Assembly Standing Committee on Elections

I'd like to welcome everyone who is here in 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. The Committee has nine bills on its agenda. There are four 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, their organization they represent, if any, and their position on the Bill.

Additional comments will be ruled out of order. In order to facilitate the Committee's business and public participation in today's hearing, we will not tolerate conduct that disrupts the orderly conduct of the Committee's proceedings. Violations of these rules may subject you to removal or other enforcement actions.

With those announcements out of the way, we will now move on to the Committee's agenda. So let's start with our first Member who signed in, and that would be Senator Laird. And you are presenting SB 977 today. You may begin when you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It's my pleasure to present Senate Bill 977, which would establish an Independent Redistricting Commission in San Luis Obispo County for the five supervisorial seats that make up the County Board of Supervisors. I would like to thank the Committee for working with my office and accept the Committee amendments that are outlined in comment one of the Committee analysis.

That address potential ambiguities and complications in a number of issues. For the 2022 election, there was a redistricting that was a monumental change in San Luis Obispo county. It led. The supervisor that's sitting next to me will testify on his own, but he had two thirds new constituents as he ran for his fifth term on the Board of Supervisors, and it fundamentally changed the community of interest that historically had been his district.

There was a lawsuit, and after the election, there was a settlement in which the county set aside the adopted map and reconsidered the alternative maps that were originally presented, one of which was adopted.

But in response to the community outpouring about redistricting, the Board of Supervisors directed the staff to draft a proposed independent redistricting commissioned ordinance, and the county requested that I introduce this legislation. This Commission has created an alignment with others that have been created by the Legislature for the counties of Los Angeles and Sacramento.

And yet, San Luis Obispo is a much smaller county than those. So there were a few changes to address the concerns of the smaller population. So it differs with a board size of 11 Members rather than the standard 14, and calls for an applicant pool of up to 60 applicants rather than a minimum. The Bill is supported by the County of San Luis Obispo, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the League of Women Voters of California, and it has no registered opposition.

It passed the Senate Floor with 31 votes. So here with me in support of the Bill is Supervisor Bruce Gibson of the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors. And even though he's speaking for his board and himself, he just happens to be the President of the county Supervisors Association in California. So, with that, at the appropriate time, I would request an aye vote.

If we could take one pause and establish a quorum. Thank you.

That's great.

The secretary will call the roll.

[Roll Call]

You may proceed with your witness. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair, the county San Luis Obispo. I'm Bruce Gibson, second district supervisor of the County of San Luis Obispo, and pleased to be here this morning in support of AB 970, SB 977. We thank Senator Laird for bringing this forth. The Commission that's contemplated here is consistent with the existing election code, of course, and consistent with the frame of previous citizens redistricting commissions that have been put forward.

Senator Laird well summarized the egregiousness of the gerrymander in 2021 that in the 2022 election was applied beyond the shift of two thirds of new population in the district I happen to be running in.

If you're familiar with San Luis Obispo County, you can stand on the shores of Estero Bay, see three communities, Los Osos, Morro Bay, and Cayucos, where I happen to live, that ended up in three separate supervisors districts as a clear violation of community of interest.

More damaging, though, was the fact that tens of thousands of voters, nearly 50,000 voters, had their votes either deferred or accelerated by the change in the districts. This is an effect you've seen in your State Senate, in the State Senate, where there are gaps and overlaps in senates, because we have four year terms and two year election cycles.

And so that has caused persisting confusion over who represents whom and is absolutely contrary to the fair establishment of representation, especially important at the local, at the local level.

The other aspect of that is that certain communities, such as the City of Atascadero, will have voted for supervisors three times in four Years: 2020, 22, and 24, while others, like the community of Los Osos, will go eight years between voting.

Just again, specifics on the details of how this impacts. SLO county voters strongly support the, the independent Redistricting Commission proposed here. We look at it as a fundamental defense of our democratic process and I respectfully ask for your aye vote on this.

Thank you very much. Are there any additional witnesses who would like to register their support for this Bill? As a reminder, all additional witnesses are limited to providing their name, their organization that they represent, if any, and their position on the Bill. You may proceed.

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

Joey Flagel Mishlove with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees in support.

Thank you. We will now move on to a primary witness in opposition. Any in the room here today, anybody who just wants to go the mic and state their name, organization and position? Seeing none, I will go ahead and bring this back to the Committee.

Like to move the Bill

We have a motion second by Assembly Member Weber, and we have questions. Mister Essayli.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. So from my understanding, the state purpose was the geographical configurations of how these lines were drawn. Is that the primary concern in the county?

That was the result that was concerning. And as you know, redistricting a county is about drawing geographic boundaries according to state elections code. And it was found as this particular map went to court, the judge ruled there was a high likelihood that the plaintiffs would prevail because it was clear that they had violated the necessity to keep communities of interest together.

So how did the lines go into effect if the court said that they were going to prevail in litigation?

The plaintiffs asked for a temporary injunction on them. The court decided, in what I consider an abundance of caution, not to grant that injunction and let the election proceed on those maps.

Do you support the independent Commission we have for drawing state seats? Okay. So in that Commission, it requires a consensus of both political parties to sign off on the political boundaries. The problem with how this Bill is drafted. And it's not just this Bill. They did it in my county, Riverside County, too.

The way this Commission is drawn up, it does not require consensus from political parties. It says any seven commissioners, it doesn't matter what their political makeup are, can approve and write the boundaries for these districts. So there's four Democrats, four Republicans, and three NPPs or third parties.

So effectively, the NPPs and the Democrats can draw the lines and the Republicans don't. You don't even need one Republican to sign off on it. Would you support changing that to require bipartisan consensus the way the state redistricting Commission requires?

I think in the end, we approach this in a good faith effort. And if you look at the qualifications that are listed there, you know, in terms of becoming a candidate to be appointed as a Commissioner, there is a, there is a requirement that you demonstrate some level of objectivity, some level of understanding of the greater perspective of why we draw districts and how proportional representation works.

So, in short, to answer your question, no, because I don't support a consensus. I believe that this Commission, properly constructed, properly populated, will naturally tend toward consensus as people of goodwill will try to make that happen. We're working very hard to keep highly partisan individuals.

I think the Commission is structured in a way that makes it more difficult for highly partisan individuals to be Members of the Commission. And if we look back in the history of San Luis Obispo County, bipartisan boards did have the ability to work together and come to consensus. And so we're trying to recreate that outside of the Board of Supervisors.

Well, I'm very big on structuring government in a way that moderates political extremes on either side. I understand you have a lot of faith in these individual commissioners, but, you know, the public needs to have some level of trust and confidence in these districts.

And I just, I don't understand, if this is truly nonpartisan, if it's truly about fairness, why the Bill wouldn't allow or require consensus from all the political parties to sign off on these maps. I just don't, I don't understand that.

And that's why I said if you vote, if you support the statewide Commission, all I'm saying is, why don't you mirror the standards that we have on the statewide Commission? It requires consensus from each of the political parties to sign off on it. And, Senator, if you want to respond.

I would just say that even though it's a different construct, those same concerns were raised about the State Commission, and the State Commission has never really defaulted to partisanship in how it's been done.

And the same thing is in play, where it, in essence, limits the ability of very partisan people to be on the Commission in terms of having contributed or some different marker for how somebody would enter it in a partisan way.

And the presumption that three independents would band with four Democrats is just not shown up in previous commissions, not shown up in the state. One, because it sort of removes the partisans from the process and it actually forces a more consensus view without giving one person a veto power on the entire Commission. Which is what you really want to avoid.

Well, Senator, with all respect, it hasn't happened because the statewide Commission requires three Republican Members to approve it. And all I'm saying is I think the local Commission should mirror that. So if you're not willing to make it a fair and nonpartisan process, I'm sorry, I can't support the Bill.

And I would just state that I believe it is a fair, nonpartisan process. We just disagree on whether that's true. Thank you.

Are there any other questions or comments from Committee Members? Seeing none. Senator Laird, you may close.

Thank you very much. I think, I appreciate the dialogue, but I think it helps accentuate both the need for this and how it's structured to be workable. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. I want to thank the author and the sponsor of this Bill for working with Committee staff on the amendments to ensure that this Bill can be implemented effectively.

While I feel the state would be better served to have standardized requirements for redistricting commissions that the Legislature creates by statute, I support efforts to expand the use of citizens redistricting commissions. And I appreciate the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors is being proactive in sponsoring legislation to create such a Commission in their county. For those reasons, I'm recommending a support that. We have a motion in a second. The secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Yeah, we'll put that on call for our absent Members. Thank you so much. We'll now move to the next Bill by sign in order, and that is Senator Bradford presenting Senate Bill 1328. When you're ready, you may begin.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm here to present 1328, and let me first start by saying I accept the committee's amendments, and this bill just simply updates and makes clear existing law and procedures and requirements relating to election technology certified for use in California.

As we all know, California has probably some of the most stringent system testing, certification, and use requirements in the country that should put us all at ease, but there is a need for existing storage, maintenance, and destruction election materials, and it needs to be updated. And this is what this legislation does.

You've seen a similar piece of legislation last year in this committee, and so we're just here to make it clear. Today--with me here today from the Secretary of State's Office is Nikesha Robinson, and at the appropriate time, I simply ask for an aye vote.

And we'll--thank you--and we'll now move on to your primary witness. As a reminder, you have two minutes. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning, Members of the Committee. My name is Nakesha Robinson, and I am the Deputy Secretary of State over the Help America Vote Act and the Office of Voting Systems Technology Assessment.

As the Senator mentioned, Senate Bill 1328 seeks to provide clarity on existing elections code, standardized uniform retention procedures of various voting technology artifacts, and to clarify penalties, when and where applicable, for those that undermine the strict chain of custody all elections officials and workers bear as a duty and obligation to uphold. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any other witnesses in support of the bill want to step up to the mic? And please state your name, organization, if any, and your position.

Good morning. Laura Summer Cotto, on behalf of the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any others? Okay, do we--we'll now move on to any primary witness in opposition. Anyone in the room? Anyone care to come to the mic? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the committee. Are there any comments or questions?

Move the bill.

We have a motion and a second. With that, and seeing no further questions, Senator Bradford, you may close.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Certainly updates and revising existing election record retention preservation destructions, this is very--common sense bill that we need to update and strengthen the law to ensure our voting equipment is protected. So thank you so much for bringing this bill forward today, and for those reasons, I'm recommending a support with the technical amendments outlined in the analysis. And it's a do pass as amended and re-refer to the Public Safety Committee. And the secretary shall call the roll.

On SB 1328: Bradford, the motion is do pass as amended and be re-referred to Committee on Public Safety. [Roll Call].

That bill is out; five to one. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Committee Members.

Okay, we're going to go ahead and take up the consent calendar. Again, there are four bills on the consent calendar. The committee secretary will read the items on the consent.

File Item One: SB 251 by Newman: the motion is do pass to consent calendar, File Item Number Three: SB 948 by Senator Limon: the motion is do pass as amended to consent calendar, File Item Number Five: SB 1027, Menjivar: the motion is do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on Judiciary with recommendation to consent calendar, and File Item Nine: SB 1476, Blakespear: the motion is do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on Judiciary with recommendation to consent calendar.

Thank you. Does any member wish to remove an item from the consent calendar?

Motion to move the consent calendar.

Seeing none and getting a motion, do I have a second? We have a motion and a second. The secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]. The consent calendar is out.

Thank you very much. We'll now move on to our next author, and that would be Senator Min, and you're presenting SB 1174 today. You may begin when you're ready.

Thank you, Chair Pellerin and Members. SB 1174 would ensure that local governments cannot implement their own unique voter identification laws in local elections and reinforces the concept that election requirements are a matter of statewide concern.

Now, you may be aware that Huntington Beach, which I represent, recently passed a charter amendment implementing voter ID laws in their voter local elections. This, I believe, is clearly illegal to to the extent that it might be co-located with federal and state and county elections because it would obviously have a chilling effect on those elections.

My read of the law, which I should note, is not one that the Attorney General and Secretary of State share, but my read is that there is some ambiguity over whether local elections, held at a unique time and place with their own voter ID requirements, might be permissible under existing state law.

So this bill is meant to clarify that confusion and clear up any ambiguity here. I will just note that contrary to the testimony of the City Attorney of Huntington Beach who came here recently for a audit testimony, charter cities are not immune to state law.

And this bill is meant to address the problem of the fact that there are 125 charter cities in California. We don't want 125 unique sets of election protocols throughout the state. This will serve to confuse the public and diminish trust in our elections process. Voter participation and election integrity are very important issues.

I've asked the City Council, the majority of Huntington Beach, to provide me with evidence of voter fraud numerous times. I've indicated that if there is a problem, we can address it at the state legislative level, but this is not a matter for localities to decide.

They have not presented me with any credible evidence to this point, nor have I seen any around the state that voter fraud is any kind of major concern in this state. California has carefully crafted election requirements that ensure system integrity while not restricting the rights of eligible voters, and this is an important balance we have to strike.

We want voter participation, we want election integrity, and I would submit to you respectfully, that if there was evidence of mass voter fraud, of real problems with election integrity, we as a State Legislature should take on that responsibility to shore up trust in our elections process.

SB 1174 would ensure that we find that right balance and make clear that this is a matter of state domain. With that, I would like to introduce my witnesses. I have Joey Flegel-Mishlove with AFSCME California, and Ruth Dawson, legislative attorney with ACLU California.

Thank you. Just as a reminder, you have two minutes. You may proceed.

Good morning, Chair Pellerin and Members. My name is Ruth Dawson with ACLU California Action, and I am pleased to strongly support and testify on SB 1174 by Senator Min. This bill would one: reaffirm that voting rights and election integrity, including voter verification, are matters of statewide concern and two: make clear that charter cities are prohibited from enacting voter ID requirements for municipal elections.

Voter ID laws perpetuate the myth of voter fraud and do nothing to improve election integrity. Elections officials, studies, experts, and courts have repeatedly confirmed that instances of voter fraud are exceedingly rare. However, numerous studies and data show that voter ID requirements do impose severe and disparate burdens on voters, particularly voters of color.

The California Legislature has long understood the harms of voter ID requirements and state law does not impose a voter ID requirement at the ballot box. The Secretary of State and county elections officials verify voter eligibility and ensure election integrity for local, state, and federal elections in a manner that is minimally burdensome on voters and supports a strong democracy in our state.

Despite California's carefully balanced system, last year, the Huntington Beach City Council placed a voter ID measure on the March 2024 ballot with a city attorney erroneously arguing that Huntington Beach may impose a voter ID requirement because it is a charter city with home rule authority over municipal elections.

Huntington Beach's position ignores case law that makes the voter ID measure invalid because, one: voting rights and election integrity are matters of statewide concern, and because, two: the measure conflicts with state law and burdens voting rights. The legal challenge to Huntington Beach's measure will no doubt be successfully challenged.

In the meantime, SB 1174 will stop any other cities from attempting to pass similar measures that spread misinformation about the integrity of our elections. And we urge you to support this important bill to prevent the chipping away of democratic integrity in our state. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Pellerin and Committee Members. Thank you for your time this morning. My name is Joey Flegel-Mishlove, and I'm here on behalf of the more than 200,000 working people who make up the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees here in California. AFSCME members work at all levels of state and local government.

We work at our state hospitals, in the UC systems, maintain water and utility districts, and operate almost every function of city and county governments across California, including many counties where our members work as election officials, ensuring that our elections are fair, honest, and equally accessible to all every year.

And so AFSCME members are deeply invested in our state's electoral apparatuses because it is their duty to carry out the policies enacted by local elected officials, and our members know that they are best able to serve their communities when the elected officials that they serve are truly representative of their communities.

We recognize that right now, California is a leader in designing election systems that are fair and are just, but that we're not immune to some national trends that would pull our electoral process towards something that is more arduous and ultimately more exclusive of working people. Cities implementing voter ID laws could take a major step backwards by enforcing policies that actually make it more difficult to vote and specifically have been shown to exclude Black, Latino, and indigenous community members from our electoral system.

Furthermore, members of our union, who are long-term care workers, have pointed to many studies showing that voter ID laws have a disproportionate impact on people with disabilities and our elderly communities. So we know that voter ID laws are a real threat to a thriving democracy and would allow our electoral process to misrepresent or ignore communities that our members work in, live in, and are part of.

And we also know that this step backwards, represented by these laws, cannot be justified by claims of voter fraud which have been shown time and time again to be overblown and ultimately, are dog whistles serving to exclude targeted populations from the voting process. And so to protect our uniform electoral system that is fair and honest in California--thank you--AFSCME recommends an aye vote.

Thank you very much. Are there any additional witnesses who'd like to register your support for the bill? Please step up to the mic and provide your name, the organization you represent, if any, and your position. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members, Tim Cromartie, on behalf of Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber, in support of the bill.

Ethan Nagler, on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, in support.

Adrianna Champagne-Zamora with the League of Women Voters of California, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll now move on to any primary witness in opposition. Any primary witnesses in the room in opposition to the bill? Anybody in opposition that just wants to step to the mic and state your name and organization? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the committee for any questions or comments.

If I could--

We have a motion by Assemby Member Low.

I have a question--

And a second by Assembly Member Weber. Yes, Mr. Lackey?

Yeah. I'm trying to really genuinely understand. You made the remark that without this proposal there would be diminished trust. And I'm trying to figure out how is there diminished trust by producing identification? Help me understand that. I don't understand it. I really don't.

I don't think, I don't know if I made that statement. I think in general, we want to--

You did in your opening remarks.

I think that it was in the context, if you will, of restoring trust by finding the right balance between election integrity and voter participation. Now the problem right now is that if you're implying that there is a widespread problem with election fraud in our state, then we should address it. And I think the restoring trust, was a comment, if I'm recalling correctly, was in the context of we as the Legislature should act forcefully if there is a problem.

But I think what this bill is intended to do is make clear that the locus of any action on election integrity should be at the state. So if there should be a debate about whether our protocols are lacking and we should have some heightened ID requirements, great. But there's trade-offs to that, and I think that my witnesses pointed out some of those trade-offs. But I guess the question is, is there a problem here that they're trying to solve? Is there a problem that we should try to solve?

And I would just point out that if there are 125 charter cities in California, I don't think it's good policy to have 125 different unique election protocols with different sets of requirements around each. I think that will be confusing to voters. I think it will chill voting participation, and that's really the intent of this bill.

I think that's a straw man, and I just have to tell you that I really don't see--I'm not alleging that there is widespread, but I think that this is a protection against widespread problems of voter fraud, and I don't see the downside. I don't. We have a witness here from SEIU. I know when I just recently had to attend a hospital, I had to produce ID. So I don't see the conflict. And for that reason, I will be unable to support this measure.

I appreciate your comment.

Any other questions or comments? Assembly Member Essayli.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So I want to understand this as well. I'm also struggling. Let's talk about this balance you talked about in the State of California. How does the State of California ensure there is not fraud in the elections currently?

I believe the protocol is that you have to have a--produce either a driver's license, California identification number, and four digits of your Social Security number to register. Obviously, for those of us who voted--I assume we all have voted for ourselves--you have to have a signature verification.

And that is something that's typically the, the most stringent requirement that often ends up in false negatives, where you end up with votes being rejected because the signature doesn't quite match. County election officials are also required to conduct partial recounts where they audit their own results.

And I'll just note that the Orange County Registrar is seen around the world as an exemplar as far as its election integrity. I'll also note that our district attorneys, Todd Spitzer, who I believe is on the other side of the aisle from me, has looked into allegations. He has said publicly there are about ten to 15 allegations of voter fraud in Orange County on average every election cycle and he has investigated every one of them and found zero basis for prosecution. So this is a solution in search of a problem.

I'll be honest and just say that I think Huntington Beach, which is the propagator of this, is engaged in a culture war right now because this is one of a series of controversial bills that they've tried to pass, or propositions, and I think they're trying to kowtow to certain media outlets rather than trying to solve an actual problem.

The intent of this bill is fairly neutral. It's just to say this is not a local matter to decide. It's up to the state, and if you, Assembly Member, were to present a real set of evidence of problems, I think we should act. I'll just note that--

Well, let me do that--

There was 660 ballots rejected in 2022 for a lack of identification. That's .0006 percent of ballots.

Okay. You want real evidence? I'll give you real evidence. Is ABC7 News a credible source? Can we agree on that?

I don't, I don't know what this report--maybe sometimes.

There's a gentleman by the name of Carlos Antonio Montenegro. He was arrested. He had 8,000 fraudulent voter registration applications filed by--in Hawthorne, Hawthorne election, and he was registering people that don't exist. He was charged with 18 felonies. He submitted 8,000 different fraudulent voter registration applications. So--and I'm sorry--I just think the allegation that there is no voter fraud, it's not a big deal--it's not accurate because part of the problem is we don't have detections in place in our systems for when people register fraudulently.

So I want to go back to my question. What are the systems in place? You claim that in order to register to vote in the State of California, you have to present a driver's license or the last four digits of a Social Security number, correct?

I didn't claim that. I believe that's the law and practice as is right now. I would just add onto your point earlier. Those people were caught. That doesn't mean people actually voted. And the penalties for voting fraud are actually pretty severe. The idea that someone would actually vote illegally with the penalties that are in place--

It happens all the time, Senator. It happens all the time. You're just saying it's not widespread, but I'm saying we don't know how spread it is because we don't detect it. Let me just finish, please--

If I could finish my comment.

Please. Yes. Go ahead.

Because you asked me a question. You presented evidence that somebody had illegal registrations. You didn't present evidence that those people voted, and in Orange County, I'll just note that the head of the Republican Party back in 2010 oversaw a scheme in which 12 Republican staffers went to jail for illegally re-registering voters as Republican. That's voter fraud, but they were caught. There's no evidence that any of those voters actually illegally--

Well, there's Democrat council members also charged and going to prison for committing voter fraud.

It's a bipartisan thing. But I'm not--I'm saying that--

I'd like to ask my question. Senator, you've had the opportunity to present. I'd like to claim my time. I'd like to finish asking my questions. If you want to filibuster, I don't think--

He's just--he's just answering your question. So let him finish.

This is not Congress, sir. So there's no time limits, I believe, so there's no time to reclaim.

Well, you may not think so, but sometimes the Chairwoman wants to move things along. So I just want to be respectful of everyone's time. Now, I just want to be clear. I'm on the website for the State of California to register to vote. On the section that has, where you put in your driver's license, your last four of your Social, there's a box underneath each one that says, 'I don't have one.' I don't have one. And then you're allowed to proceed to go to vote.

So this idea that you're not allowed to register to vote unless you present some sort of identification is not accurate. It's not true. It's not being implemented in the State of California. Additionally, people are being registered to vote at the DMV.

And we already know, based on audits, that the DMV has improperly registered people to vote, including illegal immigrants. And we have immunity in place that says if the DMV registers someone who is not eligible, they're immune for prosecution. Are you aware of that?

I'm going to defer these because I think we're getting into technical questions that they go into--

Well, it's important.

That I don't have direct knowledge of, so I'm going to defer here to my witnesses.

Please.

Sure. I'd be happy to share my understanding of our voter registration system. So, in California, to register to vote, a person must provide their driver's license, state identification number, or the last four digits of their Social Security number.

And if a person does not include this verifying identifying information with the registration application, they must provide identification the first time that they vote in a federal election. And there are many acceptable forms of identification by law, including utility bills and bank statements with a person's name and address, and official documents issued by government agencies.

And importantly, identification requirements must be liberally construed to permit voters and new registrants to cast a regular ballot. And any doubt as to the sufficiency of proof or a document presented shall be resolved in favor of permitting the voter or new registrant to cast a regular ballot, and so I'll refer you to our support letter for all of those citations, but that is both California Election Code and Federal CCR.

So among the IDs that are acceptable is a student ID. Is that not correct?

I am not sure if that fits into that.

Well, let me read from our great Secretary of State, Ms. Shirley Weber. Dr. Weber, thank you. Apologize. It says, 'other acceptable forms of identification include a passport, driver's license, state identification card, or student identification card showing your name and photograph.' So student ID is also considered an acceptable form of ID.

Now, we know illegal immigrants are allowed to be registered students in our institution. So again, when we're talking about balancing, I don't believe we have sufficient safeguards in place that detect and prevent people from committing voter fraud. What is the harm? Can you articulate to me what is your concern if we have voter ID? Do you support, Senator Min, do you support showing ID to buy a gun?

I'm sorry. I think that--

Can we stick to the subject of this bill, please?

Well, we're talking about important--

This is not about voter ID. This is simply about a local jurisdiction that is passing laws that--no, but it's about a local jurisdiction that's passing laws contrary to what is a state law and whether they have authority to do that.

What is the state law that's contrary? What state law says you can't use voter ID?

The state election requirements are fairly clear as to what our processes are, and I think, I'd repeat my position that I think that any matter of whether we should have voter ID or not, that's an interesting debate, but that should be done at the state level, not at the local jurisdiction level.

And I just would note to Assemblyman Lackey's point, there are actually several jurisdictions that have tried to take up this same initiative following the lead of Huntington Beach. There is a real danger here. We're going to end up with like 100 different sets of voter ID laws, voter registration requirements, and I think that's a little bit of havoc that we're not comfortable with. I'd also just add a point here. I mean, I know you like to demonize immigrants of different kinds, but--

That's not true.

If I could just finish. Undocumented--

No, I'm not going to let you--I'm not going to let you insult me in my committee. No. Madam Chair, point of personal--point of personal preference--

I'm going to ask Senator Min to rephrase his statement.

I apologize. I will rephrase that.

Thank you.

I note in your comments that you make a lot of disparaging comments about, quote unquote, 'illegal immigrants.' I have taught undocumented Dreamers in my classes at UCI Law, and I'm just going to say to you right now, the idea that somebody would illegally vote and jeopardize their status in this state on a widespread basis that tens of thousands of people do--I know that's a conspiracy theory in certain media outlets--I just don't see it happening.

The incentives are just not there for anybody to do that. You have so much to lose in this country. I have people who have UC educations who are scared beyond their wits that they're going to be deported any day. The idea that they would break the law--if they break the law on any level, they're deported. The idea that they'd go do that so that one vote could get cast, I just find that there's no evidence systemically that this is happening.

I haven't seen really--you guys have anecdotes of people with trucks or whatever, with registration things, but the idea that you see tens of thousands of people doing this, it just defies all logic, and if we see evidence of that, then we should address it as a state. That is my view, but again, the problem here this is meant to address is how do we prevent 100 cities from enacting 100 different sets of rules?

And we have another question from another member, if we can move on to that.

I thought we had unlimited time.

Well, we can come back to you, but I just want to get another question. Go ahead, Assembly Member Weber.

Well, I really just want to take the time to thank the author for bringing this measure forward because I really think that we have started to go down a rabbit hole and are not focusing on what this bill is trying to state. It is not about whether or not someone should present voter ID when they go to vote. It is about whether or not local jurisdictions should be able to determine what will happen and what that would cause to our elections as a state.

Now, if people in this room or in this state feel like there is true voter fraud, which none of us want, then they can do the research. The research that you have presented stated that it's less than one percent. I don't want to hear any anecdotal evidence or news about somebody who was arrested who we don't even know if they actually even voted.

So the point of this bill is to basically state that when you vote here in the State of California, whether you are a resident of San Diego or Los Angeles or San Francisco or wherever, that the rules are the same, and if we feel like those rules need to be changed, then we change them at the state level so that it is done throughout the entire state and not on an individual basis.

So I want to thank you for this, and I really hope, Madam Chair, that we can get back and focus on the purpose of this particular bill because it has completely gone off the rails. Thank you.

100 percent. Yes, I agree.

With all due respect, Madam Chair--

If you have a question on the bill.

Yes. My question is on the bill. With all due respect, Madam Chair, he came in--the Senator came in--

Do you have a question on the bill?

I'm articulating my question. Thank you.

Just state your question.

He came in and talked about voter ID. He said it has a chilling effect on minorities.

Do you have a question on the bill?

I did not say that, actually.

Okay. Where--

Who is the chilling effect on?

I did not say anything about chilling effect.

I'm gonna take this back to the committee. We have a motion and a second.

No. I have questions. You said it has a chilling effect. We can play the tape.

I have my notes here. I said--she said--chilling effect. I did not say that.

Do you have a question about the bill? If so, please state it. If not, I'm gonna rule you out of order.

I wanna know what the chilling effect was that the witnesses referred to in their opening statements.

I did not say that. So you can talk to the witness. Is the question for the witness?

Yes.

Sure. I'd refer you to the 2022 report by the Brennan Center for Justice entitled 'the Impacts of Voter Suppression on Communities of Color.'

So can you articulate what the chilling effect is? So you're saying people of color don't have access to voter IDs or identification?

She's answered your question. We're now gonna bring the bill--any other questions or comments from committee members? Yes. Assembly Member Cervantes.

Thank you so much. I want to just thank the author for bringing this important bill forward and really addressing this as we should at a statewide level, and would love to be considered as a co-author.

Thank you. We'll add you.

All right, we have a motion and a second. Senator, you may close.

Thank you for the robust dialogue, and I want to thank the Assembly Member from San Diego for her great comments on this bill. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. I'd also like to thank the author for bringing this bill forward. California already has numerous precautions in place to prevent voter fraud, and as the Attorney General and our Secretary of State eloquently stated in their joint letter, voter identification of the polls in local elections conflicts with state law and may suppress voter participation and complicate election administration without discernible benefit. So I'm recommending a support on this bill today. And it's a do pass and re-refer to local government. The secretary shall call the roll.

SB 1174: Min. [Roll Call].

We have Bennett.

[Roll Call].

That bill is out five to two. Thank you very much. We will now move on to our next member. We have Senator Menjivar with SB 1170. You may begin when you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, Election Committee Members. I'm here to talk to you about SB 1170. In the past couple years, we've had the opportunity to dive deeper into the effects of harassment, criminal threats and acts, prejudice, all these kind of things, and the impact it has on candidates and current elected officials across California.

I'm bringing to you a bill that did not come out on a whim, that came out of data-driven reports with recommendations on what we should do in the state Legislature.

The bill you see today addresses conversations, technical assistance from the FPPC on how we can really prescribe a very tight-knit approach to address the need that we see in candidates, nonincumbents, and incumbent candidates across California.

My witnesses will talk to you more about the report, but I want to dive more into exactly what this bill in front of you will do. Now, what I'm looking to do is provide campaign funds to be used for mental health services only after an incident happens on the campaign trail. So I want to be specific.

These funds are not for if having a fight with my sister, because my sister is of a different party and she does not want me to run for this seat. True story. These funds cannot be used because I'm having a tough day. And today I did not get an endorsement go my way.

These services are only going to- These funds can only be utilized if I'm coming to a panel for getting to know the candidates and someone screams out, hey, I'm never going to vote for a dike, we shouldn't have lesbians in office.

Then that, for me, will cause some kind of traumatic experiences where I could potentially go back home and think about, you know, I think California is not ready. I'm getting a lot of prejudice, harassment for my sexual orientation or my gender. I will then be able, if SB 1170 passes, to utilize funds to seek mental health services.

Because what we're seeing and what my witnesses will talk about is we're seeing a lot of people not run for reelection. We're seeing a lot of people drop out of races because of harassment, because of stalking.

Our colleagues, ourselves, our colleagues in the Legislature in the past two years have had their addresses on mailers be sent to people where people have been stalked at their home in LA. Personally know a candidate who had people outside of her home stalking her because they knew where she lived.

We have people being harassed and you hear another witness, people who get screamed obscene things because of who they are, who they love, what they look like, et cetera. Now, this isn't exclusive to just one gender.

I have a colleague who stated in the Senate elections, a white man, of the harassment he experienced when running for office and the need he the resources he wished he could have had and so forth.

Now, many of you can say, well, I can pay out of pocket for my own mental health services to address what is happening to me in the campaign that is specific to an incident, but not everyone can. I myself had to quit my job, a job that came with health insurance.

I wouldn't have been able to utilize any other means because I no longer had a job when I ran for office. Luckily, I was able to get a part time job, but that came with no benefits whatsoever.

The reason why I expanded my bill to include also incumbents is because the FPPC mentioned to us, or brought to our attention that there are a lot of local elected officials who are elected officials part-time only, that don't have resources that could pay for mental health services if something happens.

So there are four categories that are eligible for these funds to be utilized, and those categories are if there's a criminal threat or an act, there is harassment or prejudice. That is the only thing that would qualify.

So we wanted to make sure that we closed in the possibility of fraud or the possibility of people taking advantage of it. But I'm not going to sit here and lie to you and say, we've checked off every single box.

There's always going to be a person that probably thinks they're smart enough to commit fraud and so on. But we've replicated word-for-word FPCC's deemed highest level of deterrence with our boilerplate language on this being a misdemeanor if they commit fraud.

A lot of the things you're seeing in this bill are from technical assistance that we've obtained from the FPCC and the ongoing months of conversations with them. So I will now detail the things that are in this bill, and then, Madam Chair, I'll turn over to my witnesses to talk about reports and personal experiences.

So the expenditures by Committee will pay for mental health care services directly related to a political, legislative, or government purposes under those four categories. They would have to report on their form, just like we all do, the need, if it was mental services for prejudice, mental services for criminal acts, and so forth.

They will have to maintain records. Records will entail the license number of their mental health therapist, which is public information, and the type of license, which is public information already. Is it a marriage, family therapist? Is it a psychiatrist? Is it a psychologist? Masters in social welfare. And they will keep that.

They will also have to keep invoices. We all, on anything that we use, our campaign funds do this already. We have to keep invoices and receipts on every charge we make. We are not asking for anything less and we're not asking for anything more to further burden or erode the current state of structure and what we need to provide proof for a need for campaign funds

If a candidate has partial coverage, we're in this bill allowing for the rest of the funds to be utilized. Sorry.

If the candidate has healthcare to pay for part of their mental health services, the bill then says that the rest can be paid with campaign funds. And there was this wonderful Assemblymember that brought a need for maybe clarifying to ensure that it's only to pay the remaining funds, not all of it, since their health care can cover it.

The candidates will be eligible to use these funds up until they are certified with the Secretary of State, that they have that the certification of the election has been closed or up until they take their oath of office. So if a candidate loses in the General, that will be the end of their services.

If the candidate wins, then they would have. They'll be eligible for services up until they're sworn in. Now, we are continuing working with Madam Chair and other individuals on further clarifying that, because I know that all elections are certified by the Secretary of State. So if it gets out of Committee, we'll add language for that.

We have defined, as I mentioned, the four categories that will be eligible. They don't have to put anything else. There's no diagnosis that has to be shared. The therapist will not have to provide notes because that will be a HIPAA violation of everything. And then the individuals are taking the. Are willing participants. This isn't a mandate.

This is an option for candidates. If their legal team and their consultants should this past say, hey, if you wish to, because you qualify, this is what you have to do. You have to report X, Y and Z.

If you're a willing participant to put on your form that you paid for that, then that candidate made their own personal decision to put that information on the form. If they don't want that information to be public, then they would have to find another different means to pay for their mental health services if they want it.

And I think, Madam Chair, I will end on that and then turn to witnesses to talk further.

Wonderful. And just a reminder, you have each have two minutes. Thank you.

Thank you Madam Chair and Assembly Members, my name is Marissa Roy. I am the President of California women's list. We're an organization that supports women for running for office in California. In 2022, after interviewing 75 candidates for our endorsement, we noticed that financial barriers were not the only barriers women face running for office.

We heard many stories, had many candidates break down in interviews because of the hostility they were facing. We realized this was an invisible barrier, one that didn't have much research behind it, just anecdotes.

So we partnered with the University of San Diego, with Brennan Center, with Eva Posner, a consultant in San Diego, as well as with close the Gap Research Director Sarah Carson, to build a study and a survey of over 100 candidates. Some of you, I think, in this room, may have received it even.

What we found was not shocking, but sobering. Over 50% of candidates receive harassment during the campaign. It's higher for women, two thirds for women, but 50% of men as well. 80% of candidates, regardless of gender, receive social media harassment, and 25% of women experience violence on the campaign trail.

The University of San Diego did a hyperlocal survey finding similar results. 75% of candidates received threats and harassment, 47% on a monthly basis, and 52% considered leaving office.

The Brennan Center measured current office holders as that was not part of our study and found that 89% of legislators face abuse, and it's gone up more for Republicans even than Democrats.

80% of candidates in our study said that this caused new or worse than mental health symptoms, usually anxiety, frequent, persistent negative self belief, sometimes as severe as panic attacks.

This bill would not cure the the ultimate culture change that we need, but it would provide a resource for candidates so that they can have a stopgap, so they can focus back on their campaign. As this is affecting campaign decision-making, it's a campaign-created liability, and we need a campaign solution. So thank you.

Good morning. My name is Katie Valenzuela, and I am proud to be serving here on the City Council in Sacramento since December 2020. I'm here today to share my personal experience with hostility on the campaign trail, both in my initial election and substantially worse as an officeholder running for reelection.

Harassment online and in person has been persistent, including people yelling profanity at me from their cars as I was out with volunteers canvassing, people have repeatedly implied that they wish me to incur physical harm, and one person actually threatened to take my life.

The trauma from these experiences has led me to develop shingles as well as hypervigilant behavior that my therapist diagnosed as a symptom of post-traumatic stress disorder last spring. Right as I was launching my reelection campaign. I ended up in an emergency room for symptoms that presented as a heart attack, but was actually a severe panic attack.

I have been taking anxiety medications and seeing a therapist ever since. In addition to impacting my mental health, these experiences have impacted my campaign. Out of concern for my safety, my campaign team and I decided I would never canvas or go to events alone, meaning that my schedule was dictated by the availability of volunteers to accompany me.

We had to develop a complicated RSBP process for certain events to ensure locations were only shared with legitimate volunteers, and all of this took resources and time away from efforts to connect with voters directly. I was so lucky that my elected position includes healthcare that adequately covered my mental healthcare needs.

Had I not had that access, my campaign would have been further impacted and frankly, I might not have run for reelection at all. This is the first time I'm publicly sharing some of my experiences.

I don't normally read notes like this off my phone, mainly because I'm so worried that my story will deter women, qualified women, from running for office. But thanks to the report that Marissa just outlined, I now know that my experience is not unique.

Many candidates, particularly women, and particularly women of color, are too often the target of campaign hostilities that have severe impacts on our mental health. And without the resources to address these impacts, candidates and campaigns will continue to suffer real harm.

If we want a representative democracy, we have to acknowledge that not all candidates can access mental health support. They may need to run strong campaigns. This bill is a simple but important up to remove that barrier, and I strongly urge your support.

Thank you so much for sharing your personal story. It's very profound. And are there any other witnesses in the room who'd like to register their support for the Bill? Please step up to the mic. State your name, organization, and your position.

Hi, Mc Kay Carney on behalf of Los Angeles County in support.

Seeing no one else. Are there any primary witnesses in opposition to this bill? If so, please step forward. Anybody want to go to the mic to express opposition? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions or comments? Not yet. We have a motion by Berman.

Do I have a second by Assemblymember Cervantes and a question by Doctor Weber?

Well, good morning and first of all, thank you so much for bringing this Bill forward, if only to initiate conversation and highlight the issues that I think probably anyone who enters the political arena, whether you're male, female, Republican, Democrat, independent, just in this current climate and with social media out there, people being able to say and do whatever they want to behind a screen and not necessarily think about the consequences on that particular individual giving what they are doing and also whatever past experiences they may have.

My concern with this Bill, and I'm not really sure how to get around it. And so because of that, I'll probably lay off today. But, you know, whenever, as Senator you mentioned, whenever we charge something or use campaign funds, we have to disclose it, right. We have to keep receipts.

We have to do this report on a regular basis. And even though you're not disclosing notes, the fact that this particular individual would have sought mental health treatment, behavioral health treatment, and that is out there in public is of concern to me. We, unfortunately, in this society, have not yet normalized behavioral health treatment as regular healthcare treatment.

There is so much stigma around that at this point. And the last thing that I would want is for a well-intentioned Bill to potentially cause more harm.

If I'm a candidate, first time running, not really sure about, or really completely understand all of the reporting requirements, something happens to me, I utilize campaign funds, and then I have to report that, that I actually sought out a mental therapist or behavioral health therapist that could potentially, in my opinion, cause more damage.

I was thinking, I can't think of any other scenario where someone's health record, even to the point of the fact that they saw a physician, is out there for public knowledge. If you go see your primary care Doctor, I don't think that's out there on the internet.

I don't think I could or anyone else could pull that information. So that's really my concern. And, you know, really appreciate the fact that a lot of this was done in San Diego and found out yesterday, you know, the role that Eva Posner had. And so I look forward to continuing conversations about, around this.

And, you know, hopefully, if it passes through the Committee today, we can, you know, I'll be able to support it on the floor.

But I still just need more conversations around that piece because we have such stigma, especially in certain communities, around the use of behavioral health and mental health in general, that I would hate for that to end up having an even worse impact on a candidate to have that information out there, and then people come after them for that.

So really appreciate it, appreciate the research. I don't think any of us can refute, you know, the fact that people are coming after those who have stepped up to serve in a very different way than what you saw 10, 15, 20 years ago. I just don't want to worsen that by having that information out there.

But thank you ma'am.

Chair, can I respond to that? Okay, thank you, Senator. I would actually push back a little bit, caving to the potential shame of utilizing mental health services. As a MSW myself, I mean, I ran talking about, I've utilized mental health services throughout my whole life. Who wouldn't as a queer person of color in California, right.

So I brought, I thought that was very empowering for me to share with people because you don't know who's listening.

And if you're saying as a candidate running to represent 1 million people, if you're saying that you're in mental health services, that's empowering for other individuals to not feel ashamed that they're part of mental, or they sought mental health services. But also as candidates, we read our community. Right. I agree with you.

Maybe some communities aren't as accepting of utilizing behavioral health services, but that candidate will make that decision on their own because this isn't a mandate, this is just an option.

So if a candidate, maybe they're a new candidate and they don't know about reporting, but their team does, their lawyer does, their consultants will know and will brief that candidate, whether they're new or a veteran, on what would be required of them to utilize these funds.

And that candidate, that grown adult, will determine if they want to take that on, if they want to report this on their public forum. So I'm just allowing for an option for the candidate. That's all I have to say.

Well, thank you very much for that. You know, I appreciate those comments. I wish everyone felt comfortable being open and honest with their mental health needs, but we know that's not the case. Right. And just because you are doesn't mean that other people are. And it doesn't mean that every candidate should. Just because you step up and run to the.

That's why it's an option. It's just an option.

Right. When you step up and run to office, that doesn't mean that your whole life should automatically be on public display. And, you know, we, when you run for the Assembly or when you run for Congress, you have a different level of campaign, people.

I remember when I ran for City Council, my treasurer was not someone that I would see was skilled in all of the different nuances and did not necessarily come to me in advance and say, oh, well, if you do this, it's going to be reported, if you do that. Now, I have that now. Right.

But this isn't focused specifically on certain offices. It's focused on all offices. And so really appreciate the bill. Look forward to further conversations so that if it makes it to the floor, I can support it. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll now move on to Assemblymember Bennett.

Democracy really needs everybody to feel comfortable in terms of running, number one. And so I applaud you for trying to make sure that we're addressing a growing problem. And that is, as we have a wider diversity of people running, we have more and more people attacking people inappropriately. And so that concerns me a lot.

And I really feel the passion that you have and your witnesses have for trying to address that. At the same time, I have a really high bar for what I think campaign expenses should be, should qualify, and I'm concerned about an erosion of that.

If I knew that we could have campaign expenses very tightly focused and it would address the issue. But as I've shared with you in our conversations about this, I approach this from the devious mind standpoint of how our, how could people potentially abuse this? So I have concerns because I have that standard.

The last Bill that came in front of us just recently that increased our ability to use campaign funds, I didn't support that Bill.

So I just have a high standard because I think that the public, the public that I want most contributing to campaigns are those small donors, and they really get frustrated when they see candidates using campaign funds inappropriately.

And I've shared with you sort of how, with your, the way your Bill is written, how it could still be exploited. But I don't want this, the decision as to whether this Bill moves forward or not to be decided here. So I know that you need the vote today.

I will give it to you, but I wanted to tell you I may not be there. You know, when it comes to the floor, we'll see, see whether you can address those issues at that point in time.

But this is too important of an issue to be terminated at this point because it doesn't have the votes to get out of Committee.

Thank you, Assemblymember. Madam Chair, can I speak a little bit and then turn to my witness to address some of the concerns?

Absolutely.

In 1989, the voters passed the PRA. In 1989, when I was born, not a lot of diverse candidates or elected officials were in office across the United States. In 1989, no one would have ever thought the childcare would have been an eligible expense for campaign funds because, well, women were at home taking care of the kids.

But California has already, already included childcare services to be an allowable expense under the campaign funds, because we need moms in office, because we need a diverse group of individuals. As we're seeing social media, the internet, really take an unfortunate leading part in a lot of our different lives, in different aspects. We need to respond to that.

So I understand that the voters voted for this in 1989, but in 1989, not a lot of women were even registered to vote. So we need to look at how we are not eroding the PRA, but adjusting with the times. So I'd now like to turn to my witness.

One other thing that happened in 1989, and thank you for your comments Assemblymember Bennett, was an Attorney General opinion in analyzing the Political Reform Act, saying that what would qualify as a campaign-related expense is an expense not that had, if it had substantial personal benefit, what would disqualify it is if it had negligible political, legislative or policy.

The reason we brought this Bill now, and we didn't bring it two years ago when we started to identify the problem, is we realized we had a lot of data to find. This was not an issue that was well documented. We knew about it kind of vaguely and anecdotally. We knew that we believed it.

We will always believe our candidates, but we knew that we had to have data that showed where this came from, that it came from the campaign, and that it was affecting the campaign. So when we parsed all of the data, what we found is that these are certainly campaign-related liabilities.

But for the campaign, but for these incidences, these new mental health symptoms would not be arising. And they weren't just affecting the candidate, they were affecting campaign decision-making, which gave them a significant political purpose as well. That's the only reason we brought this Bill, because we realized we needed to have a high bar.

And if we were going to ask for any addition, it needed to be highly data-backed. When we brought this to the FPPC, we were really thrilled that they read and engaged with all of the literature and agreed with us that this was an issue.

And they actually brought similar kind of questions, recognizing actually, as both of you Assemblymembers, that we're sort of at the nexus of this is a real issue for candidates that they're facing. But the Political Reform Act has needs to satisfy transparency and accountability.

How do we harmonize all of this, make sure we meet the needs of the Political Reform Act, while also making sure we do the least harm to candidates. And what we came through with was exactly what Senator Menjivar said. This is always going to be a choice.

If a candidate feels like this is too much risk for them to have that information out there, not only could they decide to forego this option. That's a stopgap. But also there are procedures and campaigns, as you know, with reporting periods.

You can reimburse yourself if campaign funds accidentally got spent, or if you don't, you can reimburse a contributor. Just like anything. There are ways to fix these things before they become public in the reports. But what the Commissioner specifically said when we were talking about fraud is how do we allow enough mechanisms to prevent against fraud?

While the FPPC does not want to litigate these issues, the FPPC does not want to be the one fighting whether harassment is legitimate or not. So they came up with the categories with us drawing from existing law.

So we got the prejudice definition with reference to the Unruh Act, the criminal acts and threats definition with reference to the penal code, of course, and then harassment with reference to several ways that have interpreted labor laws. So we made sure that these reporting categories were widely understood and already established in California law.

That was enough for the FPPC that if we had those triggering elements, that would be something that would be what had to get reported. We included the misdemeanor boilerplate language, which is the existing highest standard, so that if anyone does engage in fraud, there is an element for the FEBC.

Also, the reporting requirements would make sure that it is only going to the limited services we exempted, which were services provided by a licensed mental health care professional. I think there are definitely ways, like you mentioned, we could clarify in terms of making sure we say the difference for the copay so that you're not double paying.

But I think we have worked with the FEBC to make sure we're meeting their highest standards with their attention to both the candidates, but also the goals of the Political Reform Act. So we're happy to continue clarifying.

But we've tried, tried to do our due diligence to keep this a narrow Bill that would meet both the needs of candidates and the Political Reform Act.

If I could. I appreciate it, and I have great respect for the author, which is one of the reasons why I want to make sure that the Bill continues to live for a while. As I shared with her last night in the conversation, the difference between fraud and abuse is fraud is actually doing something fraudulently.

But people can abuse the intent of the law. And that's what my concern would be. People that abuse the intent of the law and then erode sort of support for these kinds of things because they abuse it. And abuse can oftentimes be very legal. Right. But it's abusive. Right.

And those are the examples that I was sharing, but thank you.

Thank you Assemblymember.

Okay, we have another question. Assemblymember Essayli?

Yeah, just one question. I actually agree with my colleague, Doctor Weber, about privacy interest for health records. I just think those are really big deals and people could weaponize that information. But my question is, is there anything to stop a candidate from having a donor pay for their mental health services? Because if that is not for...

Be in-kind. Right?

Well, that's a genuine question I don't know the answer to. But if that is for personal services, mental health purposes, maybe I'm just thinking of a middle ground, maybe some sort of clarification that's not campaign related, does not require in-kind. And then they could have a donor privately pay for those.

Cause I think disclosing to like a donor is probably better than disclosing to the world or something. It's just a question I throw out there. I mean, maybe that could be something to look at. Because I do think if you start reporting you're seeing a counselor, I mean, people are gonna, they're gonna do something with that.

Two things I'd like to say. The first I wanna clarify, there's no health records being reported. None whatsoever. The only thing that's being reported is on your form, whatever it is. 770. I'm not sure. 700. Is mental health services for harassment, mental services for criminal acts, mental services for criminal threats.

The four categories that I shared, and that's how we got with FPPC to draw, find a middle ground for protection of the candidate and the services, but also for transparency.

So I just want to clarify that on the second thing, Assemblymember, I actually think in doing that approach would enhance the concerns from Assemblymember Bennett of taking advantage of. Because there's less accountability with that than. Versus actually using the funds from your Committee. Right.

Because you can say, and I don't know, I'm not a lawyer, this is not from. It's never been, we've never asked the FPPC. Okay, well, I'm not sure, but in front of you, Assemblymember, is a route we took. That's all I can say, I guess. And if Madam Chair, maybe one of my witnesses. I don't.

And it was a form 460. Sorry about that. Those numbers. Right.

A lot of forms. And just to clarify, as an incumbent, I would still be required to report that as a gift on my form 700. And so, yeah, that's another week.

Any other questions or comments? Okay, seeing none, we have a motion and a second and I just want to thank the author for bringing this Bill forward. Thank you for sharing your personal story as well. It's profound. It's inspirational.

As many of you know, I am passionate about mental health and bringing awareness about the lack of understanding and social stigma that surrounds mental health disorders. I actually think this Bill will help remove that stigma.

And I want to live in a world where it's okay that you're not okay, and it's okay that you're getting counseling and care when you're in a. When you're having a mental health issue. There's also. I just want to bring up. There's FTPC training for candidates and manuals that will explain this as well.

And we always, as a former elections official, we always got those materials to our new candidates, especially the ones that are first time out to make sure they're aware of all the reporting requirements. So that would be included in those. And I think it's absolutely important that we ensure that candidates have ready access to mental health services.

And I would be honored if you would add me as a co-author.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

And with that, I'm recommending a support. And please also continue to work on any issues concerning the conflict with medical privacy laws. So I'm sure you'll continue to do that.

So again with that, I'm recommending a support, and it's a do pass. And re-refer to Appropriations. Secretary will call the roll.

On SB 1170 Menjivar. [Roll Call]

That Bill is out six to zero. Thank you very much. We're now move on to our final Bill, which is by Senator Newman, SB 907. You may begin when you're ready.

Good morning, Members. Madam Chair, am I on? I'm on.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to present SB 907, a district bill that will improve representation and electoral participation in Orange County, by making two very sensible changes to the Orange County Board of Education. First, increasing the number of trustees on the board from the current five to seven and secondly, shifting the board's elections from the primary ballot as currently conducted, and into the general election in November.

The Orange County Department of Education, which was formed in 1977 and jointly governed by the Orange County Board of Education of the County Superintendent, is responsible for providing alternative and special education programs to more than 91,000 students, many of whom are among the county's most vulnerable and disadvantaged.

OCBOE is also responsible for funding and developing a variety of programs that support the nearly half million students enrolled in Orange County's 28 independent school districts, as well as serving as the appellate authority of last resort for charter school applications rejected by local school districts within its jurisdiction.

Since Orange County's Department of Education was established in its modern form in 1977, its population has nearly doubled, from 1.8 million in that year to its current population of nearly 3.2 million. That makes it the third largest county by population in the state.

And of the state's 10 largest counties, Orange County is currently one of only four whose county boards of education have only five trustees. Of the counties which still have five trustees, the only one comparable in size to Orange County is the County of San Diego.

In the nearly five decades since the constitution of the OCBOE, Orange County's population has also become infinitely more diverse. According to the 2000 census, more than 50% of OC's population at that time was white.

By the time of the most recent census, that share had dropped to less than 37%, and OC has now become a resoundingly majority minority county. Expanding the board from its current five trustees to seven will ensure that it more fully reflects that diversity within its elected membership.

Moving the election of OCBOE trustees into the November General will also ensure higher participation by that more diverse electorate. This would be a positive development in not one but two directions. First, as mentioned, it will result over time in a board that more closely reflects OC's changing population.

Secondly, and just as importantly, including the vote for County Board trustees on the November ballot will give voters a better opportunity to engage and connect with candidates and the eventual elected Board Members as part of a critical task of reconnecting residents to civic institutions like the Orange County Board of Education, about which they are increasingly uninformed.

And from which they are increasingly disconnected when it comes to important conversations around education and access, I would argue that this matters a great deal. As I've emphasized in my conversations with the opposition and with others, the impetus for this bill does not arise out of politics.

Enhancing the responsiveness of any governing body and improving participation in the election of its members are objectively good goals, and that's what the provisions of this bill seek to enable.

Here to testify in support of the bill is Luca Grecu Klaus, a parent and the Advocacy Co-Chair for Capistrano School District PTSA, the largest district in Orange County and a member of the fourth district PTA, and David Burke, who is President of citizens take action. I am respectfully asking for your aye vote this morning

And just a reminder, you each have two minutes. You may begin.

Yes, thank you. Good morning. In 1816, Thomas Jefferson wrote, I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions, but I know also that laws and institutions must advance and keep pace with time.

Orange County demographic has changed drastically over the past five decades, yet the Orange County Board of Ed is the same. As a PTA advocate for 10 years. I want to highlight that the fourth district PTA, representing over 100,000 members, has supported Senators Min previous bill to move the OC board election from the primary to the general elections.

It is indisputable the fact that voter's participation is higher in the general election than in the primaries. In my opinion, unless the goal is to suppress the voter turnout, there is no reason to oppose this change. OC Board of Ed was established in its modern form in 1977. Alisa Viejo, the town I'm from, didn't exist until 2001.

Irvine, the largest city in Orange County, had a population of 11,000 in 1977 versus 330,000 now. Given the growth increase the number of Board Members from five to seven, its a no brainer. Also, the Orange County population has grown diversely from 1.8 to 3.2 million. This bill isnt just numbers.

It's about establishing fairer elections and better representation for the Orange Countys diverse population. It's about embracing progress and leaving behind the relics in the past. Let's move forward together and ensure that our education institution evolves with times. Please vote yes on this bill.

Next witness.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair Pellerin and Committee Members. I'm David Burke, the founder of Citizens Take Action, which is a nonprofit based in Orange County.

Two of the things we focus on are supporting more representative government and increasing civic engagement, and that's why I wholeheartedly urge you to support SB 907. Increasing the number of representatives on the Orange County Board of Education from five to seven, will provide greater representation to Orange County residents and make it easier for parents to connect directly with their Board Members.

And moving the elections to the traditional November election cycle will likely increase voter turnout, including among historically underrepresented groups. If I may be Frank, the way that the OCBOE currently conducts its elections during a primary and requiring only a plurality of votes to win is precisely what you'd do if you wanted to discourage public participation.

I've personally spoken with many Orange County voters who are confused about the OCBOE's elections and why they are different than nearly every other election in the jurisdiction. We want voters to have clarity regarding when elections are occurring and maximize their opportunity to engage with local candidates. SB 907 offers logical solutions to these challenges.

Expand the size of the OCBOE to increase representation. Consolidate the OCBOE's election with statewide general elections to increase voter engagement. It's simple. It increases local control for parents. And that's why SB 907 deserves your support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Are there any additional witnesses who would like to register support for this bill? If so, please go to the mic and state your name and organization and position, seeing none? Anybody in the room who is a primary witness in opposition to the bill? If so, please step up.

If you're a primary witness, you may come to the table, and you each have two minutes. You may begin when you're ready.

Thank you. Sorry.

A weird location.

He's got your back, Tim. He's got your back. You got my back. Good morning. My name is Tim Shaw. Excuse me? I'm the President of the Orange County Board of Education. The Orange County Board of Education took a unanimous position to oppose Senate Bill 907 for a few reasons.

Respectfully, we would suggest that the number of trustees on our board and when our elections are held should be a decision for the local, for us in Orange County, and not for Senators and Assembly Members from around the State of California. Of the 58 counties in California, obviously, Senate Bill 907 only singles out Orange County.

San Diego County, our neighbor to the south, has a larger population than Orange County, and yet has five trustees and this bill does nothing to change that. Our neighbor to the north, Los Angeles County, doesn't have an election for the County Board of Education whatsoever. They're appointed by the Board of Supervisors.

If we're looking for a better democratic representation for a County Board of Education, obviously Los Angeles County is a better place to focus on. Having seven trustees forced onto our board at this time would create a few problems.

It'd be a mid-cycle and expensive redistricting process, one that we recently concluded it would obviously be disruptive to our board adding two trustees combined. Combining the costs of the redistricting with the inherent cost of having two more trustees will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Obviously, at a time when the state budget is having some trouble. As far as the population of the county goes, actually, Orange County's population is in the middle of declining right now. We've lost about 35,000 residents over the last two years. So adding to the board at this time seems a little counterintuitive.

The supporters of SB 907 correctly point out that voter turnout is higher in November. I would also point out that the November ballot tends to be a lot more crowded.

So I think that's two minutes.

Okay, so our point is that the voters can focus more in the primary ballot.

Thank you. Next witness. Two minutes.

Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is Greg Rowland. I am Counsel to the Orange County Board of Education, and I'm here today to speak to the mid-cycle redistricting. The Committee analysis, the Legislative analysis appears to necessitate that this bill will necessitate a mid-cycle redistricting.

We just went through this in 2021, and it's not only an expensive, but it's an onerous process. We submitted a declaration to the Assembly, to the Senate Appropriations Committee showing that the redistricting process itself cost $700,000. But that was in it. We had nine meetings talking about redistricting. We took public comment. We had expert testimony.

We considered about nine maps. The County Committee had three other meetings where they went through the same process.

This caused so much confusion in the community that we were at the registrar of voters at the 11th hour, not knowing which map was going to be posted for the community, and received a lot of anecdotal evidence that people didn't know their trustee area or the candidate for whom they were voting.

There was so much uncertainty that this process prompted further litigation. Now, this is litigation that is not included in the $700,000 costs. And incidentally, the taxpayers of the State of California bore the brunt for both parties.

This litigation went through the Superior Court and all the way through the Court of Appeal, and it was only resolved through a Legislative fix. And keep in mind, that was for five trustee areas in a decennial redistricting that we had planned and for which there was precedent.

And this would be seven trustee areas for which there is no precedent in Orange County. So I just want the Members of the Committee to keep in mind the disruptive nature of a mid-cycle redistricting.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in the room who would like to register your opposition to the bill? Please step up to the mic. State your name, organization, if any, and your position. Thank you.

Yes. Bob Naylor, representing Fieldstead and Company. That's Howard Amundsen Junior in Orange County, philanthropist, respectfully opposing this bill.

Madam Chair and Members Adam Keigwin, on behalf of the California Charter Schools Association, as well as Ednovate, in opposition. Thanks.

Thank you. I'll now be bringing it back to the Committee. Assemblymember Bennett.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I think it's noteworthy that the witnesses in opposition to the bill have offered some evidence about how it might be unfair or inappropriate to do this when Los Angeles doesn't do this, or when San Diego has a greater population, et cetera.

I think the germane issue is, is the system in Orange County the appropriate system or not? That's the question in front of us. Not, oh hey, someplace up in Northern California is not doing it, is doing it more inappropriately.

And I haven't heard any piece of evidence to suggest that what we really have is a great system, because we do the election during the primary, which is not when the voters are expecting to be doing a final vote for an election, and we're allowing people to be elected to office with just a plurality of the votes.

I mean, that's as undemocratic as it gets. And it's always been a frustration that City Council elections, etcetera, allow that to happen. So it can be gamed a lot easier that way, because all you have to do is split the votes of one side.

And so I believe people should be elected in a more appropriate or more democratic standpoint. And this bill simply, that's what should be addressed, not what I'm hearing from the opposition, why it's good to stay with the primary and why it's good to stay with plurality votes.

This bill doesn't solve all of the problems that we have in terms of increasing democracy. But I'd like to make the motion to approve this bill.

Thank you. All right, we have a motion. Do we have a second? Second by Senator Cervantes. Any other questions or comments from Committee Members, we'll go to Doctor Weber.

Good morning, Senator. Thank you so much for coming and presenting this bill. I'm conflicted with this bill because there's one part of it that I completely agree with, and that is that the elections should be, during the General election, you have much better turnout. It's much better for democracy. You know, we mentioned San Diego County.

Yes, we have five on our school board, but we also have a primary and a general election. And actually, the general election is a citywide election. It's not within the district. So, you know, I really, really, really like that part. I'm not. I haven't heard any evidence about the need to increase the numbers.

Considering that I come from a county that is similar to Orange County and we have five, I will support it today, but reserve my right when it comes to the floor. Thank you.

Appreciate that. Okay. Assemblymember Essayli.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, I just want to echo what my colleague just said. I don't really see the problem with moving it to the general. My concern is increasing the size of the board. So, and either Senator witness or the witnesses can answer this.

But you've made allegations here today that the Orange County Board of Education is somehow not conducting fair elections or they're not fairly representing their constituents. So can you expand on what exactly is the concern Orange County?

Let me start with one of my ones. I'd like to characterize this more as an observation, not an allegation. The observation is, you know, the county has changed profoundly in the last 50 years. And I think it goes without saying that a seven member board with smaller jurisdictions is likely to be more representative.

Moreover, I think it gives the assurance to voters that they are properly and adequately represented. The size of a trustee district right now is larger than the size of your Assembly District, and that to my.

Smaller than yours.

Smaller. We can have that conversation anytime. Mine are arguably too big.

And, you know, and we look at things sort of from a 30,000 foot level here. Education is a local matter, and I think everybody is better served. And I think my witness from the PTA can speak to this as well as anybody.

Absolutely. So right now, I'm a parent in Capistrano School District, and we have seven trustees. I believe because we have seven, we have a better connection with them. I can contact and I feel more connected to them, and we can discuss different things. As Senator said, we have some 50 years of change in Orange County.

It's not the same. So by expanding the board, each trustee is going to have a smaller area, a small number of people that they can connect with and actually hear them. I would like to see the school of defense. I would like to see them more in the public, and that, I think, would open up the doors.

So if I hear you correctly, the concern is really just the size of each district and how many people they represent. You're not saying that the elections were unfair or that, or that the districts don't appropriately represent their communities. I mean, the district lines were just redrawn in 2022. You're aware of that, right?

Yes, but you don't. So there's two things, right, when talking about the fairness is to have the elections in the general election where more people. That's what I'm referring to. If you have in the general election, then more people actually vote, so it becomes more fair and more people who don't really participate. Right.

We agree on that. Right. I'm talking about five versus seven.

Yes, I think seven, it's a lot.

Better just because you have a different right now, five is inadequate for the community of Orange County. Are there any concerns with the election?

Let me point. I think the argument here is seven's better. Right. Not that there's anything inherently discriminatory or disadvantaging about five. Seven is better when you consider the increase in population over 50 years and the change in demography.

And so with seven, you're much more likely to get a better cross section of the county representing those parents, especially parents, but all voters at the county level.

Okay, so if the whole basis of this bill is that seven is better, why not do it statewide for all large counties? So, Senator, I've drafted an amendment, I've shared it with your office. We take this policy and we apply it to any county with 1 million residents or more.

And if it's good for Orange County, why isn't it good for San Diego? I don't understand. If there's no, if you're not articulating any discrete issues with the representation in the Orange County Board of Education, and if this is purely just a good policy, which I do take you at your word, then let's do it statewide. Would you accept these amendments?

I think I'd be glad to have the conversation, but I think in that event, I would defer to my colleagues from San Diego and my colleagues from Los Angeles. I don't have the same level of insight about the situation in either of those jurisdictions. So I think it would be presumptuous of me to propose this statewide.

And I think Assemblymember Bennett made a good point. You know, this is specific to a district. It solves a particular problem, which is to say, I think it improves the governance at the county level, and that's the basis for it.

This Legislature by the way, has a long history of measures that actually address county level changes like this. Right. And including one that created a nonpartisan redistrict commission in San Diego by a very impressive member. I think it was Assemblymember.

And as recently as 2022, Assemblymember Salas had another bill that governed how to redistrict in Kern County. You know, if you think about sort of levels of government at the state level, I think it's wholly appropriate and not inconsistent with our role and our practice to intervene and make new policies or changes at the county level.

This is what we're endeavoring to do here.

Are there any other comments?

Yeah, but.

Madam Chair, I'm not done. I still have one more question that will wrap up.

Okay.

So we're not the Legislature of Orange County. We're the Legislature of the State of California. So we do make statewide policy all the time. If you're saying that there's no specific problem with Orange County, this is just a better policy. I still struggle to understand why.

I'm actually not saying that. I'm saying I don't agree with your characterization of the problem.

Tell me what the problem is.

The problem is we have a county that has grown substantially over 50 years, and we have a system of elections that. That, first of all, it doesn't comport with other practices across the state, but I think overall, does not ensure the proper levels of participation. And through that, you know, the ideal levels of representation.

So that is exactly what we're trying to address here.

Okay, I'll just close with. Did you want the witness want to respond? Yes, please. Sure.

To the general point, I agree with my colleagues just on the representation issue. More representative representation is better. It creates a closer relationship between the residents and their representatives, and I haven't heard strong arguments against that.

But do you support this as a statewide policy?

Regarding the policy issue you're raising, I mean, I defer to Assemblymember Bennett's point, which I thought was a good one. You know, you don't reject a good idea in front of you just because it doesn't apply as broadly as possible.

I'm not rejecting a good idea, sir. I'm asking if, do you support applying this statewide? If more representation is better, why not do this in all big counties? Do you support that? Or is this purely political? Is this because the Orange County.

And the reality is, out of the 10 counties that are in this category, half of them do have seven members. So I think your question's been answered. We have a motion.

I'm not done, Madam Chair. You said that you prefer that we have statewide policies. I'd like to.

Did you have another question?

No. I have a substitute question.

Okay, go ahead and make it.

Yes, Madam Chair. I will move to substitute the motion with a do pass, as amended motion with the following Amendments. Number one, require a County Board of Education in a county with a population of 1 million or more to consist of seven members.

And number two, require an election for a County Board of Education in a county with a population of 1 million or more to be consolidated with the statewide general election in November of each even numbered year.

Okay, we have a substitute motion. Do we have a second? We have a motion in a second. Any comments or questions from Members? Hearing none. The secretary will call a vote on the substitute motion.

[Roll Call]

That substitute motion fails one to six, I guess read it that way and with that we will see if there's any other comments or questions about the bill. We have a motion and a second to pass the bill and rerefer it to the Education Committee. Would you like to close?

Yes, I would. And let me say to Assemblymember Salas, happy to continue that conversation and look forward to you bringing legislation next year to that effect.

This bill is about good governance is at the county level, particularly with respect to ensuring access and participation in any election that has such a profound impact on residents and voters and children, specifically in education at the county level. So as you consider your vote, I'd ask you to keep mind these two things.

First, as I mentioned, this is not unusual. This Legislature has inserted itself in many such issues to the good in many different counties and to the opposition's complaints. As my witness pointed out, there's absolutely no downside to an election that includes more, not fewer, voters. And to the broader, to the assertion that this will be expensive.

We are open to Amendments that would take into account the best way to make this change. There are a couple of scenarios, one of which is to add two at large members until such time as the next decennial redistricting. I think that would not only create an efficiency, but save money.

Happy to have that conversation asking for your aye vote today.

All right, and certainly thank you to the author for bringing this bill forward. While this bill will only impact the Orange County Board of Education elections, this change will help ensure these elections are held at statewide general elections where voter turnout is higher and more representation of the jurisdiction's electorate.

So I am recommending as support, the secretary will call the roll.

On SB 907, the motion is do pass and be re referred to the Committee on Education. [Roll Call]

That bill is out six to two.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Members.

Okay, I'm now going to lift the call on item four, SB 977 by Senator Laird. The current vote is three to two. The chair voting. I said the secretary will please call the opposite Members.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out six to two. We'll now go ahead and have the secretary call the roll for Members to add on to the bills on the consent calendar.

[Roll Call]

That is it. I will go ahead and adjourn the meeting. Thank you so much.