Assembly Standing Committee on Elections

Good morning. I'd like to call the June 26, 2024 hearing of the Assembly Elections Committee to order. We will begin as a Subcommitee, and if Members of the elections Committee are monitoring this hearing, please come to room 444 of the state capitol so that we can establish a quorum.

I'd like to welcome everyone who's 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 15 bills on its agenda. There is one Bill 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, Association they represent, if any, and their position on the Bill.

Additional comments will be ruled out of order. We have a large number of bills on the agenda today, so 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 our 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 at this point, since we don't have a quorum, we will take up the consent calendar later in the hearing. We have a special order of business to start. Today's Committee hearing.

SB 1111 by Senator Min is double referred to the Assembly Local Government Committee and is scheduled to be heard in that committee later this morning if it is approved here. In order to facilitate that committee's consideration of this bill, we will hear that item first.

And although that is being heard today as proposed to be amended, we will not be taking amendments in committee today. Instead, the author will be committing to taking those amendments in the Local Government Committee if it passes out of our committee this morning. Senator Min, thank you for joining us and you may present your bill.

Good morning, Madam Chair and committee member. Before I start, I just want to note that I will be committing to accepting the proposed amendments, and I want to thank the committee staff for their assistance and your flexibility on hearing this bill as it's double referred. SB 1111 would require government officials to abstain from voting on a contract made by that official's governmental entity when they have a child who has some kind of financial interest or who may otherwise benefit from the outcome of that public contract decision under the jurisdiction of that official.

Of course, we know that government officials have the responsibility of potentially handling and dispersing many millions of dollars in taxpayer dollars and approving contracts on their behalf. As such, we must hold public officials to the highest ethical standards in order to avoid any conflicts of interest or perceptions of impropriety when conducting the people's business.

In late 2023, in Orange County, which I represent, news surfaced that one supervisor had awarded COVID-19 relief funding to an organization led by his daughter without disclosing that relationship to the public and voting on it. The organization also failed to complete required audits. Despite these concerns, the organization continued to receive public funds.

While existing law does not explicitly forbid state and local officials from awarding public contracts to their adult children, I believe that public officials should not be using their positions to enrich themselves or their immediate families, either directly or indirectly. SB 1111 would clearly prohibit public officials by extending the remote interest category to adult children and providing penalties should a public official violate that law. I think this is a common-sense bill. I have no witnesses and look forward to your questions, if any.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone in the room who wants to register their position on this bill in support? See none. Any witnesses who'd like to register their. Any primary witnesses in opposition, please come forward. Anyone just want to come to the mic and state your name and position? Seeing none. Are there any questions or comments from committee members? Assemblymember Berman. I mean, sorry, Bennett.

That's all right, Member Davis. Should we hold off making motions until we have a quorum?

Exactly, yes. I'm getting excited.

When the time comes, I will make the motion for this common-sense bill.

Okay, thank you.

Any other comments or questions from committee members? Okay, Senator, you may close if you'd like.

I respectfully ask your aye vote. Thank you.

Very good. Thank you so much. We'll keep you posted. Okay, Senator Glazer, you are up. You are presenting SB 1181.

Chair, I have a witness who hasn't arrived yet on that bill. Would it be possible to take up 1404 first while we wait for that witness to arrive?

Yes. Item 11. Go right ahead.

Okay. I want to thank you, Chair, and for hearing the Bill, and thank you for your Committee staff for doing good work on the analysis. The Bill will transfer the duties of performing lobbying audits from the Franchise Tax Board to the Fair Political Praxis Commission. It would establish a registration fee for lobbying firms and lobbyist employers up to dollar 500 to ensure we cover the cost of appropriate auditing system.

And with amendments that your Committee has taken, it would require the FPPC to randomly select for audit a minimum of 60 lobbying firms or lobbyist employers every two year cycle. 25 of those firms or employers would have to be in the top 100 in reported payments. And I'd like to note that we've amended the Bill reinstating the auditing of placement agents. Among the 60 audits, the FPPC would audit 10 lobbying firms or employers who employ only placement agents.

I've also accepted the Committee amendments to give this Bill a 2033 sunset, and I accept the technical amendments that your staff has recommended. Just a point of background for folks who are just looking at this issue. Under the Political Reform Act of 1974, the Franchise Tax Board is currently required to randomly audit 25% of lobbyists and lobbyists employers every two years.

Unfortunately, and we had a special hearing in the Senate on this issue, the Franchise Tax Board has essentially failed to comply with the law as shown during our oversight hearing in March of 2023 of the Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee, which I chaired at that time. And let me just give you some very short factoids.

From 2017 and 18, where they're supposed to do 25%, zero audits were conducted. For the 2019 to 20 session, only four lobbying firms were audited and only four lobbying firms were audited in 21/22. So in that four year period, nearly 1000 firms and employers should have been audited, but only eight were done. Say it again.

The law says that they should have done 1000 audits and they did eight in four years. That's failure. It's pretty clear. So we all know that auditing is an important public accountability tool. The failure to hold lobbying firms accountable has major implications for how we do our work as legislators. My Bill seeks to improve the system of honest reporting on money spent to influence legislators and legislation.

And I wanted to say that I know that the majority of lobbyists and lobbying firms practice their work legally, ethically, and within the spirit of the law. But it is important that we do the public's business to ensure that the law is followed and that confidence remains in the work that we do. Here with me to testify and support are the Fair Political Practices Commission, Senior Legislative Counsel, Lindsey Nakano, and Dora Rose, the Deputy Director for the League of Women Voters. With that, I respectfully ask for your support today.

Okay. Before we proceed with your witnesses, if we can establish a quorum. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call].

Here we have a quorum. Okay, witnesses, you may begin.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair, Members. My name is Lindsey Nakano, Senior Legislative Counsel with the Fair Political Practices Commission. Audits are important tools for motivating diligent and complete reporting, and audits of lobbying entities are the main and most consistent vehicles for discovering violations under the Political Reform Act.

Violations found through audits can be serious, and past audits have had findings including failure to file lobbying reports, omitting expenses or payments on reports, and impermissibly giving gifts or contributions to officials or candidates. SB 1404 would transfer the lobbying audit workload to the FPPC, which would be funded through a new fee dedicated to this program. The Bill will undoubtedly improve transparency and accountability by ensuring that a minimum number of audits of lobbying entities are completed each two year audit period. Thank you to Senator Glazer for your commitment and leadership on this Bill, and thank you to the Committee for your consideration.

Good morning, Chair, Members. I'm Dora Rose, Deputy Director with the League of Women Voters of California here in support of SB 1404. You know, lobbyist audits are crucial to ensure transparency into who's giving gifts or contributions to officials and candidates, to promote accurate and timely reporting, and to detect and address corrupt practices and violations. Other violations.

As Senator Blakespear noted when she spoke about the Bill and Committee, audits drive the behavior that we want to see, right. Unfortunately, as Senator Glazer noted, the March 2023 oversight hearing revealed that the Franchise Tax Board has fallen woefully, woefully behind in conducting lobbyist audits. The FPPC asserts that it has the requisite expertise in, given appropriate resources, is well positioned to separate its audit function from its enforcement function and take on these audits.

And we believe that to be true. The league's experience is that the FPPC has the capability, the know how and the organizational capacity to manage an audit division. And that it makes sense to make the change in light of the FTB's history of failure to enforce the law. The Bill also contains a funding mechanism.

To offset costs and address parts of the problem that led to the enforcement issues at the FTB. And the recent amendments create a logical, reasonable set of audits that would have to be performed in the context of what resources are available to the FPPC. So the League of Women Voters of California urges an aye vote in order to enforce California's lobbying laws and ensure appropriate public accountability. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Are there any additional witnesses who'd like to register support for this Bill? If so, please come to the mic and state your name, organization, and position.

Good morning. Jonathan Stein, California Common Cause, in support. Thank you.

We'll now move on to the primary witnesses in opposition. As a reminder, each primary witnesses has a maximum of two minutes. Any primary witnesses in opposition please come forward. You can sit here at the table. And again, you have two minutes. Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Ashlee Titus on behalf of the Institute of Governmental Advocates. IGA opposes SB 1404 for three primary reasons. First, IGA believes in the original structure set up by the Political Reform Act, dividing the audit function from the enforcement function. Separation of these powers was wise in 1974, and it's wise now.

An audit reviews a filers backup records and filed reports for substantial compliance or material errors, whereas enforcement is typically more of a strict liability type process. Unifying these functions in the FPPC could upend the usual standard of review in an audit, and it seems inevitable that over time, audits and enforcement would ultimately merge.

Second, the Franchise Tax Board is really good at performing audits. The process is thorough, predictable and professional. The problem the Bill is seeking to solve isn't the quality of the audits by the Franchise Tax Board, it's the quantity. The solution to this problem is reducing the number of filers that must be audited each cycle and to focus on the priority filing so audits can realistically be conducted. Third, IGA objects to imposing the financial burden on lobbyists for this program.

They already pay a fee that's supposed to cover the costs of administering these programs, and the Bill would provide for a tenfold increase in the registration fee. This is an unwarranted and undue burden on the exercise of the right to petition one's government. Thank you for your consideration of IGA's input on the Bill. We urge you to vote no and instead focus on increasing the funding and the staffing of the audit department at the Franchise Tax Board and reworking the prioritization of mandatory and random audits to reduce the quantity to a manageable level. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Are there other people in the room who'd like to register their opposition? Please come to the mic. State your name, organization and position, please.

Yeah. Good morning. Madam Chair Member Silvio Ferrari on behalf of the California Building Industry Association, in opposition.

Good morning. Katherine Brandenburg with the Brandenburg Group. I'm the President of IGA, but I'm also here speaking on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce in opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Cassie Mancini, on behalf of the California School Employees Association in respectful opposition.

Well, now I'll bring it back to Committee. If you have any questions or comments. Assemblymember Bennett.

First, I have a question. Just want to clarify, but my understanding is that there is a random selection of audits of candidates by the FPPC, is that correct?

Yes. Candidates are selected randomly for audit under the act.

But the audit is done by the Franchise Tax Board, right? Not by the FPPC, is that correct?

There is a proportion that's done by the Commission for certain offices, and the remaining, the majority of them are done by FTB.

The majority are done by the.

Are done by the Franchise Tax Board.

Okay. So the Franchise Tax Board does it for the candidates, but sometimes does it for the candidates also. Is that what I'm hearing you say?

The Franchise Tax Board does the majority of candidate audits and the Fair Political Practices Commission does a small portion of them.

Great. Thank you. I applaud the Senator for bringing the Bill forward. I think that the record is so glaringly, makes it so glaringly obvious that a change is needed. The question is, what is the change that is needed? I think that the FPPC is going to have the focus on the exact things that we are most focused on, and the Franchise Tax Board just simply doesn't have that same. They have a commitment to good audits, but in terms of looking for the things that we're looking for in terms of moving forward. So with that, I will make the motion to support the Bill and congratulate the author for bringing this forward. Thank you.

Any other questions or comments? Assemblymember Essayli.

Is there anyone here from the Franchise Tax Board? Doesn't appear so. Miss Titus, do you know why? Your argument makes logical sense, but what is the franchise, do you know the Franchise Tax Board's position on this or why their audits are so under par?

I wouldn't say they're under par in terms of their quality, just the quantity. I think there's a couple of reasons for that. We've heard from them, so I don't want to speak for them, but I have heard that they have staffing problems in that Department. It's sort of a, there's nowhere to go as an Auditor. There's nowhere to advance. And.

Could you speak into the mic.

Would have a different experience with that problem. And the other issue is the quantity of filers keeps going up and keeps going up and keeps going up. And they are required to do mandatory audits that they're not even completing because the volume is so significant.

And so I think the mandatory audits need to be reassessed. For example, statewide candidates and statewide ballot measures are supposed to be mandatory audits. And in 2020, Doug Ose ran for Governor for about a week, self funded his Committee, and then decided not to run and closed it.

He was audited, but they did not audit the ballot measures, which spent hundreds of millions of dollars that were on the ballot in November of that year. And so it seems to be a staffing problem and a quantity problem, and I'm just not sure why the FPPC's experience would be any different.

So, Senator, have you spoken to the Franchise Tax Board about this issue?

I have. I had a full hearing on the subject. So we heard from everybody, including the Franchise Tax Board, and asked them to explain why they failed to do the audits. Yes, I have.

What was their response?

It's a low priority of their office. They don't get the funding to, in their view, make it a higher priority.

But I notice in your Bill you're going to give substantial funding to the FPPC. Why don't we try giving it to the Franchise Tax Board to see if that alleviates the need? I just. I'm a little hesitant. Anytime we say the solution to a government problem is to create more government and open a new office and a new agency, new people, I get a little. I get a little heartache over that.

And look, the situation is a failure today. They don't seem to be motivated to make it important to them. I've seen the work of the Fair Political Practice Commission, as you have over the years. I read every one of their meeting reports and the audits that they do and compliance that they do. And it seems to me that we have an agency of great integrity and motivation to do the right thing.

So for me, I don't disagree with you about adding into government. A $500 fee is a pittance to these lobbying employers and firms. Sir, if you want to go and look at the amount of money that they bring in every year. I think that you would agree. I also would note that these fees are established in any other states to cover the costs. It's not meant to enrich the state. It's simply at a time of budgetary crisis, which, you know, we're in. This simply makes the Bill revenue neutral. If you want to kill this Bill, get rid of the fee, because it just won't happen.

No. And I guess my point is, why don't we try giving the fee to the current auditing arm to see if that alleviates things. But it sounds like you've maybe considered that and you don't trust them or something.

I think that's correct, sir.

Okay. Thank you.

Any other comments or questions from Committee Members? Yes. Assemblymember Weber.

Good morning. Thank you for bringing this Bill forward so we could have, you know, conversation on this. You know, I agree somewhat with Assemblymember Essayli in that I question why the decision is to move it from one entity to another. That could potentially set up, in my opinion, bad precedent. We make laws for a reason.

We tell you to do something for a reason, and if we find that you're not doing it, and then we say, well, since you're not doing it, we're going to take that responsibility and put it somewhere else, then why would any other department or any other division decide to follow law? I mean, we already have that as an issue when we have these hearings and these individuals are not following the things that we have instructed them to do.

And so if there was a hearing and it was discovered that they didn't have enough staff or the fees weren't enough to hire, then why not take that new $500 fee, keep it where it is, and give them the tools that I guess they don't have in order to complete the number of audits versus taking it away from them and saying, okay, you put it down, as you say, it's a low priority. So we'll just put it over here, which would kind of be like a reward. So I guess I'm just, I'm not understanding why we would do that in this situation.

Fair enough. Through the Chair. I mean, for me, it's about rewarding bad behavior, because in this case, it's not one year of a problem or two years of a problem. We have a decade or more of a problem, where they've never owned up to it. They've never come to the Legislature and said, hey, you need to supplement our budget because we're not able to do the work that you require of us. They've done nothing for decades in this space. So for me, why would you reward bad behavior when they have no motivation to follow the law?

And yet we have an agency that is very motivated and has been doing good work in this space. So for me, I don't see a reason to reward bad behavior when they've shown no motivation to really get in front of what we think is an important issue. Thousands of lobbyists and lobbyist employers doing their work here, spending millions of dollars to influence our work.

The public expects that there's some accountability, that it's being done honestly. And we've, and we've - we've broken, it's broken down. They've failed, and we have failed to hold them accountable for it. And so at some point, and that's why the Bill is here, you know, we got to say we got it. We got, we got to have. Something has to happen differently.

Right. And I guess my point is that there are many boards that people feel are not doing what they're supposed to do. You know, I will use the medical board, for example. People complain all the time that the complaints that are filed against physicians are either not looked into or they take long, too long to figure out.

And yet we're not stating that we're going to take all of the physicians and move them over to occupational therapy board. Because the medical board isn't doing what they're supposed to do. And so I just am having a hard time grappling with. There's an issue, so we're gonna take it away instead of giving you the tools to see if you can fix it.

Auditing everyone is extremely important, and we need to have this done. I have no problem with the increase in the fee. I do have concerns with. We see that you have an issue here. Instead of us giving you the tools, we're just going to take that off of your plate and put it somewhere else. So. But I definitely appreciate you bringing this issue before us today. Thank you, Senator.

If the Chair would give me an opportunity. You mentioned the medical board, and it's a great example to take a look at, because one of the questions is, where does the Legislature have power? And the medical board is one of the, I think, four or five places in state government where the Legislature actually has power because it's sunsetted, and every five years we have to extend the power of that board or it goes away.

So we actually have the power to do something where the Governor can't say no. And we have that power. And it's been done very rarely, but it actually, you know, it's something that is actually in your control. In this case, it's an administrative agency, not in our control whatsoever. It works for the Governor, and so it's very hard to have influence in these administrative spaces.

With the example of the FPPC, they have some autonomy to do the right thing. Even if the Governor doesn't agree with it, he gets one appointment on that entity. So that autonomy, from a legislative point of view of exercising our power to have the law be enforced, it's a much more reliable agency for us to have things be done versus an administrative agency happens to be run by the Governor of our party that can make choices as they see fit. And we have very little, we have some oversight, but our ability to really get in there and change it is difficult.

Assemblymember, Bennett.

I'd like to follow up on this argument, and I appreciate the comments and thoughts of my colleagues up here. I would offer my response to that, and that is that if you've ever been at the FPPC, the culture at the FPPC is clearly one of we want to hold people accountable and we want to hold them accountable to follow the campaign finance laws that are out there. The Franchise Tax Board obviously doesn't have that same.

I just can't imagine the FPPC sitting there year after year for a 10 year period of time and not being able to do the audits and not ever coming to us and saying we've got a problem. But I certainly have not heard in the four years I've been here ever, anybody saying the Franchise Tax Board is coming to us saying we don't have enough money to be able to do these audits. It's just been off the radar screen. So one, I think, significant reason to make this change is the culture of the institutions.

And I'm stretching to try to come up with this example. But imagine at the medical board, if we had a requirement that physicians could not have an association with drug companies that were - there was a conflict of interest somehow, and we had a board that was out there specifically trying to check just that kind of thing versus we had the Franchise Tax Board trying to check that.

I think if we had a board that was specifically focused on the honest financial arrangements of the medical board, whereas the medical board may be looking at everything, you know, how competent as a physician, et cetera, we had somebody else. That's the example I would show here is that this is, the audit that we're trying to do, is primarily an audit to see if they're following the campaign finance laws that we have here in California. The Franchise Tax Board is doing an audit. Their culture is much broader. And it's just.

Are you following the debit and credit rules properly? Are you, you know, properly putting everything? But they don't come with a culture of looking for the very thing that we want them to be audited for. So that's why I think it's a cultural thing as much as anything that makes me think this is the appropriate thing to do in this situation.

The final thing I would offer is if we don't support this Bill and if this Bill doesn't go forward, we are going to be living with the status quo for a significant period of time because we are not going to fix, we're not going to come up with the funding for the Franchise Tax Board, and we're not going to change the culture of the Franchise Tax Board in any near period of time.

So the people speaking in opposition to this Bill are saying the status quo is okay. And I don't think that that's something that we can say. So what's the only way to move promptly to solve a problem is to take this approach. The other would be a many years, if ever, change in the culture at the FTB, at the Franchise Tax Board, assuming that we could get the funding and focus on that change. Thank you very much.

Any other comments or questions? Doctor Weber.

Yeah, it would be nice if someone from the Franchise Tax Board was here. That would make things a lot easier for me to support this Bill, to hear from them what their challenges are and whether or not they think this is a good move. And I don't understand why they're not here or they. That there's not some kind of letter in this system or. I don't understand. So.

I think that also speaks to something about their cultural interest in doing this. We could give them the funding - if they don't even care enough to be here to defend themselves in this situation.

Any other comments or questions from Members? Seeing none. Senator, you may close.

I just wanted to thank you for hearing the Bill. I laughed with my staff when I said I was thinking about running this Bill. It's my 10th year in the Senate. And they said, are you crazy? You're going to make all your friends in the lobbying corps mad at you. What a great Bill to run in your final year. Right? Because they do their work.

They're good people. You know, nobody likes to be audited, but I thought it was the right thing to do. And so that's why the Bill's before you. I would note on the fee side, Texas charges $1,000. Okay. Kansas, a lot smaller, $450. So this is not out of the realm for a reasonable fee, modest fee, just to make sure that the auditing work gets done. And with that, respectfully ask for your support today.

Do we have a motion on SB 1404? We had a motion from Bennett. Do we have a second? I'll go ahead and second the Bill. And you know, certainly audits are an important tool for ensuring compliance with the law and the low level of lobbying audits completed by the Franchise Tax Board in recent years is concerning. Because the Fair Political Practices Commission has primary responsibility for administration of the Political Reform Act.

Shifting lobbying audits to them may help ensure that the completion of those audits is prioritized. And for those reasons, I'm recommending support. It's a due passed as amended, and rereferred to the Appropriations Committee. And you are taking the amendments? Okay. And then, Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call].

We're going to go ahead and put that on call for the absent members.

Thank you all.

Before we go on to your next bill, we're wanting to move Senator Min's bill, Senate Bill 1111, because it needs to go to another committee today, and so do we? We had a motion? We had a motion by Assembly Member Bennett, second by Assembly Member Lackey. Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on Local Government. [Roll call] That bill is out.

That bill is out. Thank you very much. You now may proceed. Are you ready for your next bill? Your witness is here? Okay, you may proceed.

Members, this is SB 1181. We call it the pay-to-play cleanup Bill. First, I want to start by accepting the Committee amendments. Thank you to the Committee staff for working with us on this issue. In 2022, the Legislature passed one of the most significant reforms in the last 50 years. It was SB 1439.

Now, California law extended the Levine Act to prohibit parties seeking contracts, permits, and licensings with local governments for making political contributions over $250 to elected officials who can vote on those same contracts. While SB 1439 sought to protect the integrity of decisions made by local officials, there have been some unintended consequences, unintended obstacles to ensuring compliance.

The Bill that you have before you is a collaboration with the Fair Political Practices Commission and Common Cause and the Clean Money Campaign to take their regulations they have promulgated on definitions and exemptions and apply that to what's in this Bill.

The Bill also exempts elected city attorneys and county councils from the Bill and requires the agenda for a proceeding to include the details of applicants who make any contribution of more than $250 to a governing board member. Requiring such notice would further facilitate proper conformity with our conflict of interest law.

In addition, I want to make clear to the Committee and the Chair that I am considering increasing the contribution limit over $250, and I remain engaged with stakeholders to find the appropriate balance between contributions and the appearance of conflict of interest.

With me today, I have Jonathan Mehta Stein, Executive Director of Common Cause, and Trent Lange, President and Executive Director of the California Clean Money Campaign. With that appropriate time, respectfully ask for your support.

Thank you. You each have two minutes.

Good morning, Chair and Members. I'm Jonathan Mehta Stein, the Executive Director at California Common Cause, speaking today in support of SB 1181, which addresses concerns raised by local governments with the implementation of local campaign finance restrictions without undermining the overall goal of addressing corruption and the appearance of corruption in our critically important local governments.

In 2022, as the Senator mentioned, the Legislature passed SB 1439 with unanimous bipartisan support. That Bill ended a loophole in the Political Reform Act's pay-to-play protections that exempted local elected officials.

However, since 2022, local agencies have experienced challenges around implementing the requirements of SB 1439, and so, in collaboration with city attorneys and county councils, SB 1181 has been carefully crafted to address those challenges. It is filled with reasonable, good faith, common sense fixes that will make compliance with SB 1439 easier.

Among other things, SB 1181 exempts from SB 1439's restrictions several types of contracts that would not ordinarily lead to the appearance of corruption.

It exempts local elected officials if they do not have a role in making decisions or recommendations on a specific piece of business before their jurisdiction, and it exempts city attorneys and county counsels when they have a role in the proceeding but do not determine the final outcome.

SB 1181 will substantially ease the burden on local elected officials and stakeholders while still ensuring that current law continues to speak to the concerns of California voters by protecting against corruption and the appearance of corruption.

I urge you to look at the City of Oakland, my town, where pay-to-play corruption now threatens the confidence in our city government and is sowing a deep disillusionment among my neighbors. SB 1181 would address valid stakeholder concerns without letting big money special interests curry influence with our local officials.

California Common Cause asks for your aye vote. Thank you.

You may proceed. Next witness.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and Members. I'm Trent Lange, Executive Director of the California Clean Money Campaign. We're proud to have supported SB 1439 in 2022 and now are proud to support SB 1181 to improve it and make it more workable. We're grateful to Senator Glazer for his leadership on both bills.

SB 1181 combines reforms requested by the sponsors of another Bill in this Committee and the Civil Prosecutors Commission Coalition to ease compliance burdens on officials and stakeholders, but without weakening California's longstanding Levine Act conflict of interest provisions.

It does this by having it only apply to local elected officials that have key decision-making capacity and by removing many types of contracts that are not problematic, including contracts valued under $50,000 and periodic reviews of both development agreements and competitively bid contracts, unless there is a material modification or amendment proposed in the regulation.

SB 1181 makes it easier for officials to comply with this disclosure and recusal requirements by allowing them to return any excess contributions within 30 days after they make a decision so they're not caught off guard by somebody that is testifying before them.

While we would be open to modestly increasing the Levine act contribution limits, we believe that all reforms in SB 1181 make any large increase unnecessary, especially for smaller cities, because it substantially narrows its focus and makes it easier for officials to comply.

We therefore respectfully request your aye vote to streamline California's longstanding conflict of interest provisions without weakening them. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Are there any other witnesses in the room who want to register their support for the Bill? Please come to the mic and state your name, any organization you represent, and your position.

Jeff Tardegia, advocate Kara, Dogfight, CalSAG, in support of this measure.

Thank you. Anyone else in the room want to register your support? Seeing none. We'll now move on to any primary witnesses in opposition. If there's any primary witnesses in opposition, please step up to the table, and you have two minutes to make your comments.

Pardon me. Good morning, Madam Chair. Dylan Elliott, on behalf of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors here in respectful opposition for the reasons outlined in the analysis, namely the increased staff time that this Bill could impact. We appreciate the author's willingness to continue discussions, but we continue to remain opposed. Thank you.

Anyone in the room who'd like to step up to the mic to register your opposition?Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Are there any questions or comments from Committee Members? Assemblymembers Essayli.

Okay. I wasn't here when this passed, but my understanding is the Levine Act was passed to counter a growing perception of corruption dealing with campaign contributions and decisions being made at the local level.

Well, putting aside my question of why these rules shouldn't apply to us, why we're holding locals to a higher standard than we hold legislators put that aside. Second, this Bill appears to then water down a lot of the restrictions. So what I heard is that it doesn't apply to competitive bids.

So my understanding is that if someone's made substantial contributions and there's bids that have all been qualified, then they could choose one of their donors as the recipient under this new modification. Is that my understanding?

No. A competitive bid process, we can have expertise, others who have expertise. It's more of an administrative selection based on the criteria that's been set. It's almost, in many cases, not in every case, an automatic selection based on the criteria that's been.

So there's no discretion by the board?

It's not that it comes back. The board usually might affirm a final decision, but it's, you know, I've spent 10 years in local government, at least within my city. That's the, that's the general practice on competitively bid contracts. Yeah.

What about, I mean, this idea that city attorneys are not involved in the decision. I mean, I, city attorneys have a lot of influence over recommendations to council Members. Why should we exempt them? I mean, they're political creatures.

They're elected, they're taking donations, and they provide legal advice that are relied on and are used, sometimes coercively, with local elected officials who are not lawyers. Why should they be exempt from this?

Well, it's my conclusion that they're not the final decision-makers in a local governmental body. It's the Council Member, the supervisor, a mayor, and that they are not critical to maintaining the level of integrity that this Bill tries to elevate.

And then sort of, my last question is, as far as contributions, does it apply to any contributor, regardless of their status? So this applies to, like, labor unions as well as corporations.

If they're a participant in the financial interest in the measure, that's before the elected leaders. There are some exceptions to that which are part of the law today. That I don't change, does not propose to be changed in the Bill, but if they are parties to decision.

And keep in mind, because I know that there's some concern that somehow this has really created a big problem across the state, but this is a very narrow band of individuals that this Bill is applicable to. And you asked the question, I guess, rhetorically at the start, why doesn't this apply to us as lawmakers here in Sacramento?

I'm sure that you will note that of the decisions that we make, 99% of them or greater have nothing to do with a very narrow financial interest that has their name on that Bill.

At the local level, we're talking about a developer who's proposing a development that, that's an example of a very direct connection between the donor and the decision maker. When we make decisions here in the Legislature. And listen, you can carry a Bill to try to apply it to us here in Sacramento.

Will you hear it?

Yeah, of course. I'm happy to hear it in my private life next year. But the decisions that we make here are broad in their scope. They affect industry. Yes, but not a particular entity like someone who's proposing to develop piece of land in your city.

Yeah, well, I respectfully disagree. When SCIU lobbies for minimum wage increases, which are then going to go back to their membership to fund their political activities and salaries of their board members, it's a direct financial benefit to them. Same thing with teachers' unions, same things with all kinds of industries.

As you know, my office, your office, it's filled with people who want more money from us that are going to financially benefit them. I think it's hypocritical for us to apply a higher standard to local officials than to our own selves. But maybe I will introduce it next year. But thank you for answering my questions, Senator.

Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments from Committee Members?

We have a motion. Do we have a second? I will second the Bill, Senator. See no further questions. You may close.

Thank you. And thank you again to your staff Chair and yourself for the discussions on this. I know there's still work to be done. I know you'll be hearing another Bill in a few minutes in the same space. I think we all want the same thing. We want integrity and governmental decision-making.

We want public to have confidence in the work that we do at our level, at the local level. That's the goal that we're trying to, we are accomplishing with the original Bill and also with the improvements in this Bill today. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. And I want to thank the author for your efforts to address implementation challenges that have come up since the passage of your SB 1439. And this Bill contains a number of important changes to ease compliance burdens. I also think that we can go further than this Bill does to ease those burdens without undermining the law.

So I urge the author to continue to work with the stakeholders and with legislators who are authoring bills on the same issue. My hope is that those discussions will yield a compromise that all sides can agree to. So to allow those discussions to continue, I'm recommending support with the technical amendments outlined in the analysis.

So we're losing Members like crazy, but let's go ahead and call the roll just for the heck of it.

On SB 1181, the motion is do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations.[Roll Call]

We're going to go ahead and put that bill on call, and we will bring up our next author. Senator Dodd, come on up. You've got SB 904. Is that the one you're going to start with?

Yes, it is, Madam Chair.

Okay, you may begin when ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair and member. Today I'm presenting SB 904, a measure that updates the enabling legislation of the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit district, or SMART train it is known. It will remove obsolete references, raise bidding amount thresholds, and authorize smart special taxes to be imposed by a voter initiative. The SMART train is an incredible example of a multimodal and multi-jurisdictional project that advances many of our state's top goals, increased rail and bicycle use, transit-oriented development, and collaboration by local governments at a regional scale.

Since coming into service just six years ago, SMART has overcome wildfires, floods, and a global pandemic that devastated all public transit. Despite those obstacles, they keep chugging along, and at the end of 2023, became the first transient. Excuse me, transit system in the Bay Area to recover their pre-pandemic ridership numbers. Pretty good.

This bill also empowers the voters of the special district for the first time to pursue their own ballot measures through a voter initiative. A voter-approved, qualified initiative process has the potential to provide an opportunity to enhance community engagement and inform and affirm the development of an expenditure plan providing greater accountability and direction for how best to dedicate future resources to operate the smart system. The witness testifying in support of the bill today is Duncan McFetridge, representing SMART.

Madam Chair and member, Duncan McFetridge, on behalf of SMART in strong support. Senator Dodd said everything that I was going to say, so I'll just ask for your support and happy to answer any questions.

Thank you so much. Are there any other witnesses in the room who'd like to register their support for the bill? If so, come on up to the mic and state your name, organization, and your position, please.

Jeff Tartageia, transit advocate, Sac true.

Madam Chair. Matt Broad here on behalf of the Teamsters. We represent the workers at SMART and strong support. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members. Chris Lee here on behalf of the Sonoma County Transportation Authority, Regional Climate Protection Authority in support.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in the room who are in opposition to the bill? Any primary witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Anyone just want to come up to the mic and register opposition? Seeing none. I'll bring it back to the Committee for questions. Thank you. Assembly Member Essayli.

Just a quick comment, I have no issues with the train, whether it's smart or dumb. My issue is the way the money is being raised. And so, this is exploiting a loophole that the Supreme Court created around Prop. 13 to allow taxes to be raised by a simple majority, then a two-thirds.

I believe when the voters say something, they mean it. Voters approved Prop. 13. They wanted the government to be subject to a two-thirds approval to raise taxes. And by exploiting a loophole, I think goes against the intent of the voters. So, unfortunately, for that reason, I'll be opposing it. But, Senator, I hope your train succeeds.

Senator, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay. Since we are short members, we are not able to make a motion at this time, but let's go ahead and proceed with your next bill.

Thank you.

And that is Senate Bill 1243.

Yes, ma'am. Okay. Madam Chair and Members, I'm here to present SB 1243 to amend the Levine Act for better clarity, compliance, and fairness. First, I want to thank the Chair and your Committee staff for being generous with your time and expertise. I'm happy to accept the technical amendments identified in Item Number 11 on the bottom of page ten of the analysis, as well as the amendment suggests on the bottom of page eight to ensure material changes to development agreements are not exempt.

I'm committed to working with stakeholders and the committee to further refine the definition of material going forward, as well as the other issues, especially around the votes, which votes trigger the provisions of the bill, and bolstering the band on agent contributions. The Levine Act limits contributions from individuals who have business before a quasi-judicial body.

In 2022, the Levine Act was amended to include local elected officials, as you just heard. Previously, the law only applied to appointed officials. Over the last year, we've heard from numerous elected officials from cities and counties who have struggled to implement the law and from numerous organizations who have struggled to adhere to overly complicated requirements.

The unintended consequences of the changes to the Levine Act resulted in making transparent, direct contributions infeasible. The laws essentially freezes out a sector of the community from donating directly to candidates and instead promotes a very undesirable consequence, independent expenditures pouring into campaigns more than ever, and it creates the risk of strategic misuse by parties wishing to force a council member or supervisor to recuse themselves.

This bill addresses a number of issues that have arisen during implementation: adjusting the contribution limit that hasn't changed since 1982 from 250 dollars to 1,000 dollars, approximating inflation, clarifying that increased membership dues for organizations like unions or chambers of commerce, for example, don't trigger inclusion in the statute when there's no direct financial stake in a development project.

It also simplifies compliance. The bill furthers the goal of the Political Reform Act by making the requirements for implementation clear and workable in helping remove conditions that have incentivized dark money. Since introduction, we've been working with the opposition to try to come to agreement on a number of items.

To that end, I've deleted the exemption for housing developments, clarified definitions, prohibited agents from donating while a project is pending, and restored the 12-month exclusionary time before and after a hearing, and more. The opponents and supporters have been very collaborative and we've made great strides, especially with the Chair's incredible insight.

I'll continue working to identify additional amendments to help address underlying concerns as much as possible while still solving the problems with existing law and creating a fair system. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Each witness has two minutes. You may proceed.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair Pellerin and Members of the Assembly Elections Committee. I'm Rebekah Krell, here representing San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of SB 1243, and thank you, Senator Dodd, for authoring the bill.

The 2022 amendments to the Levine Act have caused significant compliance issues for local elected officials due to uncertainty concerning the individuals and entities whose contributions trigger the law's restrictions and the difficulty in creating an adequate system for tracking covered proceedings and contributors.

The problems are compounded by the requirements to aggregate contributions of agents with those of parties and participants. San Francisco handles thousands of proceedings covered by this law each year, if not tens of thousands, in which local elected officials may participate or decide. The amendments proposed by Senate Bill 1243 are a step towards making it more feasible for local elected officials to comply with the law.

First, raising the contribution threshold to 1,000 dollars is a sensible adjustment that will continue the goal of reducing improper influence on governmental decisions while recognizing that small dollar contributions are unlikely to have a significant impact on such decisions. Second, by providing that contributions between parties and participants will not be aggregated with contributions of their agents, the bill will remove a significant barrier to compliance.

Third, we support the exemptions for certain types of contracts that do not raise pay-to-play concerns and support an additional amendment to exclude all contracts awarded after a competitive process. Finally, we strongly support a further amendment to the bill, adding an exclusion for elected city attorneys in their role providing legal advice in a proceeding where they do not act as a decision-maker.

While SB 1243 does not completely eliminate the compliance challenges of the current law, the bill will provide greater clarity and will reduce the amount of public resources and staff time that must be spent to assist officials in complying with the law. We look forward to continuing our work on this legislation with the author and other stakeholders. The San Francisco, San Diego, and Oakland City Attorney's Office, along with the Santa Clara County Council, strongly support SB 1243. Thank you.

Next. Two minutes, please.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Nick Cammarota, on behalf of the California Building Industry Association, representing California's home builders. Just some background data that I think is relevant here: we've been collecting data on housing permits issued in the State of California since 1954. The high water mark for housing permits was in 1963 when our population was 17.5 million people. Last year, with a population of 39 million people, we issued approximately 130,000 permits.

If you were to look at a history--and we have the data and we're happy to make it available--the history over that 70-year period, you will see a chart of lower highs and lower lows, a steady decline in housing permits, and we have many different bills in this body to address the housing crisis that you've heard a lot about.

But what I think that data shows, and this is relevant to the appearance of corruption, is that there's no correlation between an increase in contributions and more permits being issued. And I think that's important to keep in mind as we talk about this. It's not pay-to-play if you're not getting what you want.

Second of all, I think aggregation has resulted in--this is the aggregation of agents with a party or participant--has resulted in a de facto prohibition on campaign contributions, at least for parties. And I think that's because we can't know if or when or how much an agent contributes. Moreover, the Labor Code prohibits an employer in the state from controlling the political activities of an employee.

I think all of this means that for people who want to comply in good faith with the provisions of SB 1439, you're left in a gotcha game because you don't know that what you're doing is illegal, and I think for that reason, we strongly support the elimination of the aggregation rules. Finally, with the removal of us as a participant in local politics--

Please conclude.

One point is, simply means that that vacuum is going to be filled by others and we won't have a representative democracy. Thank you very much.

Anyone else in the room who'd like to register your position of support, please step to the mic. State your name, organization, and position, please.

Madam Chair, Mike Monagan, on behalf of the California State Building Trades. We are a co-sponsor of this bill, and we urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Andi Liebenbaum, on behalf of the County of Los Angeles, in support. Thank you.

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

Nicole Wordelman, on behalf of the Orange County Board of Supervisors and San Bernardino County, in support.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Meagan Subers, on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters, in support.

Madam Chair, Matt Broad for the Teamsters, in support.

Madam Chair, Mark Smith, on behalf of the Sacramento Regional Builders Exchange and the California Builders Alliance, in support.

Ben Golombek, CalChamber, in support.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Skyler Wonnacott, on behalf of California Business Properties Association, in support.

Anthony Butler-Torrez with the California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, in support.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Martin Vindiola, on behalf of the California State Association of Electrical Workers, the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers, and the California State Pipe Trades Council, in support.

Elmer Lizardi, on behalf of the California Labor Federation, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses here in opposition to the bill? Primary witnesses, please come on up. Have a seat at the table, and you each have two minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning again. My name is Jonathan Mehta Stein. I'm the Executive Director of California Common Cause. We are in the difficult position of opposing SB 1243 unless it is amended. We are in a moment when our politics seems mired in corruption and scandal, including in my town, Oakland, where an extensive pay-to-play scandal has led to the FBI raid of the mayor's home and has rocked the city.

In that context, it is important that revisions to critically important pay-to-play legislation continue to address corruption and the appearance of corruption and not lessen the public's faith in our public servants. In 2022, the Legislature extended the Levine Act to cover local elected officials by unanimously passing SB 1439.

Prior to SB 1439, conflicts of interest in local special interests were so common in some communities that Assembly Speaker Emeritus Rendon called his home region 'a corridor of corruption.' SB 1439 is fundamentally common sense. At its core, it says that a local special interest cannot contribute more than 250 dollars to a local elected official when that special interest has business before that official, and for one year after, but before SB 1439 has had a chance to take root and begin working, unfortunately, SB 1243 seeks to undermine it.

In the interest of time, I will highlight just two of many concerns. One: SB 1243 says officials must only recuse themselves when excess contributions were made in the 12 months before the final decision instead of current laws 12 months before any decision.

This would allow officials who have received large excess contributions to vote in committees where the most important decisions are often being made and only having to recuse themselves from pro forma final votes. Second, 1243 removes Levine Act rules, aggregating contributions of agents with the parties they represent.

Although the bill bans contributions from agents during proceedings, if that ban is ruled unconstitutional, then bad actors could get around the law by having multiple agents also make contributions as may have happened in Oakland. We have engaged with the author's office and we, in fact, have proposed solutions to all of the issues we are raising. But despite months of conversations, we have simply not seen enough movement from the author to whift our opposition. It's for these reasons that we regretfully oppose SB 1243. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness. You have two minutes, please.

Thank you. Hello again, Madam Chair and Members. Trent Lange, Executive Director of California Clean Money Campaign. We're grateful to the author and the sponsors and the committee for amendments that have addressed some of our concerns and for working with us on potential solutions for others. However, the bill in print would still dramatically weaken the Levine Act's conflict of interest protections and therefore voters' confidence in local government. We have data on this.

We just completed a poll of 837 likely November 2024 California voters that asked, how concerned would you be if the contribution limit that parties, participants, and their agents can give to local elected officials while are they considering their proposals, such as development permits were increased. 77 percent of likely voters said they'd be concerned if the limit were raised to 1,000 dollars.

500 dollars, the level which we've said would allow us to remove our opposition, was the only level that the poll tested in which more voters said they wouldn't be concerned than who said they would be very concerned. Other important context is that 14 cities, including Los Angeles and San Francisco, completely ban contributions from developers and/or city contractors while they have business before the city. These reasons make us believe that raising limit to 500 dollars would be reasonable, but raising it above that would be very concerning to voters.

As Jonathan mentioned, we asked for five major problems with this bill to be addressed over a month ago, but only two of those have been addressed so far. We appreciate the author's engagement and look forward to more, but still there's no language and no commitment that the contribution limit problem will be addressed at all.

In contrast, the other bill before this committee addressed every one of those issues and eases compliance without weakening California's 42-year old law. So we're in a challenging situation. If the author can give commitment to he won't bring the bill up for a floor vote without coming to consensus, then we urge you to move forward this bill. Otherwise, we must ask not to support it because the bill in print would make voters lose even more confidence in government. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in the room who just want to step up to the mic? Register your name, organization, and position. Please begin.

Morning. Dora Rose, League of Women Voters of California, in respectful opposition unless amended. I also have the proxies for a number of other organizations that are opposed unless amended. They are Courage California, Consumer Watchdog, Endangered Habitats League, and Voices for Progress. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Susan Pelican, and I am here with Indivisible California State Strong, opposing this bill unless amended. I also represent local indivisibles that oppose unless amended, including Indivisible Alta-Pasadena, Marin, Media City, Burbank, Sacramento, Santa Barbara, South Bay LA, Ventura, and my own chapter, Yolo. Thank you.

Jeff Tardaguila. Senator Dodd, still needs to be changed. Thank you. Opposing it.

Thank you. We'll now bring it back to our committee. Are there any questions or comments from committee members? Assembly Member Essayli.

Question of the opposition: you think it's a good idea to remove unions from these requirements?

We think there are strong arguments that unions should not be included. The FPPC has said it's very, very difficult to enforce them on unions. They have to be able to prove this is a reasonable, foreseeable forecast that they will, their membership dues will increase by five percent or more or a million dollars. That's difficult to do, so we're relatively neutral on that.

I'm sorry.

What's your name?

What's the name of your organization?

We're the California Clean Money Campaign.

Okay. And you don't think that unions or other membership organizations can engage in corruption using their fees? I mean, is the goal here to stymie corruption or is the goal here to give an extra boost to unions in the political-making process?

We certainly believe that unions are as capable of influencing elected officials as anybody else. We support SB 1181. That does not include that exemption to us. The FPPC has advised us. It's just very rarely that they get caught up under this because of the rules for their financial interest. That's why we're relatively neutral on that inclusion and believe the other parts are more important.

Okay. Senator, why should we exempt unions from this? I mean, they're just as capable of corrupting electeds as anyone else.

Let me be clear: if you think that corruption, fraud, bribery, and everything are being caught by the FPPC anyway, I've got news for you. I think you've got the AG and district attorneys and everything that are handling those corruption problems, and that's what happened down in--

I'm sorry. We're talking about soft corruption. You're talking about money influencing decisions, which happens every day, not only at the local level, but up here.

I agree with you.

So I'm talking about, so if builders or developers, you're concerned their contributions are influencing decisions that the local members--local electeds, why aren't unions a similar concern?

I'm fair on this issue. I want to exempt at least the union dues portion of this particular thing, not only from unions, but also from the building organizations and also from chambers of commerce, both local chambers of commerce and the State Chamber of Commerce, for that matter.

But, Senator, the locals don't increase the dues. The locals hand out money to the unions and in return they increase their dues because they have more money to their members. So it's just--I'm sorry, but it just seems totally hypocritical that we're going to come down on builders, developers, everyone else, and then here you're going to carve out unions so they can make their big political contributions and then seek increases in their compensation and contracts and in return increase their dues and money into their political coffers. That will, in turn, go to you, and--I don't know about you--but go to a lot of elected officials up and down the state. I just think that's hypocritical.

I hear what you're saying, but I think you missed the salient point here that the building organizations and the chambers of commerce have the same opportunity to do what the unions are doing and we're exempting all of them from the dues, from excess dues that they might get on a project that's really not relevant to--I don't think there's really been any issues with that in terms of local projects that have come forward.

Well developers inherently directly benefit from the projects. Unions indirectly benefit, and that's why I think it's not a fair comparison. But I hear you. Look, I don't have a problem raising the limit; frankly, 250, 1,000, it's not that substantive to me, but carving out the unions is--I just think it's wrong. I think you should keep them in. I think they should be as accountable as anyone else who writes a check to a politician. So with that, I don't have any more questions.

Yes. Assembly Member Cervantes.

Thank you. Senator, I do want to just acknowledge that there was a bill earlier this year in this committee that was very similar, in which I shared some concerns, and similar, I want to share those concerns with you. I do share a lot of the concerns that were just raised as it relates to the threshold, you know, raising the Levine Act threshold, and I'm hopeful that this will continue to be worked out and discussions will be had so that when it does get to the floor, I will reconsider just based off of the bill in print at that point in time where we're at.

But today I will give that courtesy support so that it will allow you to continue working with the opposition, and certainly it's that threshold that's really causing me concern. I think 500 seems where I would like to see it, but again, I will allow you all to work that out together.

Thank you.

Certainly.

So seeing and hearing no further questions or comments, Senator, you may close.

Respectfully ask your aye vote.

Do we have a motion on Senate Bill 1243? We have a motion by Assembly Member Cervantes. I will second that motion, and I want to thank the author for your efforts. And just for the record, I believe it's pronounced the Levine Act. This bill includes a number of important changes to ease compliance burdens associated with the Levine Act, but I share some of the opposition's concerns that certain aspects of this bill may create loopholes in the law. So I urge the author to continue to work with stakeholders and with legislators who are authoring similar bills on this issue.

My hope is that those discussions will yield a compromise that all sides can agree to. To allow those discussions to continue, I am recommending support with the amendments outlined in the analysis, and the motion is to do pass as amended. And, Secretary, you may call the roll.

On SB 1243: Dodd, [Roll Call].

So we'll go ahead and put that bill on call for the absent members. Thank you so much.

Thank you, and I will continue working.

Thank you. Thank you so much for your promise. Does it need a motion? Okay, before you leave, Senator, we're just going to go ahead and take up your SB 904 that you presented already. We just needed a motion. So we have a motion by Assembly Member Cervantes, seconded by myself, Assembly Member Pellerin, and Secretary, please call the roll.

On SB 904: Dodd, [Roll Call].

So, we'll keep that bill on call as well for our absent members. We are now moving on to Senator Allen. You have SB 863. You may begin when you're ready.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair and members. As you all know, the Legislature has the ability to propose bonds, certain legislative measures, and amendments to the California Constitution for voter approval at a statewide election.

Existing law establishes a default timeline for measures to appear on the next ballot, occurring at least 131 days after adoption of the measure by the Legislature. State law currently allows the Legislature to specify in a bond or other legislative measure at which statewide election it will appear before voters.

But that same inflexibility does not exist for proposed constitutional amendments. So, bonds and legislative measures are subject to the same processes as bills. They have to be signed by the Governor. These measures have the force of law and can specify an election other than the default required in statute.

But constitutional amendments are subject to a different process outlined in the constitution. They don't require governor's signature, and so a constitutional amendment doesn't have the force of law and cannot bypass the statutorily required timeline. So, you know, all proposed constitutional amendments are automatically referred to the next statewide ballot, regardless.

And so, if the Legislature wishes to move a proposed constitutional amendment to another ballot, it requires accompanying legislation. So, this bill seeks to streamline the process to instead allow the Legislature to specify an election for a constitutional amendment to appear before voters without needing an accompanying bill.

It's not the most earth-shattering bill in the world, but it will make the process a little easier. Certainly, something that I ran into when we, when I was working in this space. So, I respect for an aye vote.

Thank you. Do you have any primary witnesses in support today?

Okay. Anybody in the room who wants to register their position in support? Seeing none. Anybody in the room who wishes to come up as a primary witness in opposition? Seeing none. Anybody wanting to come through the mic for opposition? None. Bring it back to the Committee. Assembly Member, you have any questions or comments? I'm good as well. Senator, you may close.

We don't.

Okay. Just thank you for the consideration. As for an aye vote. Do we have a quorum or?

Well, we're going to go. We had a quorum, we lost it, but we still have two members. So, we will go ahead and entertain a motion for SB 863. We have a motion by Assembly Member Cervantes. I will go ahead and second that.

And I just want to thank the author for working with the Committee staff on the amendments to the bill. This bill will definitely help streamline the process for specifying the election at which voters will consider a proposed legislative constitutional amendment. I'm recommending support.

We'll go ahead and call that roll, even though I could tell you right now what the outcome is.

On SB 863 by Allen. [Roll call]

That bill on call for our absent members, and you may proceed to your next bill, which is item 12, SB 1441.

Thank you. Okay, so this bill seeks to provide clear timelines in the election petition review process, helping local governments handle costs from added workload. When a petition to place an initiative or recall on the ballot fails to qualify for the ballot due to insufficient signatures, proponents have the right to examine the petition and the reasons for the signature rejections.

Now, state law establishes a timeline for the initiation of the review process, but it's completely silent as to the timeline for concluding the examination. While most petition reviews take only a few days and in some cases a couple weeks to complete, there was one recent case in LA County that lasted 14 months and cost the county upwards nearly $2 million in addition to the approximately $4 million spent to conduct the initial verification of signatures.

The lack of a clear deadline in law allowed for the review to be just dragged on, creating significant financial impacts for the county. One important point to understand here is that the petition reviews by proponents, they're not a mechanism for challenging the election officials' determination. Actual challenges to the determination are done through the judicial process. The review process instead can be helpful for understanding potential issues in the signature-gathering process that proponents can correct for the future.

While the instance in LA was a clear outlier, it did highlight the potential for exploitation of this process until there are more guardrails instituted. And this bill seeks to address this by establishing a reasonable 60-day limit for proponents to examine a failed petition enabling county elections officials to recover the costs associated with the additional personnel and resources.

And this is going to help county election officials better allocate resources for free and fair elections and ensure proponents don't abuse the review process while still protecting this critical transparency opportunity. And with me here to testify and support, we have Audilia Lozada, who's here on behalf of the LA County office of registrar recorder.

Thank you. And you have two minutes.

Good morning, Chair Pellerin and members of the committee. My name is Audilia Lozada. I am a division manager with the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk's office. Los Angeles County is proud to sponsor SB 1441. As Senator Allen stated, this bill does two things. First, it establishes a 60-day period for the proponents of failed petitions to complete their examination of disqualified signatures on petitions that fail to qualify for the ballot. This 60-day period arguably exceeds the same timeframe elections officials have to initially verify those signatures.

Second, this Bill allows elections official to recover extraordinary costs of expecting disqualified signatures when those costs exceed the normal operating budget. The cost recovery provisions of SB 1441 help to ensure that additional public funds are not used when proponents of a failed petition request to inspect disqualified signatures at extraordinary requests.

Currently, existing law does not address how long proponents of a failed petition have to examine those disqualified signatures, nor does it address who pays those costs to securely present petition documents for inspection. By addressing this gap in law, SB 1441 significantly improves an elections official's ability to manage the examination of failed petitions efficiently and responsibly. I respectfully request the committee's aye vote on SB 1441, and I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Is there anybody in the room who would like to register your support for this bill? If so, please go to the mic, state your name, organization, and your position, please.

Thank you very much. Andy Liebenbaum from Los Angeles County in strong support as well as sponsorship. Thank you so much.

Good morning. Larisa Mercado, on behalf of the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials, proud sponsor in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members. Stanicia Boatner on behalf of the California State Association of Counties in support.

Any witnesses in the room who are primary witnesses in opposition? If so, please step up to the table. Seeing none. Anyone just want to step up to the mic to register your opposition? See none. I'll bring it back to the committee. Any questions or comments? Assemblymember Essayli.

Thank you. Madam Chair, you said this bill is needed to combat abuse of the process. Can you tell me what you're referring to, please?

Yeah, well, basically, right now, there's no rule in law about the conclusion of examinations. We had a situation in Los Angeles that lasted 14 months. It cost the county a little less than $2 million, just this one case alone. That was, by the way, on top of the 4 million that the county had already spent to conduct the initial verification of signatures.

And in the end of the day, after exhaustive examination over and over again, the county's initial determination was deemed accurate and correct. So that's what we're trying to address here. I mean, the vast majority of cases get resolved very quickly, but there are outliers, and it did. This case did highlight the potential for exploitation of the process until there are more guardrails instituted.

So you're referring to the recall, the failed recall of George Gascon, correct? Okay. So they. The proponents submitted 715,000 signatures, which was about 150,000 more than they needed. The registrar failed about 27% of all signatures, that was almost 200,000 signatures, were rejected by the registrar voters. And so. And, ma'am, you work for the registrar?

Yes, I do. Thank you.

Okay, so there was a process done to examine it. Do you know what the results of that examination were? I'll ask you since you're part of it. How many signatures did you improperly reject?

None. Thank you.

You didn't. Excuse me? You didn't reject more than 20,000 recall petition signatures improperly.

That is correct. None were improperly rejected.

I don't think that's accurate. I think it was found that of half the signatures examined, 20,000 signatures were improperly rejected for the following reasons among many. Your office claimed that people were not registered to vote. Even though they were registered to vote, your office claimed that people accidentally submitted more than one signature, and therefore, you would not count any signature.

Your office also said that the address on the recall petition was different from the voters' registered address, even though they were actually the same address. And you invalidated a signature as printed, even though the voter signature on file itself is printed. Do you deny each and every one of those? Do you not? You don't have any idea what I'm talking about.

No. I understand that you're reading the proponents' claims that we failed to improperly validate the signatures. I would also point to the fact that this has been adjudicated in court and the decision has remained as.

How many signatures were they able to examine that you reviewed?

They were able to examine the disqualified signatures as under the law, which allows them to ascertain which signatures were disqualified and for what reasons.

All 100% of the disqualified signatures?

My understanding of the review process is that we had 14 people during the day waiting for them to come to the office to review them, and they failed to show up a majority of the time.

Okay. And during the review, the initial, what do you call the initial process where you're reviewing the signatures?

Yes.

What do you call that?

So that's the signature verification process.

Were the proponents allowed to monitor that process while you were checking the signatures initially?

Under existing law, the signature verification process is not subject to disclosure, and so the office followed the law in that case.

Okay, that was my question. So the answer is no, they're not able to monitor your initial checking of the signatures? Correct. Are you allowed to?

That's the current law, Assemblymember.

Are you allowed to, are the public allowed to monitor the signature verification for a general election?

Under existing law, petition documents are exempt from public disclosure and no one is allowed to view them. In fact, even if you signed a petition, you wouldn't be able to call our office and ask us whether or not you signed that petition. That's how closely petitions are guarded as private under existing law.

So in the presidential election, am I allowed to go watch the signature verification process?

Under existing law, no one is able to observe the signature verification process on petitions.

Why are you not answering my question?

She is answering your question.

No she's not. She's talking about petitions. I'm talking about if there's a presidential election, which we're gonna have in November, can I walk in and watch you check the signatures?

You mean on vote by mail?

Yes. On vote-by-mail ballots. Yes

Be clear then. Thank you.

I apologize. I didn't understand your question, but thank you for clarifying. On mail ballots. Yes, mail ballot. The signature verification on mail ballots under existing law is open and observable. And you are able to do that, though it is important to note that the laws and the process for mail ballots and petitions are totally different. But it can be confusing.

My point is, though, is that if we want to limit the examination process, we should have the same transparency in the petition verification process, because what's happening is it's your office is doing it in the dark, in behind closed doors. No one gets to see what you're doing. They don't get to review it in real-time. So their only opportunity to check your work is after the fact. And what this bill will do is deny that opportunity for proponents to check your work and to make sure that voters are not being disenfranchised by having their signatures rejected for improper reasons.

Okay, you've made your point. Thank you. Is there any other member on the committee who has a question or comment?

I'm not done making points, Madam Chair. Does the petition review process allow for signatures to be cured?

I'm sorry, no. Under existing law, there is no cure process for voters to cure a petition signature in the same way that there is in mail ballots.

Okay. Under existing law, is there something analogous to the 1% manual count for the way we check for ballot accuracy for petitions?

My understanding of the 1% manual tally process is that process is in place to verify that the machine's counted accurately and petition signatures are manually verified. So, in fact, we do 100% manual review, unlike the tallying of votes when we only do a 1%.

Okay, Senator, let me ask you, would you be willing in, in exchange for putting these onerous financial burdens on proponents who want to actually see if they're, if anyone was disenfranchised, would you be open to mirroring the rules for petitions the same to elections, such as allowing people to observe the signature verification process, allowing voters to cure signatures improperly rejected, and having some sort of 1% count so we can make sure that there's fairness and transparency and accountability in the process?

Yeah. So a few things to mention. First of all, there is work underway with the committee on this cost recovery component. So that's something that we're in discussion about. So, and if you want to weigh in on that, I encourage you to talk to the committee and the chair.

But we're voting on it today. Is there something, are you saying there's something coming that we don't know about?

Well, I don't know if Madam Chair wants to talk about it, but.

Well, we've raised some concerns about the cost recovery, and the author is going to commit to work on clarifying the cost recovery mechanism provisions after it gets out of committee, and we will be able to see this again if it comes to the floor.

I see. Okay.

But what I would say is that the challenge here is we're talking about two very different systems. The petition review process is not for the purpose of challenging determination by elections officials or provide for a cure of invalidated signatures. So right now, the way to challenge the election officials' findings is through the courts. That's the way the system works. Now, if you think that we ought to have a different approach to the recall petition process that is much more robust in the examination, that's something that you ought to look at.

Walk me through that. How do you go to court if you don't have evidence because under the current system, no, you're not allowed to watch, you're not allowed to collect any evidence. Like you said, we're not allowed to watch the signature verification process. We're not allowed to go and try to cure signatures from voters. So how would you, how would you challenge what the registrar of voters is doing when you're not even allowed to see it?

Sure. So perhaps, if I may, the salient point might be that when a voter affixes their signature to a petition, that's akin to casting a vote on a ballot. And so by mere fact of viewing that a voter's signature is present, you are in fact seeing their vote on that particular issue. And that is sort of what at hand here is a policy decision on voter privacy. And as Senator Allen mentioned, SB 1441 does not seek to change existing law. It simply seeks to add guideposts so that it cannot be exploited in highly political petition processes.

And so if we look at it from the perspective of we're protecting voters privacy, the only way to seek remedy if a proponent feels that the uninterested registrar of voters has somehow put their thumb on this scale is to go through the legislative process and any money spent would be better spent in that effort since that's how the clock works.

I don't think there's any privacy interest in affixing your signature on a petition. We're talking about validating whether the signature is authentic or not. So, Senator, I go back.

Wait, that's your opinion? Yeah, it's absolutely a private issue.

I mean, there's a lot of people that don't want to, you know, just like a secret ballot, right? You. There's a privacy interest in your ability to cast a secret ballot.

We could see it after the fact. I don't understand. What's the difference?

The challenged ones you can see.

Yeah, the challenged ones. So why can't the challenge ones be subject to review? I don't understand this. Without having this enormous financial burden on proponents. I mean, it appears that the design here is to make it hard, if not impossible, to challenge the work of the registrar of voters. And she's nodding her head. She doesn't want to be challenged.

I respect your viewpoint.

No you don't. I don't know how.

Assemblymember Essayli, do not harass the witness.

I'm not harassing her. I did not ask you a question. You did not speak to me.

You're right. I apologize.

You are a servant of the public. You are coming into the. Hold on a second.

No, you have a question or a polite civil comment?

I am making a polite civil comment, Madam Chair, when she, as a government worker, comes to a legislative body to try to chill and stop the voters from exercising their constitutional rights. Damn right, I have a problem.

That is absolutely not what this bill does. But if that's your opinion, you may have it and you are done. Any other committee member have a comment?

I am not done.

Thank you for your comments. Any other comments or questions from any other Member on the Committee? Asssemblymember Low? We are still waiting for one, but we were getting the final comments. But if you'd like to make one, I would entertain that at this point.

Number one, and just as you. Our voters, is that right?

Yes, that's correct. Thank you.

And I just want to acknowledge the challenge and difficulty, especially in this period of time, on the rhetoric that exists. And just as a public servant, that I know that you're equally committed to that of democracy. And I just want to reflect the goodwill and the nature of that.

We all support democracy and helping to ensure that we maintain the integrity of the electoral process.

And just by you being here, coming to our state capitol to reflect that and advocating for what you think is best in partnership with the state Senator, I just want to acknowledge that as well, and providing an environment, especially for Members of the public who may be witnessing the discourse and debate that we do want to support in a fashion that is conducive to helping provide an environment in which everyone feels comfortable and safe to have their input and also to advocate for what they believe in as well, too.

And so with that, and by making that motion in support.

Thank you. We have a motion in a second. Senator, you may close.

Well, I appreciate the robust discussion. Obviously, there's a trend line in our country right now where there are folks who are actively trying to sow doubt and mistrust of processes that have worked very well for our system for a long, long time.

I think a lot about this fascinating piece in the New York Times that came out a couple of weeks ago about a registrar recorder in a county in Nevada that voted 82% for President Trump. But there's a group of folks that believe that it should have been 90% for President Trump.

And they're now recalling the registrar who's been a longtime Republican registrar, because they're so hopped up by all of the election misinformation that's out there. And I think that, you know, I understand, unfortunately, that has become a part of our political reality.

And I think it helps to inform some of the concerns that you're bringing to the table.

Assemblymember, you know, certainly, you know, the good thing about a discussion like this is that it gets, you know, I think we're all learning about the differences in law between the signature verification process associated with sending in a vote by mail ballot versus the petition process for a recall.

Remember, this recall process is an extraordinary process that takes place outside of the normal course of business, we all have elections. In fact, DA Gascon is up for election right now and is down 20 points in the polls.

So there's going to be a robust election right now in Los Angeles, and he's in the fight for his life through a normal process, and we'll see what happens in November.

We do have this special process in place for recalls, but in the end of the day, these folks were unable to collect the valid signatures that it's subject to a court process. All the kinds of issues that you just raised are subject to discovery and the normal transparency associated with the court process.

But unless we're going to dramatically increase resources for counties offices, we are putting a ridiculous burden on counties such as Los Angeles if we're not allowing them to go about doing their work.

When you've got certain people that are out there just trying to slow down the process and increase costs million fold, that's the challenge that we're facing here. And I understand that we haven't struck an adequate balance for you. Assemblymember. I'm certainly happy to talk about additional details if that's what you're interested in doing.

But in the end of the day, we've come to what we feel is a very reasonable timeframe. There's a process that's grounded in years and years of practice in law. There are, as I say, the whole signature verification process throughout modern California history.

The petition reviews by proponents for recalls are not a mechanism for challenging the election's official determination. Those are done through the judicial process. I understand you disagree with that system that we have in place. So by all means introduce a bill. Let's have that discussion.

But given the current construct of law, this, from my perspective, is a reasonable and cost effective way of addressing this current challenge. Petitions will be challenged. They will be done in a timely manner. And if there are extraordinary problems, they'll be dealt with in court. And this is carefully crafted.

We've talked to lots of people, but again, happy to further engage with anyone who has concerns. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote, thank you.

I'd like to thank the author for bringing this bill forward, and I want to thank the witness for your testimony today. It was very helpful and your patience is golden. What occurred in Los Angeles is hopefully an anomaly. However, I understand the need for an explicit petition review in time and the need for a cost recovery mechanism.

And as we stated earlier, your commitment to work on clarifying the cost recovery mechanism provisions is something I look forward to. And with that I recommend a support position. Secretary, please call the roll.

On SB 1441. Allen. The motion is do pass and be re referred to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

We're gonna go ahead and put that bill on call for our absent members. And I believe you have a second bill.

Yes. A third.

A third. A third? Yes.

This one's hopefully the charm. Okay. Thank you so very much. Thank you. Really appreciate it. Okay, well, so, on a related topic, but different. Different. Don't worry, it's nothing to do with petition review.

Back in 2016, I authored the Voters Choice Act, SB 450, which offered counties a new way to conduct elections that increases access and convenience for voters.

So, under the VCA, counties can choose to switch from a traditional neighborhood polling place to a system that offers 10 days of early voting, same day voter registration, accessible voting machines for voters with disabilities, additional language support services, and the ability for voters to vote in any location in the county.

This was at least partly inspired by our historically low 31% voter turnout in the 2014 General Election. The pro tem at the time tasked me as the Elections Chair at the time and said, hey, we really got to figure out a way to make it to kind of really look at our election system.

And went to Colorado, learned about all sorts of different models around the country, red states, blue states. We brought in lots of different models. And in the end of the day, we figured out that this would be a good way of creating a system that is high in integrity, but that provides more access to the ballot for people.

This old model of the idea that you can only vote in one place, in one location, between a set number of hours on one day, really wasn't working for a lot of people. And we were trying to make it easier for people to access the ballot while still maintaining really strong integrity controls.

So now, nearly 20 million voters, 77% of the eligible voting population in our state, live in one of the 29 counties that have adopted the Voters Choice Act. We did a review in the Senate side Committee. I'm not sure if you did one over here of the VCA implementation. And a lot of interesting discussion happened.

There was a report that came out from the Center for Inclusive Democracy that noted beneficial aspects of the VCA model, including increased transparency, accountability, community engagement with the election process. There are fewer reported voting problems at vote centers.

That was one of the things we knew if we had these dedicated centers with people who could work day after day and really get to know the system, you'd avoid some of the problems that would happen, these emergencies on election day, at a precinct location where the machine goes down. You have all these volunteers who don't know what they're doing. So, we fewer voting problems, more access to bilingual poll workers, more voting machines for voters with disabilities compared to non-VCA counties.

Now, there were some other challenges that were raised by the report, too. They found turnout gaps still exist. They fluctuate from election, with voters of color across the state participating at lower rates.

It's a challenge we have all over the country now since the pandemic with in-person with obviously, there's this vote-by-mail model that's also been implemented.

But we did see that in-person voting was actually utilized more in VCA counties, and it really was a vital option for marginalized voters for the same reasons, I just discussed. The old model of only being able to vote on a Tuesday in person during working hours, effectively with a little extra time, is hard for a lot of people to accommodate with their busy schedules.

So, we had this oversight hearing last December. We reviewed the report. We reviewed VCA implementation, where some county clerks highlighted administrative hurdles and voting rights advocates suggested potential improvements. This bill, SB 1450, proposes a number of changes to streamline election Administration under the VCA to address some of those concerns.

So, in its current form, the bill will require VCA-specific mailings to be sent to each household rather than to every registered voter. That's become a major cost for counties in a way that's not really helpful ultimately, for voter information.

It addresses some situations where irregularly scheduled special elections and overlapping special districts result in duplicative and potentially confusing informational mailers to improve election management. The bill also establishes a deadline for counties to finalize election administration plans and establishes advisory committees on voter education and community outreach strategies.

My team's had conversations with advocates, clerks, Secretary of State, who supports this bill on outstanding VCA implementation concerns like the low utilization of early voting that are not currently addressed by the bill. We find there's a, the first few days, very few people are going to vote in person at the VC, at the, at the vote centers.

We understand there's a lot of different perspectives on how to address these issues. We continue these discussions with stakeholders to see if we can find as many solutions as possible with folks.

I appreciate the suggestions that the advocates have provided, and we've been working together on language to address issues raised in their letter and look forward to continuing discussions, and with that, I will respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Okay, we have a motion and we have a second. Do you have any primary witnesses in support?

We don't.

Okay, anyone in the room who wishes to stand up and state your name in support?

Tweener?

Or whatever position you have.

Dora Rose, League of Voters of California. We are very much appreciative of all of the discourse with the author's office and the author's staff. And we have a support if amended position. Also, on that support if amended position is Disability Rights California, Asian American Advancing Justice Asian Law Caucus, NALEO Educational Fund, and Inland Empire United. And my colleague

Brittany Stonesifer for ACLU California Action, also a support if amended position along with the coalition.

Thank you.

Hi. Jonathan Mehta Stein, California Common Cause, very appreciative of working with the author's office. Also have a supportive amendment position.

Okay, anyone in the room who is a primary witness in opposition to the bill? Anyone who wants to just state their name in opposition to the bill. Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Any comments or questions?

I have a question. Did you cut off my microphone on the last round? Point of inquiry.

Yes, I did.

And you just can uniliarly cut off my microphone and deny the public my ability to be heard.

I turned off your microphone. You had said your point. Clearly, we all heard it.

And so what is the basis for turning off the microphone?

I chose to.

Yeah. So, you're like the dictator here in this democracy.

You had made your point. We all heard your point.

Okay, I want to appeal. I make a motion to appeal the ruling of the chair. I do not think you should be turning off our microphones without making some sort of order or finding.

I did say that you were done and I was moving on.

Do I have a second?

Sure.

I appeal to the ruling of the chair to unilaterally turn off our microphones. I do not think that's appropriate or fair or consistent with an open and fair democracy. I do not.

I made it clear that you were done with your testimony and your comment, and I was moving on to another member to make time for them to have a comment. So, I think I made that very clear to the people here.

Can you recall the rule?

We need to then take a vote on that. It's a majority of those present in voting. The question is, should the decision of the chair be upheld? So the chair is asking for an aye vote on that motion. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Three to two, your motion fails. Three to two. Thank you, Senator.

Yeah. Let me just say, first of all, I have some friends from my hometown, Santa Monica, the young family, and they're on a road trip through Sacramento. And I do want to say thank you to Assemblymember Essayli, who has made this the most exciting Committee hearing I've had in a very long time.

For my friends to get to witness it in person has been really fantastic. So, look, I mean, in the end of the day, this bill is about trying to make sure that we fulfill the promise of the voter's choice act. We really look at how the system has worked, try to figure out ways to increase efficiencies.

As I mentioned, there's a lot of duplication in the current model. They were put in place for good reasons at the time when we were launching this brand new initiative. And we want to basically look at the implementation of the system and learn from it and try to find some ways to save some money for the counties.

And then with those extra resources, we can roll those into more effective work of voter outreach, voter education, and efforts to increased voter participation. So that's the core goal here. Very committed to working with the, you know, the folks who support if amended.

Their good friends and allies are the people that we worked with with the initial Bill. But that's the spirit with which we're approaching this effort.

I believe Assemblymember Bennett has a comment or question.

It's a question as much as anything, but unfortunately, in my county, there is an effort by the Board of Supervisors to restrict all voting back to just election day. I am trying to ascertain to what extent we have, to what extent that is an option, to what extent does this bill address that or restrict that?

I really appreciate the question because this is the challenge to our friends in the advocacy community, and everyone here knows this. But the Voters Choice act was a voluntary program. Counties could choose whether to opt in or not. And as I mentioned, 29 counties have opted in. The rest of the counties have not.

So the counties can also choose to pull out. And the pitch to the counties was that we're going to save you money.

Right now, you're spending all this money on all of these precincts that don't work very well on election day with all these challenges, and in return for having less physical places to vote, we put in place all these additional protections.

You're going to save some money on that side, and it's going to be able to provide for more access to the ballot for your voters. That was the pitch to the counties. 29 counties decided to join in, but now they're finding that it's been challenging.

They're being asked to send out all these extra mailers, for example, that don't provide a lot of additional benefit in terms of voter education, but that are very costly. You have these vote centers that are open for all this extra time with very little utilization. So that's what we're grappling with here.

How do we really learn from the VCA model? Make some reasonable changes that are going to address the financial pressures that are currently on the counties that aren't really providing a lot of benefit.

Roll some of those resources into programs that will provide more benefit, but also save counties some money so that they can feel comfortable staying in this model. And that is our core goal here.

And I want everyone to recognize that doing nothing is dangerous, because if the existing VCA program, which has worked so well for our state on the whole, proves financially untenable for counties and they start pulling out, we will have lost a lot of progress.

Any other comments or questions from Committee Members?

I applaud the author for staying after this issue for a long period of time. So thank you. Thank you. So I'll move the bill.

We have a motion. Do we have a second for the bill? We already had one, right? We had it. Sorry. Sorry. Okay, so thank you. We do have a motion by Cervantes and seconded by Bennett, and that's for moving SB 1450 to do pass to appropriations.

And I just want to thank the author for bringing this bill forward. The Voters Choice act model has been available for all counties since 2020, so it hasn't been in place for too long.

I think the Senate's VCA oversight hearing was timely and full of thoughtful discussion about how the model is currently working and recommendations for future improvements.

As the analysis points out, there's a coalition of organizations seeking further amendments that we heard from some of them today, and I will recommend support for this bill with the author's commitment to continue to work with stakeholders to see if there is consensus on other changes.

So with that, we'll go ahead and call the roll.

On SB 1450 Allen [Roll Call]

That Bill is out 5-0, but we'll keep it open for the absent Members. Thank you, Members. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you so much for your time. That's a trifecta. You got three bills out. We'll now move on to Senator Limon's bill.

While she's coming up, let's go ahead and take up the Committee's consent calendar. There is one bill on the consent calendar. The Committee secretary, please read the item on consent.

Consent is file item number 14, SB 1493 by Senator Blakespear. And the motion is do pass and be re referred to the Committee on Appropriations with recommendation to consent.

Does any member wish to remove that item from consent? Seeing none, we'll go ahead and. Do we have a motion? We have a motion by Senator Lackey. Do we have a second 2nd by Asesmblymember Low and secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Great. Senator Limon, welcome. You may begin.

Thank you, Chair and Members. I want to first start off by thanking the Chair and the Committee staff for a lot of work that has gone on, really over a number of years with me directly over the last two years and up until, you know, this week, we have been trying to move this bill forward.

And so I want to just recognize that as a result, many Committee Members haven't sat with this with the new version of this bill. And so that is really a function of our attempt to move this bill forward with the Chair and the Committee. And we're very, very grateful for that.

But I also just want to recognize that people haven't sat with this. And so it feels like, you know, some of this is coming new, and I want to just take full responsibility for that process in saying that we've been trying to move this forward and this is as a result of that.

But I am grateful that we are here today hearing this bill. I want to be clear that I am accepting the amendments today, the Committee amendments today, and very grateful again to the Chair and to the Committee, who have spent countless hours trying to help us move this forward.

California is currently the home to 4.6 million eligible unregistered voters, a disproportionate number of whom are youth, people with disabilities, black, Latino, Asian American, native, indigenous, and other people of color, individuals at times with limited English proficiency, and low income citizens.

SB 299 is an opportunity to upgrade our current voter registration system and help welcome eligible voters into our democracy. The current motor voter process is still leaving out millions of eligible voters.

Each year, 1 million eligible voters conduct a license transaction at the DMV, but do not register to vote at the same time, the current motor voter process asks registration questions even if a person is clearly not a US citizen, exposing noncitizens to severe consequences if they mistake. As amended, this bill will do three things.

One, it requires the DMV to implement a non-citizen filtering system. So if a person provides proof of non-citizenship, such as a green card, the applicant will automatically be filtered out of the voter registration system.

It also requires the DMV to automatically check voter registration status during a driver's license or ID transaction and tailor the motor voter process to whether the person is unregistered or already registered to vote in California.

And last, this bill grants the Secretary of State the authority to adopt regulations to generate a list of people pre approved registration based on confirmation citizenship status through the DMV or identification application process. SB 299 has a broad and diverse coalition of supporters, many of which have been doing the work to register the population groups this bill aims to support.

I have with me today Dolores Huerta and also Professor Laura Ray from UCLA to speak in support of the bill, and Neil Ubriani from the Institute of Responsive Governments to answer technical questions.

Thank you and your witnesses each have two minutes each.

Good morning, Chair Pellerin and Committee Members. My name is Dr. Laura Ray Lake. I'm a professor in the school of Public Affairs at UCLA and I'm speaking in strong support for SB 299. Voter registration is a primary and persistent obstacle to voting. 4.6 million eligible Californians are not registered to vote.

Excuse me, that's one in six people that that are eligible who are not registered. Only 13% of 16 and 17 year olds have pre-registered to vote, which is abysmally low. Registration reform is sorely needed. California's current automatic voter registration system through the DMV is not actually automatic. It requires eligible people to affirmatively opt in to register.

My research has identified secure automatic voter registration, or SAVR, as an evidence based solution that would vastly improve registration rates in California. Under the system proposed by this bill, if a person does not register to vote during a license transaction at the DMV, but has provided the DMV with clear proof of eligibility, including citizenship.

The Secretary of State can list them as pre approved for registration and provide them with a streamlined way to activate their registration if they choose to. Ten states and Washington, DC have adopted SAVR and have brought millions of eligible voters into the political process.

Data from Colorado, Oregon, Delaware and Minnesota show significant increases in registrations with SAVR, particularly for Latino, black and Asian American citizens and for young people. These systems automatically filter out non citizens and the Secretary of State can ensure parallel protections here. Voter registration was implemented in California in the late 1800s as a strategy of voter suppression.

Please conclude if you can.

Aimed at making it more cumbersome for minorities and poor citizens to vote. And this legacy continues today as California's unregistered citizens are disproportionately black, Latino, Asian or 18 to 24. I urge you to support SB 299.

Thank you. We'll now move on to your next witness, and it's an honor to have a democracy warrior such as yourself here today, Dolores Huerta.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, my name is Dolores Huerta and I'm speaking on behalf of my foundation, the Dolores Huerta Foundation, that works on empowering especially low income people. Well, as was said before, we know that the burden of registration has always been a method of discrimination. Voter registration requirements were designed to suppress turnout by poor and less educated communities.

Instead of a one step process for eligible people, voting becomes a more complex, multi-step process requiring planning and knowledge of the law. These effects still today affect hundreds have the effects of hundreds of years later. Each election, millions of people, many of them black, brown, young, and poor, don't vote because they aren't registered.

Many of these people find registration procedures confusing, daunting or inconvenient, but the burden is still put on them to overcome these challenges. It's no accident that here in California, we still have, as was said, 4.6 million people that are not registered. Right now, they're eligible people to vote. And this population, again, is the disproportionately Latino, black, Asian American, young, and poor.

Given the fact the California Secretary of State can have the power to identify eligible and registered Californians at the DMV and provide them an easier path to registration and voting, instead of individuals alone having to bear the burden for registration by themselves, the state can take on the responsibility for getting eligible people on the roads.

This is a challenge that we need to overcome after the centuries that we have of voter suppression by registration. At the same time, this bill adds crucial protections to prevent unintentional registration by non-citizens for non citizen communities in the United States and throughout the state. This is a meaningful change to further reduce the risk of an honest mistake during a DMV transaction. This is a very courageous and historical step for us to take.

We know, as we said, there are many other states have already taken this step, and we know that it will take time to actually put the procedures in place, but we have to start somewhere, and California should always be first, not last. Okay? So this is a historical moment that we can actually. Thank you so much.

Thank you so much. Thank you. We'll now hear from any witnesses in support who want to step up to the mic. State your name, organization, and your position. Witnesses in support.

Good morning. Thank you.

You can put the mic up a little bit.

That's very true. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Sadalia King, on behalf of Catalyst California, in strong support, and also by proxy, the California Black Power Network. Thank you.

Li Tao, on behalf of Hmong Innovating Politics and the Asian Pacific Environmental Network. Thank you. In support.

Good morning. Grace Yang, on behalf of Khmer Girls in Action and the Asian Solidarity Collective, in support.

Good morning. Cha Vang, in support of SB 299, on behalf of California Calls and the Power Pack.

Eric Payne, executive director of the Central Valley Urban Institute, in strong support.

Kelly Wong, on behalf of Chinese Progressive Association, in support.

Michael Locke, speaking on behalf of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders for Civic Empowerment. We're one of the co-sponsors, also a board member of OCA, Asian Pacific American Advocates, one of the nation's oldest Asian American civil rights organizations, our national center, as well as our East Bay, San Mateo County and Silicon Valley chapter support. Thank you.

Julie Nielsen, National Union of Health Care Workers, in support.

Sarah Brennan, on behalf of NextGen California, in support.

Lynnae Norwood, proxy for IE United, in support. Also for NextGen California.

Morning. Faith Lee with Asian Americans Advancing Justice, Southern California. We're in support.

Juanita Chavez with the Dolores Huerta Foundation. And a board member of justice for my sister.

Good morning from Nicola. I strongly support this bill.

Vu Nguyen, with Orange County Action, and I support.

Good morning. Sydney Fong by proxy, on behalf of CHIRLA Action and Alliance San Diego. Thank you.

Thank you. We will now move on to primary witnesses in opposition. As a reminder, each primary witness has a maximum of two minutes. You may step up to the table and have a seat and be sure you're speaking into the mic. Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Brittany Stonesifer. With ACLU California Action we and others you'll hear from share the goals behind this bill of increasing registration among eligible voters and protecting non-citizens. We strongly support thoughtfully designed and effective automatic voter registration programs like the one we currently have at the DMV.

Since its rollout in 2018, California's AVR automatic voter registration system has become one of the most powerful tools our state has for maintaining accurate voter rolls and registering new voters. In only six years, the program has resulted in over 26 million new or updated voter registration transactions.

It's now the top registration method for youth and voters of color, and only 14% of eligible DMV users opt out despite being either unregistered or having an outdated registration.

The DMV's existing AVR system has worked so well that we believe that one of the most effective investments of California's limited resources would be to extend this AVR model to other state agencies, such as Covered California and Calfresh, allowing us to reach voters that are not being served by the DMV.

We've expressed concerns about previous versions of the bill that would create significant risks for noncitizens without evidence that this costly restructuring of our AVR program would result in improved equity or engagement. Unfortunately, the latest amendments do not resolve these concerns, primarily because they would still make the DMV responsible for determining citizenship status, which is dangerous and unnecessary.

Similarly, we're concerned that by creating an entirely new pre approved registrant and activation system without clear language or procedures, the amendments present significant questions about implementation that have yet to be resolved.

Instead of investing millions to add citizenship determination to the DMV workload, California should continue to improve DMV's existing AVR system and thoughtfully expand its model to additional agencies. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your no vote.

And I'm also authorized to note that Naleo Educational Fund, which has more than two decades of direct experience mobilizing Latino community members in California, registers it's no an opposition as well. Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Johnny Sinodis, and I am a partner at the immigration firm Vanderhout LLP. Given the state of Immigration Law, the risks of sifting to a back end opt out system far outweigh any perceived potential benefits.

Errors in a back end system could register noncitizens to vote, even where they make clear to DMV employees that they are not us citizens. Non citizens who are automatically registered to vote could then believe that they are authorized to vote because they will receive voting materials in the mail.

This exposes them to severe, life-altering consequences, including imprisonment and deportation. If a mistake is made in the back end system, there are five separate grounds of removal that could be charged against a non citizen, several of which contain no intent requirement.

While voting in a California State election would require that the noncitizen willfully and knowingly vote unlawfully, there is no intent requirement for voting in a federal election.

And although proponents of this bill argue that mistakenly registered noncitizens would be protected by an official authorization defense or a USCIS policy, the overwhelming majority of noncitizens would not be able to benefit from these unreliable and limited defenses. Prevailing against these charges is extremely difficult, and noncitizens do not have the right to counsel.

Removal proceedings also span many years. Furthermore, Supreme Court doctrine makes clear that judicial review is severely restricted or even precluded in these sorts of factual scenarios. The amendments to SB 299 do not resolve these concerns because the DMV, at the end of the day, is still making citizenship determinations. For these reasons, the possibility of exposing an already vulnerable class of individuals should be avoided. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in the room who just want to step up to the mic and express your opposition to the bill? If so, please come on up. State your name, organization, and position.

Dora Rose, League of Women Voters of California, in respectful, continued opposition. I also have the proxy of the Brennan Center, also in opposition, and of National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, also in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And any comments or questions from Committee Members? Yes, Assemblymember Bennett?

I have great respect for the author, I have great respect for the Brennan Institution and the sincerity of the opposition here today. And so, because of my respect, certainly for the author, I will be supporting the bill today.

But these are, this is not the opposition that I expected to hear from people who were really trying to decrease the ability of people to vote. This is opposition from people who are really concerned about a legitimate issue, which is having an immigrant family living in, in our home for the last 16-17 years.

I could see them easily getting the ballot, not knowing what that means, whether that means they are now been determined eligible to vote. I could see errors being made, and it's a legitimate issue, and I hope you'll continue to work on that as it moves forward. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments? Yes. Assemblymember Cervantes.

Yes, thank you. Well, first off, I know that, you know, thank the author for the work that you're doing on this bill, and thank you to all those that testify today. Can you just share again the non, the non filter, non citizens filter at the DMV? That was an amendment that was inserted, correct? Thank you.

And so with that, that does make me feel comfortable with where we're at today, given the work that we've been doing in just trying to expand our democratic process in California. And as you said it best, Dolores, that we need to continue leading the way.

And again, making sure that we are further increasing our voter participation is so critical. And I believe this pre approved process is so essential. And I'm grateful to the author for taking the lead on this as we further strengthen our democratic process in California. Thank you.

Any other comments or questions from Members? Assemblymember Weber.

Good morning. So quick question for you. So with this pre-approved list that you would provide to the Secretary of State, what exactly is the Secretary of State supposed to do with that pre-approved?

Sure. So I'm going to have Neil talk a little bit about it. But one way to think about a pre approved list is similar to list. And certainly I think the Chair will be much more sophisticated in describing it than I will. But think of kind of the high school list. It sits there ready.

And then when you are affirmed, right, the pre enrollment we do with high school students from 16 to 18, it sits there. And then once someone affirms that they would like to be part of the voter roll, then they move on to their voter roll. So that is kind of the concept that we are working with. But I'm going to have Neil speak a little bit more to it.

Sure. Neil Ubriani, Institute for Responsive Government Action. The idea of the pre approved list is if the Secretary of State decides to move forward with this program, it's not mandatory.

She can work with the DMV, county clerks and other interested groups to set up a system where if somebody declines voter registration in their license transaction, but the DMV system indicates that this person has provided a US passport or a birth certificate or one of a specified set of documents that conclusively establishes citizenship.

This is information the DMV system is already recording. The Secretary of State can say, I would like to see a list from the DMV of people who provided one of these specified documents and are of 16 years or older. And that list can exist in the Secretary of State's files.

And then the Secretary of State, by regulation, can decide how to outreach to those people. She can say, you know, we have evidence from the DMV that you are eligible to register to vote in California. Here are options for you to activate your registration.

And she can perhaps create streamlined ways for them to activate their registration if they choose. Nobody would be registered on the preapproved list unless and until they take some affirmative action to activate the registration.

Right. So as of right now, there is no process in place for this. So we would be voting on something that's not even set up to go.

Right now, this process would be created by this bill if the Secretary of State, and it would give the Secretary of State discretion to launch this program if she so chooses.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions or comments from Committee Members?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess I'm a little confused with the opposition. Do we not currently allow people to register to vote at the DMV? Including, I mean, theoretically, non citizens are offered the opportunity to register.

Currently, we currently have a front end opt out AVR system at the DMV.

So what's the difference here?

This would, with the amendments referring to this authorization of the Secretary, specifically, as Mr. Ubriani said, this would authorize the Secretary of State to create a pre approved registrant list that would be taken from documents shown at the DMV. So instead of a person attesting to their own eligibility, the DMV would be using documents to make a citizenship determination.

But the person still has to choose to register to vote, though, don't they?

That is unclear. Under the amendments that we've seen, there is currently no such thing as choosing to activate from a pre registrant list that doesn't exist right now under California. We do have a 16 and 17 year old pre registrant list, but that's an automatic trigger when the person becomes 18.

And so we haven't seen language because these are Committee amendments and we've only seen the analysis. But our understanding is that there isn't any specific guidance as to what it means to activate the registration.

And we're concerned that by putting the DMV in charge of determining citizenship, then putting people on a pre authorization list, and then somehow, without necessarily giving them the opportunity to attest their citizenship, essentially creating a backdoor to a back end system.

I understand. Senator, do you want to, I mean, the problem is we got this language like a day or two ago, so it's been a little difficult to digest. Do you have a response to that on whether people are going to be put on some pre registration list that may not otherwise be eligible?

That is not the intent. The intent is actually to make it even more clear.

But, yeah, but the way the bill is written, it says that basically they're going to be assumed eligible unless they provide some documentation showing they're not eligible. So what would someone who's not here legally show that the DMV would then conclude they're not eligible.

So there's actually two filters here. So under the current system, this would be adding a filter that says if a person provides a green card, if a person provides a visa.

Those are legal immigrants.

Yes. People who are legally here who are going through the DMV process but are not eligible to register to vote. Let's add a filter for those people. Let's make sure that anybody who provides a green card, anybody who provides a visa, doesn't have voter registration information transmitted under the current system. Because the current system would ask those people to register to vote, they could make anonymous mistake.

The pre approved list would only be the flip side of that. If a person provides a US passport, if a person provides a birth certificate. Only those people who are logged as providing one of those documents would be added to this list. The Secretary of State could create, it's discretionary to the Secretary of State. It's not mandatory in the bill.

The first filter applies when?.

The first filter would be added to the current system. So right now, somebody going through the DMV transaction, those questions are asked to everybody applying for a standard license or a real ID.

So someone who's here unlawfully would still be asked if they want to register.

So people who are undocumented go into a separate category of license called an AB 60 license, which is not covered by the motor voter process. Those people are already excluded. In order to get a license in California, you must provide proof of lawful presence, a standard license or a real ID.

Okay, so I know I have a real ID. I had to provide, you know, birth certificate, all that stuff. So for a non real ID driver's license, you're saying those people are not offered the opportunity to register to vote under the current system?

There's three categories. There's real ID, there's standard ID, and there's AB 60. AB 60 is the category for people who are undocumented. That group is excluded fully from motor voter. For people in the standard and real ID categories, they must provide proof of lawful presence to get their driver's license.

Okay, so I guess the confusion is about the pre authorization or registration list. Do you have any further explanation on how this is going to work?

So, I mean, this bill allows the process to get worked out. And so this is where we've made the changes. The intent is definitely to have a pre approved list, as has been described in terms of the different buckets. Right. Of those that are eligible to vote.

So is the idea, I'm trying to understand what the goal is here. Yeah. One day you're gonna pass a bill and flip a switch and so everyone on the pre approved list will be automatically registered. Is that sort of the goal here?

So the idea is the ultimate goal is to figure out a way for those who are eligible to vote in our state to have the ability to vote. And so this doesn't necessarily get us there. You know, over 4 million of folks on that list.

Why do you say they don't have the ability to register to vote?