an anti choice rally.

Or for some of you, at a pro choice rally and you having no time to respond, AI poses unique and significant threats to our democratic processes and elections. In fact, the World Economic Forum ranks misinformation and disinformation as the number one threat the world faces. In the next two years. AI has even greater power to affect state and local elections due to the lessened ability to correct the record.

In an era of declining press and non mainstream news, sources are becoming increasingly utilized to spread misinformation, which has a disproportionate impact on historically marginalized communities and non English speaking communities and voters who rely on them for information, voices for progress, advocates for truth, transparency and trust in our democratic system. And for these reasons, we have a priority support position on AB 2839 and greatly urge your aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any that would like to testify in opposition? Okay, well, then, seeing none, we'll ask for supporters and the crowd that would like to come forward. State your name and organization, please.

Good morning.

Lizzie Kutzona here on behalf of Technet.

With the support, if amended position. Thank you.

Louise Miller, representing the California Clean Money Campaign and Indivisible California Statewide in support.

Thank you.

Khara Boender with the Computer and Communications Industry Association. Support if amended.

Thank you.

Good morning. Obed Franco, on behalf of the Asian Law Caucus in support.

Thank you. Do you have anybody in the audience that would like to express opposition, your name and organization. Seeing none. We'll bring it back to the Committee. We have a motion and a second. I have a question. First off, as a, excuse me. As a Member of the Committee.

How does this Bill define materially deceptive? I mean, I heard also the term demonstrably false or materially false. I worry about the line. How do we make that distinction? Can you help me with that?

Yeah, well, 1 second, please.

And now you're going to trust without reading glasses. This is carefully defined in the, sorry.

And not to interrupt you, but I do have the quote.

Thank you.

That you're to have a fundamentally different understanding or impression of the expressive content. Is that all? Is that the only definition that you have? Because I still find that to be very subjective.

It begins on page six, line 16, and it goes on for that basically through page seven, line 13. And then it exempts out what is it so modest. So it specifically exempts out if you do lighting changes or something small with photo Photoshop, which probably happens all the time. But the definition said so.

Materially deceptive and digitally modified or created image or audio or video file means an image or audio video file that has been intentionally manipulated in a manner such that the digital manipulation appears authentic or generates. Appears authentic. So, right.

It's not a cartoonish thing. And the image or video represents a false portrayal of a candidate for elected office and election officials and elected officials or voting machines. So it's a false portrayal. So it is not. It's not questionable. It's not. Maybe this was something that happened. Maybe it wasn't. It's false. And that, and in the last part, the false portrayal would make a reasonable person believe it was true. So it's got to have that deceptive element. So it's false. It's got to be false.

And it's got to lead a reasonable person to believe that it was true. And it has to have been digitally manipulated in a significant fashion.

Okay. Thank you. Have you accepted the amendments?

Yes.

We need to get that on record.

Yes.

Yes. If you would go. Thank you.

I have a question, because I had some fun mail against me. When I ran for office, one of the mailers took a picture of me and put it in Donald Trump's pocket. Like me, cut out in Donald Trump's pockets. Billy Essayli is in Donald Trump's pockets. I've never been in his pocket. So could I use this law to go after the person that sent me that mail? It was digitally altered. It meets your definition. It's false.

But would a reasonable person think that you actually were sitting in his pocket?

Well, they may. They may think that figuratively, I'm in his pocket.

But figuratively. So that's.

But how do we distinguish that? That's very difficult.

It's not. It's your. That is a question of opinion. Someone could say, you support him. You don't. That's. Were you literally. Literally in his pocket? No one would suggest that. Again, I go back to the example of you've got a Pitchfork and you're attacking somebody. That is demonstrably false. You didn't do that. Here is a picture and, okay, pitchfork. Maybe that would make it unrealistic. But say, use a realistic weapon, or say. Or you're standing next to a voting machine saying, these are all hacked.

They're all false. If you did that, that's fine. But if you didn't do that, that's demonstrative.

Let me ask this one. So let's say I'm running against someone and they took a lot of money from a really shady organization or person. So if I want to do a mailer and it shows them taking a bag of cash from an entity or a person that never physically happened, but it, you know, they took a check, is that gonna be demonstrated? So these are the things I worry about, because there's a lot that happens in political campaigns.

I mean, we're all involved in political campaigns every two years. So would that be considered demonstrably false if I represent my opponent taking a bag of cash from another person?

Okay. And this. There are gray areas. So you're. Is it, you know, a cartoonish. Here's a big, giant bag of cash that probably doesn't meet the terms of this Bill because

It's not cartoonish. Let's say it's them taking cash.

Okay. I mean, and if they didn't do that, you would have to come up with another way to do it, because that's. You've created what appears to be an authentic looking image. You can still say the line, they took a bag of cash from this person.

But right now, we put a disclaimer right. I think it's current law that you would have to disclaim. This is a modified image, but this takes it a step further and would actually make it unlawful.

It would ban, well, it would ban for a strictly limited time close to elections. The actual creating an image that looks real but is false and is designed to influence voters with a deceptively.

Everything we do is designed to influence voters. I understand this is really difficult. As an elected, my instinct would be to vote for this because most time this stuff is going to be done against me.

Exactly.

But I really, but I, you know, and so, but I really, really struggle with the, with the First Amendment implications. So for that, I just, I respectfully won't support it. But I, again, I believe you're genuine and sincere in addressing this issue. So I appreciate the dialogue.

Yeah, we're really trying to get the bad actors out there and putting out information that's false and deceiving. And we've done a good job, I think, of dealing with the first amendment piece of this to make it workable.

But thank you for your comments.

Thank you.

Okay, do we have any other comments? We have a motion. Excuse me, we have a motion and a second. Please call for the question.

On AB 2839 by Assembly member Pellerin. The motion is due pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

[Roll Call]

Your bill's on call.

Thank you.

[Roll Call]