Senate Standing Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments

Thank you so much. Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Members. This bill provides voters the opportunity to remove the current prohibition on public financing of campaigns in California during the November 2026 ballot. Since 1988, public financing of campaigns has been prohibited in California jurisdictions other than charter cities.

Five charter cities today actively have public financing of campaigns, which include the cities of Berkeley, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland and San Francisco. In these charter cities, voters overwhelmingly approve public financing measures because they desire an alternative, more equitable fundraising system.

The forthcoming amendments will move the proposed ballot measure to the November 2026 ballot while specifying basic requirements at public financing systems, and candidates using public funding must follow the following: public financing systems may not use funds that are earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety, or require the voluntary--require that voluntarily participating public funding candidates abide by expenditure limits.

It will require that candidates meet strict criteria to qualify, such as requiring that they must receive small dollar contributions or vouchers from a specified number of adult residents. It will bar the use of public funding funds to pay for legal defenses, fines, or repayments of personal loans to candidate campaigns.

And it says that public funding systems shall not discriminate based on party or according to whether a candidate is a challenger or an incumbent. Together, these new requirements will protect taxpayers and maximize the benefit of qualified candidates and voters.

Public financing campaigns is the best way to empower voters, increase diversity of candidates running for office, and give voters confidence that big money can't just buy their elections. But most importantly, this effort in California is about restoring local control for jurisdictions to decide what electoral funding system best works for locality.

AB 270 does not require or institute public financing anywhere. It just provides local jurisdictions more autonomy to decide what is best for them. It is time we provide voters the opportunity to decide whether we remove the prohibition on a proven campaign financing system that empowers everyday voters.

And I am going to respectfully--urging your aye vote when the time is appropriate. Today, I am pleased to be joined by my witnesses in support. That's Trent Lange, the Executive Director of California Clean Money Campaign, and Pedro Hernandez, the Legal and Policy Director for California Common Cause.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Trent Lange, Executive Director of the California Clean Money Campaign. We're proud to sponsor AB 270 and are very grateful to the leadership of Assembly Member Lee for authoring it and for the work of this committee. Voters are increasingly concerned about the problem of money in politics.

In a poll we conducted in March, 81 percent of likely voters said big money campaign contributors had too much influence over elected officials in California, and 63 percent said ordinary voters had too little influence.

AB 270 addresses this problem the same way that SB 24 that this committee previously passed will by placing the California Fair Elections Act on the November 2024 ballot to give every city, county, district in the state the ability to pass public funding of campaigns to empower voters that charter cities currently have.

Some opposed to this idea have referenced how voters rejected the same question 14 years ago, but this is a different measure. Prop 15 in 2010 simply repealed the ban on public funding campaigns, which opponents attacked because there were no restrictions on how local elected officials might use them.

The measure AB 270 will place on the ballot, on the other hand, will ensure that public funding systems protect taxpayers and maximize the benefit to voters by banning discrimination based on party or incumbency, requiring voluntarily participating candidates to abide by expenditure limits and meet strict criteria to qualify, and by placing limits on what public funds can be used for.

Since 2010, we have seen voters in charter cities express immense support for public financing. In 2011, Measure H in Los Angeles passed with 75 percent of the vote, in 2016, Measure X1 in Berkeley passed with 65 percent of the vote, and just in 2022, Oakland passed Measure W with 74 percent of the vote.

It's time to return local control to every jurisdiction so they have the same right that charter cities do to explore these important campaign finance options, and with that, we respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Pedro Hernandez. I'm here on behalf of California Common Cause. We're happy to be joining as co-sponsors of AB 270. At Common Cause, we work to build a more inclusive and representative democracy, which empowers everyday people to have a real impact on the decisions and policies that affect us all.

AB 270 would end the state ban on public financing for elections and take a step forward in making our state's electoral system one that works for all Californians. We urge this committee to support our collective effort to get this measure placed on the ballot in 2026. As an organization that works closely with communities across the state, we see how many people are alienated and turned off by the way our campaign finance system currently works.

Right or wrong, it causes a sense that you can only win if you are wealthy, have friends with deep pockets, or are willing to take big checks from special interests. This turns off so many in what is already a difficult moment in our democracy. But a small dollar public financing program can help change this trend. These programs bring a broader and more diverse group of people out to donate, to vote, and ultimately even run for office. If we want our elections to fully represent the people of California, we need a campaign finance system that does the same.

We're currently working to implement or pass small dollar public finance programs in Oakland, San Jose, San Diego, and other cities across the state, but this should be possible everywhere, including state elections, not just in our charter cities. AB 270 will help make this possible. We thank Assembly Member Lee, the California Clean Money Campaign for their leadership, this committee, and ask for a yay vote. Thank you.

Well, thank you very much to both lead witnesses who are here today. Is there anybody else in the room who would like to express support? If you would like to, you may come forward and say just your name and the organization that you are affiliated with and that you support the bill. Yes, right there.

My name is Craig. I'm from San Jose. We're in support of the bill.

Thank you.

My name is Carol Cross. I'm from Redwood City, and I support this bill.

My name is Melisse Leib. I'm from Mountain View, and I support this bill.

I'm Alan Brinker from Sunnyvale, and I--my mouth's too dry--I'm in favor of this.

I'm Elsa Schafer. I am from Menlo Park. I represent the San Mateo County Democracy for America, and I support this bill.

Thank you.

I'm Edith Jacobi from Palo Alto, and I support this bill.

Thank you.

My name is Joe Ely. I live in Brentwood, California, and I strongly support this bill.

My name is Eileen Sargent. I'm from here in Sacramento. On behalf of my children and grandchildren, I support this bill.

Thank you.

My name is Elaine Elbizri. I'm from Palo Alto, and I strongly support this bill.

My name is Catherine Espitia from Tracy, California, and I fervently support this bill.

I'm Christine Eichin, also from Tracy, and I support this bill.

My name is David Schmidt. I'm a volunteer with the California Clean Money Campaign, and I strongly support the bill.

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

Hi. Ralph Finley. I drove up from San Jose this morning just to tell you I support this bill.

Thank you.

Nancy Neff, representing the Dean Democratic Club of Silicon Valley, in support.

Good morning. My name is Kelly Cuthbertson. I'm from Napa, and I strongly support this bill. Thank you.

Gary Appell from Mill Valley, strongly support this bill.

Vickie Mueller Olvera. I live in San Jose, and I strongly support this bill. Thanks.

I'm Jim Davidson. I'm from Los Altos, and I support this bill.

John Fioretta, San Jose, support.

Chris Licht from San Rafael. Please support.

C.T. Weber, Sacramento Legislative from Peace and Freedom Party, and we support if amended. We're against pension funds, so if that's in there.

Graham Huey from Walnut Creek, in support.

Amy Huey from Walnut Creek, in support.

Susan Pelican from Woodland, speaking on behalf of Indivisible: State Strong and about 10 other chapters, including my own, Yolo. Support.

Shirley Shelangoski, Pleasant Hill, strong support.

Shirley McGrath from Walnut Creek. Please support this bill.

And lastly, I have proxies for League of Women Voters, Courage California, Consumer Watchdog, and Endangered Habitats League, in support. Thank you.

Well, thank you very much to everyone. Oh, okay. Good. We have another one.

Jeff Tartagia, an advocate, Sacramento. KIRA, Dogfight, Sac Tru. These are various organizations all in support of this.

Well, thank you very much. Thank you to everyone who came to Sacramento today to voice your personal support and support for the organizations you represent. It does really matter to us when we hear from the public, so I want to say thank you to you for taking your time to do that.

Is there anybody in the room who is opposed? Lead opposition could come forward. Okay. Any individual opposition, someone wishing to come to the microphone? No?Okay. Seeing none, then we will take it back to the committee. I do not see any questions or comments from the committee. Would you like to--well, I'll just personally say that I support this bill and I'm grateful that you brought it forward, and I just wanted to confirm that you're accepting the amendments.

That's correct, yes.

Okay. That's great. Would you like to close?

Yes. First, I would like to thank all the folks who've come far and wide from California to come testify in support of this bill. Really appreciate all the groundswell. I hope that the members of the committee will appreciate that we are taking it slow and socializing and building this idea out with the public as it is a grassroots idea so that we won't be rushing it, you know, anytime soon, but it will be from 2026 and when the time is appropriate, hope to receive your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. So we will put this on call until we have a quorum and then we will vote on it. Thank you again. Okay, so next we have--I know that Assembly Member Low was here earlier too, and he has the next two bills, and then we will go after that to Assembly Member Reyes. Yes. Whenever you're ready, you may start.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and colleagues, for allowing me to present Assembly 884 to help increase language access and I respectfully ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time.

Okay, do you have any lead witnesses? Hello. Welcome.

All right, so I'll go first. Yeah. All right. My name is Pedro Hernandez. Hello again. I'm here on behalf of California Common Cause. We're happy to be joining as co sponsors of AB 884. I want to thank you for adopting so many election reforms over the past few years to make it easier for Californians to vote.

Unfortunately, language access has not been baked into many of those reforms. Currently, the Federal Voting Rights Act provides that all election materials must be translated if a language group reaches a specified county threshold, but these thresholds are high. Additionally, the federal provisions only applies to Spanish, Asian languages, and Native American and Native Alaskan languages.

State law has a much lower threshold, but in terms of written materials, only provides for translated reference ballots. You can actually vote with one officially and in 2019, court has limited the statute, the state statute, to the same language categories as federal law.

We're part of a language access workgroup which conducted seven listening sessions in six languages, and participants expressed frustration with the reference ballots, especially in comparison to in language votable ballots. This Bill does two things. First, for larger groups, it creates a threshold, one like the one found in federal law, but applies it to any language group.

If, for example, an Arabic speaking community or Armenian speaking community in a county reaches the larger threshold, voters would be entitled to all the translated all of the voting materials in their language. A recent poll conducted by Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies showed that these reforms are covered, are supported by 3 and 4 voters.

Second, for smaller language groups, AB 884 keeps the existing threshold found in state law, but requires an in language votable ballot instead of a reference ballot. It also exempt expands, sorry. It also expands coverage to any language group that hits this threshold.

Regarding costs, as noted in the analysis, we're committed to working with the other stakeholders and oppositions as we think about the state budget and think about what is actually accomplishable. In conclusion, for limited English proficient voters, a barrier to voting is the lack of translated materials.

We know from an academic study that, and from everyday stories that translated election materials increase voter registration and turnout, and AB 884 eliminates or reduces that barrier. Thank you for your time. I respectfully ask for a yes vote.

Good morning. My name is Rahima Abdi. I'm the Director of Organizing and Campaigns with PANA, the Partnership for Advancement of New Americans. PANA is based in San Diego and founded and led by refugee and immigrant.

We are proud to be sponsor of aviated for a common sense approach to make California democracy inclusive and accessible for a diverse community. Language access is a large part of our work for VG community not having access to language services mixed difficult for us to engage in a society. Our community are diverse. We are multi ethnic.

Numbers are often lost in a census count. Currently, federal and state language access law does not include the community we work with. Many of our community members speak Somali, Arabic, Maharik, because of the federal law does not include African languages. For the language access, we're not able to receive the language assistance provided by the state.

There are a lot of change that came when San Diego adopted the Voter Choice Act, and because of language not covered by the state law, it was difficult for the community to receive the information on those changes, including reduction of voting sites.

As a person who has worked with community members navigating elections, I want to share that requesting translated material or having to travel to get translated material is difficult for our community. Many of our elders do not drive and would prefer to vote at home with sample material.

It's difficult for the voters to compare the sample ballot to English ballot. Privacy is also an issue. Often community elders rely on others to help them vote to help them with their ballot. Sorry. For example, one of the community member emphasized that voting should be private. It should be me, myself and I.

Our community want to be part of California while the sample ballot are the start for that. Having access to election information on votable ballot would mean that our community would not have to struggle by relying on others or have to compare a separate document when they're voting.

Many new recent arrivals to California do not speak the language covered by state and federal law. And AB 88 would fix by this. AB 88 would fix this by recognizing our community and providing access to information and ballot that we can understand. And I thank you for your time. I request you to vote yes, please.

Well, thank you very much to our lead witnesses. Is there anybody else in the room who would like to express support? Come forward, please and say your name organization and your support.

Good morning. Faith Lee with Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California. We're in support also providing me too for ACLU California Action. Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? Is there, are there any opposition witnesses to this Bill? I'm not seeing any. oh, you are. Okay. If you're a primary witness, you may come forward. And you have two minutes. oh, okay, great. You both have two minutes.

Good morning, Chair, My name is Tricia Webber. I am a co-chair of the California Association of Clerk and Election Officials Legislative Committee and it's very hard to sit here and oppose a Bill that does provide access to the ballot.

I appreciate that we've been able to work with both the sponsors and the author's office during the course of this Bill, but unfortunately we're still in an opposed position due to fiscal concerns with this counties having to absorb quite a bit of costs in order to make this work. We're not quite there yet.

I appreciate that they continue to work with us, but unfortunately we're still opposing due to fiscal concerns.

Okay, thank you. Yes, go ahead. You have two minutes.

Good morning. Eric Lehr on behalf of the California State Association of Counties, we respectfully oppose this Bill unless amended, the aim of this Bill is commendable. We firmly believe the voices of all Californians, those with disabilities, seniors, working parents, recent immigrants, everyone, are vital to the integrity of our democracy.

However, AB 884 would impose significant costs on Election Administration with no appropriation to offset immediate or ongoing costs. The Bill underscores the flaws in how the state finances elections, which has led to increasingly technical and complicated elections without upfront funding to implement new requirements.

Elections are conducted at the local level by counties on behalf of the state, and most counties are responsible for conducting elections on behalf of the city, special districts and school districts that reside within their boundaries. While cities and districts typically pay counties for administering their elections, the state typically does nothing.

Counties typically have one method to seek state funding for election costs, navigating the costly and complicated state mandate process, which can take years before any funding is received from the state.

During those years, the Legislature can suspend a mandate at any time, leaving local officials torn between absorbing all costs with no state support or ceasing to provide a service expected by other constituents.

Over the years, the state has suspended several election related mandates, including providing absentee ballots to any registered voter, verifying signatures on provisional ballot envelopes, and tabulating absentee ballots by precinct, among others. Currently, the state has accumulated a backlog of 72.5 million in unpaid reimbursement claims owed to counties for suspended election related mandates.

To quote the Legislative Analyst's Office, the process the state uses to achieve its local election priority simply has not worked. For these reasons, we are regretfully opposed to this Bill without an appropriation to support it. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Before we move on, we would like to establish a quorum, so I'm gonna ask the assistant to call the roll.

Roll Call

Okay, thank you. If we have anyone else in the room who is opposed, please come forward and state your name and organization.

Madam Chair, Dylan Elliott on behalf of the Solano County Board of Supervisors in respectful opposition.

Anybody else in the room in opposition? Okay, we'll bring it back to the Members. Are there any questions or comments from Members? I'm not seeing. Seeing any. I am sorry to hear about the budget problems which you described. That is an unfortunate situation.

I am supporting this Bill because I think that it has a high value and I hope that we can continue to work on the funding problems that you're discussing. Thank you for raising them. In your opposition testimony today. Would you like to close?

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And similarly, I'd like to echo the comments made with those who testified in opposition in helping to acknowledge the concern about the fiscal impact of state mandates. And hopefully we can address that issue should this Bill move forward. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay, great. The measure. oh, Senator Allen.

Yeah, I just, I do want to, you know, I think these fiscal issues are very real, and I guess it'll get addressed in appropriations. But I do encourage you to, at the end of the day, all of these goals are very laudable, especially the ones in this Bill.

And yet we know it's increasingly difficult. One thing we hear about all the time in this Committee is the financial pressures that the counties are facing as they try to impose, as they try to implement all the mandates and requests that we have for them. So figuring out a way to make it work and working through the budget process, et cetera, is going to be really vital.

Thank you. Assembly Member or Senator Nguyen. Sorry.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Just a quick question you have here requires that at least 10,000 limited English. Is that 10,000 individuals within the geographical area that requests for the another language, or is it 10,000 people in population?

Yes. If I may, Madam Chair, lead witness also to admit.

Yeah, so it's 10,000 within a County of, and it would be from the census count. The Secretary of State usually does a special request, a special tabulation. So it would be counting 10,000. And the qualifying, it's 10,000 of adults who are limited English proficient. So it's a subcategory of the total population.

So by population, not by registered voters requests.

That's right. And that's done because, you know, making these resources available shouldn't have to require extra steps for some people. Right. That's the idea, is to make language access actually accessible.

And I'm all for that. I'm 1000% with you on that. I'm just trying to look at the county's perspective if, like, say, I've got mostly Orange County and three cities in Los Angeles. Right. So Orange County, there's.

We're very diverse, but I don't know if you have 10,000 individuals who request for these ballot materials in a specific language because we've got a lot of, you know, we've got 3.2 million people. So if let's. I'm just gonna make it up. I don't know. Let's say Tagalog, Filipino, and I don't know the.

I don't know the number. I'm just making this up. Okay. Let's say there's 50,000 Filipinos who live in Orange County, but only say 3,000 who actually request for Tagalog materials. So is that saying, then the county should go ahead and translate it even though there's only 2,000 who asked for it?

So that's where my concern is because I think that's a lot of. I think people should have access. There's no doubt. My concern is, are we translating materials and keeping them on the side? Just for what? I mean, what if there's nobody who requests.

Yeah. So in Orange County, the federal. The languages that are currently covered under federal law are Chinese, Korean, Spanish and Vietnamese. Under AB 84, it would also include Tagalog and Farsi, which are pretty large, significant communities within Orange County. And it would be looking at population from the census. That is correct.

Okay, thank you. Can I make a comment? I'm supportive of the Bill. I think hearing the concern of the county, maybe something to think about is as you move forward or in the future is something to look at the number of requests by the voters because this is specifically voting material, so it's not for population.

So I think that might maybe help the counties a little bit of, if they don't have to, you know, look at every language, you know, I mean, there's enough people in Orange County that needs Farsi and there's enough that Tagalog I know that, but I think just going forward, maybe that might help in easing the counties in terms of the budgetary a little bit.

But I'm supportive of the Bill today.

Thank you very much, Senator. And I know that you also acknowledge the importance coming from a background with the county specifically, too. That is certainly the intent, and hopefully we'll be able to address that should this Bill move forward.

Thank you. I just want to make sure that you're able to close again since we had questions after your close.

Thank you. I'll leave that as my close. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Okay. Thank you. Well, let's go ahead and vote. oh, do we have a motion on this? Do any Members wish to move?

I'll move it.

Okay. Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Nguyen which is do pass to appropriations.

Roll Call

All right. It is 4-0, and it's on call. Thank you. And, Assemblymember Low, you have a second bill, AB 996.

Thank you very much, Chair and colleagues. This bill has, of course, a unique circumstance and a personal dynamic in which there was a recent election that was very close. And as I represent and reside from the County of Santa Clara, understanding that there are provisions on automatic recounts, we help to amplify that similar type of policy at a statewide level to ensure that every vote does indeed count for primary elections.

This bill would then require that the difference of an election, if there are less than 0.25 votes cast of difference, that there would be an automatic recount commensurate with that of the County of Santa Clara.

And with me today also is representative from the County of Santa Clara to answer any technical questions, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote at the appropriate time.

Okay, thank you. You may go ahead. You have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Mary Hanna-Weir. I'm Lead Deputy County Counsel for the County of Santa Clara. For the past six years, I've served as primary advice counsel for the Registrar of Voters, providing real time advice throughout each election and recount.

During the recent congressional District 16 recount, I collaborated with colleagues in San Mateo County and the Secretary of State to provide daily advice and counsel to the Registrar through that unprecedented recount. While the County of Santa Clara does not have a position on this bill, I am here to answer any technical questions you may have.

Okay, thank you very much. Is there anybody else in the room who would like to express support? Not seeing anyone. Anybody in opposition? If you are in opposition, you may come forward as the lead opposition witness. Not seeing any. Do we have anybody else in the room wishing to express opposition? Okay. I would like to just ask if you are accepting the amendments.

Yes. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Okay, great. Thank you. Then we'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions or comments?

Yes, as this is long overdue, having won an election by five votes. I had to ask for--I'm sorry, by three votes--I had to ask for a recount myself, and I was on the hook for the payment of tens and thousands of dollars had we not become victorious of that recount.

And so, you know, it wasn't a state race or a congressional race, it was a county race. And so this is long overdue. Hopefully in the future, they can also add in the county as well for county races, because I think it's necessary and it makes it.

It helps the candidate as they move forward, knowing that it's only, you know, you're less than 25 votes. Like I said, I was only three, and so I'm supportive of your bill today. Thank you.

Okay. Thanks very much. Any other comments or questions? It does seem like a bill that's overdue, and I appreciate you bringing it. Let's see. Do we have a motion? Would you like to close?

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Committee staff, for allowing me to close and acknowledge, number one, thank you very much to the County of Santa Clara for already adopting such a policy to help ensure that every vote does count and that there's continuous integrity in the electoral process. Number one.

Number two is to Senator Nguyen's point, as reflected in the Committee analysis on the most recent congressional district, 16, there was a tie of this congressional race in this presidential primary. In that circumstance, there was a recount requested in my name against my wishes, and this was paid for by dark money of a super PAC.

So when all of these different components disturb the process, we want to help ensure that there's an automatic process, so you're getting that type of influence out of that endeavor.

So this, again, helps to maintain the integrity of the electoral process, mirroring that of the County of Santa Clara, and hopefully doing so given the also personal experiences that other Members of this Committee have also faced in their tenure. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. Do we have a motion? Okay, great. Thank you. Let's go ahead and vote.

Motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

It's 4-0 and it's on call. Thank you.

Thank you.

And we do, we have had Assemblymember Reyes waiting patiently. So if it's okay with Assemblymember Pellerin, she could go next. Is that all right with you? Are you, are you trying to get to your Committee? You have two other committees. Okay, well, we'll go in the order that it's listed. Go ahead. You can go next. I apologize.

Thank you, Chair and Members. Since 1913, California law has prohibited a person from running for more than one office at a primary election. That's not just the opinion of what the law says.

It's also how the law has been interpreted for decades by the California Secretaries of State, Attorneys General from both major parties, nonpartisan county elections officials, and multiple state and federal courts. And the logic behind the law is obvious.

Without it, a candidate could file to run for every congressional seat in the state at the same time or for every statewide elective office at a single primary election.

Notwithstanding that fact, in December, a Sacramento Supreme Court judge ordered the Secretary of State to place a candidate's name on the ballot for a congressional seat, even though that same candidate's name was already on the ballot for an Assembly seat.

Even as the court reached its decision, the judge acknowledged that it defies common sense to find the law permits a candidate to run for two offices during the same election. AB 1784 clarifies that state law prohibits a person from filing nomination documents for more than one office at a primary election.

The clarification ensures that the law is applied in the way that has been interpreted for decades. Additionally, AB 1787, I'm sorry, 1784 allows a candidate to withdraw nomination documents that were previously filed at a primary election as long as those documents were not for statewide office.

This withdrawal procedure is carefully designed to give candidates flexibility to adjust their plans if circumstances change, while avoiding changes to elections timelines that threaten elections officials preparations for conducting the election.

I work closely with elections officials in developing the provisions of this bill, and I'm happy to report that AB 1784 has the support of the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials, the League of Women Voters of California, and Secretary of State Dr. Shirley Weber, among others.

AB 1784 will not change and is not intended to change what happened during the candidate filing process for this year's primary election. Instead, it merely seeks to clarify the rules for future elections to avoid unnecessary uncertainty and voter confusion. With me to testify in support of AB 1784 is Tricia Webber, representing the California Association of Clerks and Elections Officials. And I have another witness too.

Tim Cromartie, on behalf of Secretary of State, Julianne Weber.

Wonderful. Thank you for being here.

Well, you both have two minutes. Go ahead.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair Blakespear and Members of the Committee. My name is Tricia Weber. I am the co-chair of the California Association of Clerk and Election Officials Legislative Committee. And we are proud to support Assemblymember Pellerin's bill 1784, which clarifies the nomination process during a primary election.

And puts into place what we were already doing up until this past year. And it gives a process for people to withdraw their nomination during a primary, if need be, and helps to make the ballot look a little cleaner and more understanding for voters. And I'm here to answer any technical questions that there may be.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Tim Cromartie, on behalf of Secretary of State Shirley Nash Weber. The secretary is pleased to support this measure. It will provide, as has been said, additional flexibility and guidance in the area of candidate filings.

We believe it will also further the state's compelling interest in preventing voter confusion and helping to limit costly special elections. Among other things, the recent amendments would add to the code a sorely needed definition for statewide office, providing greater clarity. Moving forward with that, we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Anybody else in the room wishing to express support? Seeing none. Anybody wishing to be an opposition witness and come forward? Seeing none. Would you like to express your opposition to this bill? Seeing none. We will bring it back to the Committee. Any questions or comments?

Okay, I just still share that I really applaud you, the author, for such a simple and common sense, non-bureaucratic solution to this problem that no one even really knew existed until the Sacramento Superior Court handed down its ruling last year. People shouldn't be able to run for two offices at the same time.

And creating a process to let candidates withdraw their nomination papers makes sense. So I support this bill, and I'm grateful that you brought it forward. Assemblymember Pellerin, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote. So does Assemblymember Eloise Reyes.

We have a motion by Senator Menjivar and the motion is do pass to Appropriations. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

It's 4-0, and we will leave it on call.

Thank you so much.

Okay. Long suffering Assemblymember Reyes, it's your turn. Thank you for your patience, we appreciate it. This is AB 2724.

Thank you Madam Chair and Members of the Committee for this Opportunity to present AB 2724. This Bill will allow high school students in California the opportunity and the resources needed to pre register to vote by the end of the 11th grade. Voter pre registration is already the law.

We can pre register our 16 and 17 year olds. It's an excellent tool to make it possible for the 16 and 17 year olds to pre register to vote so that upon their 18th birthday, they are automatically registered voters. Every election cycle, we discuss the low voter turnout from all across California.

Millions of Californians pass up on the opportunity to exercise their democratic right to vote at every election. One critical strategy we can employ to address this is by ensuring that young Californians who are eligible to vote are registered to do so.

Currently, only 11% of our 16 and 17 year olds in California are actually pre registered to vote. By focusing on our youth and bringing the resources to them at their high schools, we can ensure more Californians, especially young Californians, are voting and developing the habit of doing so at an earlier age.

Civic engagement is invaluable and that's why we need AB 2724 the high school Voter Registration Act, so more voices can be heard at the polls on election day. Here to testify and support are Ozzie Dolan, a student organizer with Inland Congregations United for Change, and Maria Tomas, a field fellow with Power California.

Thank you for being here today. You each have two minutes.

Good morning and thank you chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Ozzie Dolan. I am a junior at Pacific High School in San Bernardino and a student voter engagement lead as part of Inland Congregations United for Change ICUC. As ICUC, we are a Member organization of peak California.

I am here today in strong support for AB 2724 in hopes to share why this Bill is so important for students like myself. Through my participation with ICUC, I have learned about many different issues that may impact my community and it has given me the chance to contribute to positive change.

One thing I've learned through ICUC and the one I am most passionate about, is spreading, raising youth engagement in voting and spreading voter literacy. Through my work as a student voter engagement lead, I have been able to witness how much my peers and I care about this issue our country and communities are currently facing.

I have also witnessed how unfortunately that passion can turn into frustration due to uncertainty about how translate our beliefs into meaningful actions. My understanding of voting and pre registration has been thanks to my involvement with ICUC and the guidance of one dedicated teacher at my school.

I am concerned that students without access to these resources might miss out on the chance to learn about this crucial information. Like I have been able to, AB 2724 presents a crucial opportunity to address this gap by providing comprehensive voter education in our schools.

I strongly believe that this Bill holds immense potential to empower youth like myself to become informed and engaged participants in our democracy and will help establish the foundation for fostering a strong culture of civic engagement among our youth.

This, without a doubt, will send a strong message that our voices matter and that youth voter engagement is crucial for shaping the future of our state and country.

Please help us pass AB 2724 in order to inform our high school students, the ones that will eventually lead the future and help us provide them tools, the tools necessary to be able to create a successful and prosperous future. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you for coming here from San Bernardino to testify. We appreciate it.

Good Morning Community Members. My name is Maria Tolas. I live in Pittsburgh, California. I am a field organizer with Power California Action. For the past two months, I had the opportunity to work on a voter registration program.

I had the privilege of going to Pittsburgh High School as an alum to facilitate presentations on the importance of voting and getting students registered and pre registered to vote. My team and I were able to register and pre register 400 students.

I was blown away by the attention and seriousness in which these students took the presentations and decided that they would register and pre register to vote. They showed that young people are ready to listen and ready to exercise their voice. All they need is the information to be available to commit.

However, there was a high school in the district that did not allow me to do this. With AB 2724 it ensures that all high schoolers get the information they need to strengthen their participation in our government and the voter pre registration happens in all high schools in California.

Furthermore, in high school, young people are already learning about civics and government, which makes it a perfect opportunity for them to exercise real world civic participation. Evidence shows that when young people vote in their first few consecutive elections, they become lifetime voters.

From the last election cycles, we've seen more and more young people turn out to the polls to vote on the issue that matters most to them and their communities. Being a DACA recipient, I cannot vote myself, so I do all I can to encourage others to vote, especially young people.

I encourage you and urge you to do the same and support AB 2724 and give young folks the opportunity to surprise you. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anybody else in the room wishing to express support? Okay.

Good morning. My name is Angela. I'm a youth organizer with Inland Congregation United for Change, and I'm here in strong support. AB 2724. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any. Is there any opposition testimony in the room wishing to come forward? Seeing none. Anybody wishing to express opposition? Seeing none. We will bring it back to the Committee for questions or comments. I don't see any. So we will allow you to close.

Thank you. And I want to thank Ozzie and Maria for coming to testify. This is really important, trying to get our young people to get pre registered so that on their 18th birthday, they are registered voters and get them excited about voting and being involved civically with that. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Madam Chair, I just wanted to say one thing. I mean, in the March primary, my age group of 18 to 35, I think it was like two to 4% in LA County voted that. So I commend you again for bringing this Bill forward. Move the Bill.

Thank you very much. Yes, we know that democracy works when people are engaged in the process and being registered to vote is that first step. So thank you again to both witnesses for coming to testify. And with that, let's see. Do we have a motion, Senator Menjivar, was that a motion?

Yes, on AB 2724 and the motion is do pass to appropriations assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

It's 2-1, and we will leave it on call. Thank you.

Thank you.

And with that, I don't see any other authors, so I think we will go to the consent calendar. We have one item on consent. It's AB 2631. And Senator Nguyen has moved the consent calendar. Thank you. Let's go ahead and call the roll.

[Roll Call]

3-0 and we will leave that on call.

Okay. And we will go back to AB 270 from Lee as amended. We did not have a quorum, so we did not vote at that time, but we can go ahead and do that now. Was there a motion on that Bill? Okay. Senator Menjivar moved. Thank you.

Roll Call

It's 2-1, and we will leave that on call, and I do see an author has come. Thank you so much. It's Assembly Member Berman with AB 3184. So, Assembly Member Berman, you may present your measure.

Thank you, Chair Blakespear and Sanders. Under existing law, the Secretary of State compiles data and issues a report on vote by mail ballot rejections, categorized by the rejection reason. Currently, the secretary is charged with reporting on all elections, including locally run elections, and is doing her best to report.

However, the Secretary of State does not have a direct role in local elections and is not the keeper of local data, so there can't be a guarantee that the report is 100% complete, complete, and accurate.

AB 3184 would clarify that the report on vote by mail ballot rejection data issued by the Secretary of State applies to elections that are under the purview of the Secretary of State.

It's my understanding that this approach is fairly typical where state and federal election data is handled by the secretary and local data is handled at the local level.

Therefore, AB 3184 would provide that the vote by mail rejected ballot report posted by the Secretary of State apply to every election for state office, as well as explicitly include state recall elections and state and federal special vacancy elections, but not purely local elections.

Respectfully request an aye vote, and I'm joined today by Tim Croartie on behalf of Secretary of State Weber, who's the sponsor of the Bill.

Thank you. You have two minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair Members. Tim Cromartie, on behalf of the Secretary of State. First, traditionally, the Secretary of State had no responsibility for reporting on local elections prior to SBU 503, which created the current requirement just four years ago. Our office has historically been charged with publishing data on state and federal elections only.

Second, although current law expressly requires local jurisdictions to report to the Secretary of State within 31 days of an election, the number of rejected ballots, fully 50% of them, do not comply without contact being initiated by our office.

That contact often consists of not one, but a series of calls and emails to elicit the desired information, which we subsequently publish.

Now for that 50%, significant resources are being devoted to contacting locals, confirming whether their election was in fact held, because in some cases, it has not been for various reasons, how many rejected ballots resulted and what the reasons were for the rejection in each case. As you can imagine, this is a time consuming, staff intensive process.

Now, it is true that the Secretary of State's office was consultant when SCP 503 was moving through the Legislature, and to the best of our knowledge, our reply was that we had no concerns. In our defense, experience is the best teacher.

At the time, our election staff had no experience reporting local data or taking responsibility for gathering it. We now have a three year window of experience on which to make a recommendation. As of 2021, we had none. This measure will streamline the requirement to be more in line with our traditional reporting duties.

We sponsor this measure in the hope that the Committee will see the wisdom of this approach rather than have our office continue to gather local data in what has been a slow and at times piecemeal approach. With that, we respectfully ask for your support.

Thank you very much. Is there anybody else in the room wishing to express support? Please come forward.

Good morning. Larissa Mercado on behalf of the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials in support. Thank you. Thank you.

Elsa Schaefer, Menlo Park. In support.

Thank you very much. Any lead? Witnesses in opposition, wishing to express opposition, seeing none. Anyone in the room? Wishing to express opposition? Also seeing none. We'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions, comments? Not seeing any. Thank you very much for your Bill, and I invite you to close.

Thank you very much for the conversation. Thank you very much. Hopefully for your support. Always good to see my friend Elsa Schaeffer from Menlo Park. Wasn't expecting that. Happy to see you in Sac. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Do we have a motion on AB 3184? Assembly Member or Senator Menjivar was there in a motion? Thank you. Thank you, Senator. So the motion is do pass to appropriations assistant. Please call the roll.

Roll Call

It's 2-0, and we'll leave it on call. Thank you. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Okay, we do not have any more authors in the room, so we are going to go into a recess until some of them come. We, our election Committee is back. We have. Senator Allen, on behalf of Assembly Member, Jones-Sawyer for AB 3123. You may present, Senator.

Hey. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Members. I'm presenting this bill on behalf of Assemblymember Joan Sawyer. The bill seeks to ensure that ethics laws that govern elected officials statewide apply equally to the LA Metro Board of Directors.

With the recent passage of SB 1439, which amended the Levine Act in 2023, California made clear that there should be a uniform ethics law governing contract decisions by local and state officials, regardless of the composition of a board or commission.

However, LA Metro is still subject to a 30-year-old law that imposes different standards on board members regarding contract decisions and campaign contributions. Just to give you an example, under current law, board members are prohibited from accepting campaign contributions over $10, but the Levine Act prohibits campaign contributions over $250.

These differing standards and requirements have made it difficult for LA Metro to comply simply because Board Members are subject to both the Levine Act and the Hayden Bill in their roles as Metro Board Members. It's basically a conflict of laws.

So LA Metro, in this Bill, is seeking to be consistent with all other officials in the state, which makes contract, which making contract decisions under the standards and guidance of the Levine Act, which governs their primary elected positions.

This bill will bring the Metro board into alignment with the Levine Act by removing outdated language on gifts, onerous travel, and financial conflicts that contrast with current applicable state law and Metro's code of conduct. The bill also makes changes to Metro's lobbyist registration statute, aligning reporting requirements, standards, and prohibitions with similar agencies.

And it codifies the specific authority of Metro's Ethics Department and mandates its independence. Here with me in support of the bill, we have Madeleine Moore, Deputy Executive Officer for LA Metro. Every time I see her, she's been promoted to something new, higher and higher. And then Paul Solis, who's the Chief Ethics Officer for LA Metro.

Thank you. You may present each lead witnesses, you have two minutes each.

Please proceed. Thank you, Senator Allen. Good morning, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Madeline Moore. I am here representing LA Metro Government Relations. LA Metro is the proud sponsor of AB 3123. I'm going to turn it over to Paul Solis, LA Metro's Chief Ethics Officer, who can go into greater detail about the bill.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Paul Solis, Chief Ethics Officer at LA Metro. LA Metro is the third-largest transportation system in the United States and has one of the largest capital construction and system expansion programs in the nation to prepare for the 2028 Olympics and beyond.

I'm a board appointed officer and Member of the State Bar of California. Currently, I advise the LA Metro board on issues related to state pay to play laws.

Metro is subject to two of these laws, one, the Public Utilities Code that applies exclusively to Metro, and one in the government code known as the Levine Act that applies statewide. The Metro specific PUC law employs different terms, language, dollar thresholds and time periods.

Then the Levine Act, and importantly, the Levine Act, has ample interpretive guidance issued by the FPPC and courts, while the PUC law has virtually none. This creates issues with compliance, and it's frankly very confusing. It also creates liability and risk for Metro.

The current sponsored amendments will allow the Levine Act to govern the Metro board's pay to pay responsibilities consistent with all other local agencies in the state and the intent of this Legislature as expressed in in 2023. There are additional amendments I want to briefly explain.

First, the Bill would make amendments to Metro's lobbyist registration statute, keeping it consistent with all other jurisdictions like the State of California and the City of Los Angeles. Next, the Bill would remove out of date language in the board's code of conduct that contrasts with current applicable state law and Metro's administrative codes.

The Bill would also enact changes and additions that exist in peer agency codes. Finally, this bill strengthens Metro's Ethics Department by specifying its authority and relationship with the board and agency.

It also adds a two thirds vote requirement, instead of a simple majority for the board to fire the Chief Ethics Officer, the same as Metro's Inspector General that's currently codified in state law.

In conclusion, Metro is simply seeking to implement a clear system where board Members, employees, lobbyists and contractors can all have confidence that they're knowledgeable and compliant with important ethics laws and rules. Thus, Metro supports AB 3123. Thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee.

Thank you very much. Thank you to the Vice Chair for starting this. We'll go on to the next witness. You already presented. Okay, then. If there's anyone else in the room wishing to express support, please come forward. Okay, not seeing any.

If there's any opposition witness who would like to come forward as the lead witness, I don't see any. Anybody else in the room wishing to express opposition? Okay, I do not see any. We'll bring it back to the Committee. Any committee member questions or comments? Okay, not seeing any. We will turn it back to you, Senator Allen.

Respectful, aye vote.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. Let's see, we need. Okay, thank you. Senator Manjavar moves the Bill, so the motion is do pass to appropriations Senators.

[Roll Call]

That is 3-1, and we'll leave it on call. Okay, thank you very much. We are going to open the roll and lift the call for any Members who would like to vote.

Lifting call on file item one, AB 270. Motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. Current vote is 2-1. Chair voted aye. Vice Chair voted no. [Roll Call]

We will leave it on call.

Lifting call on file item six, AB 2724. Motion is do pass to Appropriations. Current vote is 2-1. Chair voted aye. Vice Chair voted no. [Roll Call]

We will leave it on call.

Lifting call on file item 11, AB 3184. Motion is do pass to Appropriations. Current vote is 2-0. Chair voted aye. [Roll Call]

We'll leave it on call.

Lifting call on consent calendar item includes 2631. Current vote is 3-0. Chair voted aye. Vice Chair voted aye. [Roll Call]

We will leave it on call. Okay, that's everything that we are lifting at this time. So we will go back to a recess and call any authors who are needing to present. Please come immediately to room 2100. Thank you. Okay. Thank you for coming. To the two authors who are here.

We're going to go with Assemblymember Valencia, who is next in order. This is AB 2803, and you may present your measure.

Gracias, Madam Chair. Good afternoon to all the committee members. I am here to present AB 2803, which restricts the use of campaign funds for legal defense when candidates and elected officials are convicted of public crimes or fraud.

If a candidate or elected official uses campaign funds in defense of these charges and is convicted, they must reimburse the campaign account. Campaign donors expect their contributions to be used to support their candidate or elected official, but current law lacks clarity when funds are used for dishonorable legal cases.

Elected officials charged with these crimes not only betray the public's trust, but also undermine donor integrity by using those donations to fight immoral charges while in public office. Candidates are already prohibited from running for office if they are convicted of public crimes, so there is no reason why they should be allowed to use campaign contributions and donations on convicted charges.

Felony fraud charges also represent a significant breach of confidence, regardless of the type of fraud charges, since it demonstrates the lack of moral character of the candidate and elected official. Happy to answer any question, if the committee has any.

Thank you very much. Do you have any witnesses in support?

I do not.

Okay. Anybody else in the room wishing to express support? Okay. Any opposition witnesses wishing to come forward? Not seeing any, anybody else in the room wishing to express opposition? Not seeing any, we will bring it back to the committee. I do not see any questions or comments, but I support this bill and think it's a great idea.

Thank you for bringing it forward, and when we get to the appropriate time, we will accept a motion. But would you like to close?

Really appreciate the support this has been supported by through bipartisan partnership. I respectfully ask for yes vote.

Okay. Thank you very much. We'll leave it on call. It is actually not technically on call because we have not had a motion yet, but you don't need to stay. All right, so our next bill is Assemblymember McKinner, AB 2911. You may present your measure.

Good morning, Madam Chair. And, well, good morning, Madam Chair. AB 20911 will discourage the use of dark money in local elections and ease significant financial burdens on local governments by revising the Levine Act's arbitrarily low contribution limit, a limit that has not been changed in over 40 years.

Current law severely limits a local candidate, local candidates ability to run a competitive campaign, communicate directly with voters, and has resulted in an increased use of non-candidate controlled independent expenditure financed with dark money.

A 2021 study published in the American Economic Journal Applied Economics concluded that politics that set low contribution limits reduced the concentration of political power in the hands of richer individuals.

Additionally, in just the past two years, compliance with SB 1439 has cost local government millions of dollars, resources that will be better spent supporting local public safety programs, infrastructure, or efforts to address California's housing and homelessness crisis.

Similar legislation has been heard by this committee earlier this year, and I'm committed to working with Senator Dodd Glazier to resolve any remaining conflicts with their legislation before the bills are voted on by the full Senate and Assembly. Here to testify in support of AB 2911 is Marcel Rodarte, Executive Director of California Contract Cities Association.

Thank you.

Yes, please come forward. You have two minutes.

I'll be quick. Thank you. Good morning, distinguished members of the Senate Elections Constitutional Amendments Committee. My name is Marcel Rodarti, I am the Executive Director of the California Contract Cities Association. We represent 81 cities and nearly 8 million residents in Southern California. It's an honor to be here today in support of AB 29 by author, Assemblymember McKinnor.

Since 1957, contract cities has been dedicated to promoting the interest of our cities and residents, and today, I'm proud to continue that tradition. AB 2911 seeks to increase the Levine Act from dollar 250 to dollar 1500. This increase is crucial as today's low campaign contribution limits.

Disproportionately impact candidates with limited personal finances, creating new barriers for low income candidates should they want to run for office. This disparity undermines principles of fairness and equality in our electoral process. There should be equal opportunity for any qualifying California resident to run for office if they wish to do so.

Notably, contract cities is generally supportive of responsible campaign finance reforms for elected officials at both the state and local levels. However, we do not feel the current limits established by the Levine Act offer such a framework. Instead, its current policies have inadvertently created more opportunities for dark money and local politics.

Contributions that would typically go to candidates campaigns are now more likely to be redirected to independent expenditures and other third party campaigns, making the money harder to follow. Increasing the contribution limit to $1,500 would not only promote more direct contributions, but the policy change will also increase transparency and accountability in campaign financing and strengthen our democracy.

Together, we can ensure that all candidates have a fair chance to participate in our democracy, regardless of their financial status. Thank you for your attention, and I look forward to working together to advance the interests of our cities and residents.

Thank you very much. Anybody else in support of the bill may come forward. State your name, organization and your support.

Madam Chair, Norlyn Asprec with Axiom Advisors, on behalf of the California Building Industry Association. Thank you.

McKay Carney, on behalf of Los Angeles County, in support.

Dylan Elliott, on behalf of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors in support.

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

Nicole Wordelman with the Orange County Board of Supervisors in support.

Thank you very much. Are there any lead witnesses in opposition wishing to come forward?

Still good morning.

Thank you. You have two minutes each.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair and members, I'm Pedro Hernandez. On behalf of California Common Cause, we are respectfully in opposition. We were strong supporters of SB 1439, the Glazier bill, which extended the Levine Act provisions to elected local elected officials.

And while we do appreciate the author's previous amendments that greatly reduced the scope of the bill, we still think the threshold is too high. First, the analysis of the bill notes that changing the contribution limit from 250 to 1500 is an increase of 500%.

We believe that solely modifying the contribution limit to $1,500 does not further the interest of combating corruption and its appearance, and would not further the purposes of Political Reform Act. We want to note that there are two other bills that are being considered that are considering a modification to the contribution threshold.

And in those negotiations, we have expressed recognition that the contribution limit could be raised. However, 1500 is too high. That amount would exceed most individual contribution limits for individuals, let alone interested parties with pending business before a local board or council.

We believe that a tiered system like the one outlined in the analysis acknowledges, at least acknowledges, the fact that campaign finances differ between small and large cities. In fact, this concept was endorsed in a recent editorial in the Press Democrat that drew comparisons between the City of Los Angeles and the City of Healdsburg.

If the bill is not amended today, we think the appropriate forum to make modifications to threshold is in the context of ongoing negotiations and the two other Senate bills that seek to improve compliance and addresses workload concerns.

Thank you, chair thank you, committee and staff, for your careful attention to these matters, and we respectfully ask for a nay vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning again, chair Blakespear and members Trent Lange, President of the California Clean Money Campaign. I also speak to you in respectful but strong opposition to AB 20911. Unless it's amended, $1,500 is just too high.

It's a 500% increase from the $250 limit the legislature passed only two years ago for the contributions that developers, city contractors and other special interests can give to local elected officials when they're deciding on their applications. A relatively low Levine Act limit gives voters confidence that there isn't pay to play. $1,500 definitely does not.

We have data on this. We recently 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 they're considering the proposals, such as development agreements, were increased? 81% of likely voters said they'd be concerned if the limit was raised to $1,500.

50% said they'd be very concerned. $500 was the only level of poll test at which more voters said they wouldn't be concerned and who said they would be very concerned.

So we believe the committee's recommendation to set a tiered threshold of dollar 500 for jurisdictions with a population of $50,000 or more while leaving it at dollar 250 for smaller cities strikes a proper balance. And we thank the committee for this recommendation.

Referring to that editorial, $250 may not be much in large cities, but in cities like Healdsburg, with a population of only 11,000, that's a lot. And there are hundreds of such small cities in California. If the author doesn't accept the committee's proposed amendment then we urge you to vote no.

There are two bills in the Senate that seriously address implementation issues with Levine Act and with a number of positive amendments that make compliance easier and narrow its scopes to the kinds of application that are the greatest concerns. This bill does none of these things, so unless it's amended, we respectfully request your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anybody else in the room who would like to express opposition to this bill, please come forward. State your name, organization and your position.

Jeff Tartagia, an advocate unless amendments are made in opposition. Thank you.

Craig Dunkerley, San Jose, in opposition unless amended.

John Fioretta, San Jose, opposed unless amended thank you.

Melisse Leib, Mountain View, oppose unless amended.

Christine Eichen Tracy, in opposition and less amended.

Carol Badger, San Francisco object to any amount. Thank you.

Catherine Espitia Tracy California, oppose unless amended.

Elsa Shaffer, Menlo Park. Opposed unless amended per the amendments we've heard today.

Elaine Elbisri, Palo Alto, opposed unless amended.

Edith Jacobi, Palo Alto, opposed unless amended.

I'm Alan Brinker from Sunnyvale. I'm a general contractor and builder, and unless it's amended, I strongly oppose it because I know how the game is played 42 years.

Jim Davidson Los Altos, oppose unless amended.

Nancy Neff, Palo Alto, opposed unless amended

Kelly Cuthbertson, opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Vicki Muller Alvaro San Jose, oppose unless amended

Carla Kincaid-Yoshikawa, San Francisco, opposed unless amended. I came in because of AB 270 today, and I want to say I'm strongly in support and noting all opposition and support for it.

Thank you.

David Schmidt, San Francisco, oppose unless amended.

Mary Gill, Stanford, oppose unless amended

Carol Cross, also opposed unless it's amended Redwood City.

Graham Huey, Walnut Creek, opposed unless amended

Cynthia Shallet, on behalf of the 60 chapters of Indivisible California StateStrong throughout. The chapters are across the state and also California Indivisible Green Team. Thank you. In opposition.

Amy Huey, Walnut Creek, opposed unless amended

Ralph Inley, San Jose, opposed unless amended

Joe Ely, Brentwood Contra Costani, opposed unless amended

Shannon Geist, California Clean Money, San Francisco, you represent the people and not business.

Susan Pelican, Woodland California Yolo Indivisible, opposed unless amended thank you.

Lawrence Abbott, San Leandro, opposed unless amended

Shirley Shalongowski, Pleasant Hill. Opposed unless amended as stated.

Shirley McGrath, Walnut Creek, opposed unless amended

Craig Dunkerley, on behalf of League of Women Voters, courage California consumer watchdog and endangered habitats League. Opposed unless amended.

Well, thank you very much to everybody who took your time to come and express your position today. We very much appreciate hearing it. I will turn it back to the author. Would you like to say anything in response to the opposition?

Yes, I looked at some of the amendments suggested. It looks like the amendment says 50. If we have a population of 50,000 or more, you would be willing to raise it up to 500, is that right? Well, I like to say that in LA County. First, let me start with each local control.

Each city and county would have an opportunity to vote in their city or county where people can go into their city or county and make their objections. They would have local control, rather to keep it at 250 or raise it up to 1500.

And we know that local control is very important, and we know that communities can go out and speak for it, have a voice, because, as we could see, all the communities across the state were not represented here today.

And communities would actually have the opportunity to go to their City Council people and go where they elect them, and go to their counties where they elect them and talk to them about keeping it at 250 or raising it to 1500. Secondly, $1,500 is when you're trying to communicate with folks.

We have 10 million people in LA County, 2 million per supervisor. We want to make sure in LA County that. And LA County is one of the most progressive counties in the state. It is the most progressive county in the state. We're proud of that.

But we want to make sure that we could keep those type of legislators. And what happens is if we load, if we keep it at 250, dark money will come in. I'm a treasurer by trade as well.

Dark money will come into these races and they will put so much money against our progressive folks because our progressive folks are usually not wealthy people. And so all this money would come storming into independent expenditures where it's very hard to track. We want to make sure that the community can track those contributions directly.

That's going to those elected officials. And if we allow, allow this all to go into dark money. If we allow, if we just only accept $250 in those cities like LA, in those states like LA County, those supervisor counties like LA County, dark money will flow in there and we will not. We will lose our progressive leaders.

So I am asking for this committee to vote aye, and I will work on the tiered system. I don't think that this is. I don't think this goes, this is fair. And so I looked at the tier system. I have some amendments to offer up. If this committee passes this bill, I will work on those tier systems going forward. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. So I'll just make a few comments here. So, first of all, it's important to note that this bill does not allow for an election that would overturn the Levine Act in these circumstances. So the Levene Act, if the B\bill passes, would apply a $1,500 standard.

And the $1,500 standard applies to the circumstances where there is a donation that is made by an applicant or an applicant's agent for a permit in front of that body. So this is not, we're not talking about every campaign contribution that people make during elections.

We're talking about the specific circumstance of when there's a decision that's in front of a body, and the people who are making that decision could receive a direct amount. So the current law is that they can receive up to $250 from the applicant or the agents of the applicant, and this would raise that to 1500.

So I recognize that the author is representing the largest city in the state, Los Angeles, but there are 400 plus other cities and jurisdictions, special districts that this higher threshold would apply to. I come from having been the mayor of a city that was just over 60,000 people, and we had a $250 campaign contribution limit.

And I believe that $1,500 would influence elections, would influence decision makers in ways that would not promote the public's interest. So I am not supporting this bill today.

I was recommending the tiers of the $500 and the 250 which is recommended in the staff report to recognize some cities are bigger than a city like that I came from. But I also feel like furthering the anti corruption interests.

The idea that people are contributing to those who are directly making a decision about them within that year period, to me, that is something that we as elected officials with a public charge, need to take seriously and need to vote in favor of the public interest.

So the argument that money, dark money, is flowing into what's called independent expenditures, or IEs, that is that will overwhelm elections is a concern. And I think we need to have reforms around independent expenditures.

But the reality of setting up independent expenditures is that you have to be willing to have a level of sophistication and go through the establishment of a committee to have the donors to go through the process of doing that.

And if you're an individual person who's trying to, let's say, modify your home and you want a building permit that might make certain exceptions that could negatively affect your neighbors, that kind of run of the mill decision that a lot of city councils are making, that kind of decision is not going to lead to an independent expenditure being set up, it's something where somebody might cultivate relationships with those on the City Council, and then they would make maximum contributions.

And when you have 1500 times the agents, times the other people who might be in leadership positions with that person's business or whatnot, I can foresee situations where the decision makers are influenced by that money. So to me, it's important that we do keep the amount low.

And we also recognize that we need to make changes in the independent expenditure, the dark money, the money that is able to go into these other types of accounts.

But I also think that there are different reforms that are needed in order to make the process easier to manage for elected officials and for city attorneys who are trying to implement this. So this bill that passed two years ago is not static. This isn't the only opportunity we have to make a decision about it.

But at this point, I am not going to be supporting this bill. And I wanted to make sure that I clearly explain to everybody why that is.

Now, if the author would like me to take a recess in light of the testimony and talk again about this bill, I'm happy to have a conversation with you right now about it. But if not, we'll proceed ahead as we've been doing because I know that you are not accepting the amendments.

And so you would like to proceed with the bill as it is. So I would leave that up to you.

Excuse me. Yes, I'm going to proceed with the bill as is and to close. I would just like to say that when you're dealing with the counties, you're not just dealing with, you're dealing with nonprofits that do really, really good work out in the community.

And they also can't, if you're the Executive Director for a nonprofit, you also can't give to your county supervisor because you do business with the county. And a lot of these nonprofits do really, really good work. It's already illegal to do pay to play. That is illegal already. We don't have to worry about that.

But, you know, you entrust $5,500 donations to us, to state officials. $5,500. That is way more than 1500. And you're trusting us because most people who run for office are not running for office to do anything bad, to be corrupt. Most. And if you are corrupt, we have, we've stopped that, too. We've stopped that, too.

There are people who've got in trouble for doing these types of things. And so from there, I will say most elected officials that run are not trying to be corrupt we at the state, we accept $5,500, and you guys trust us. And so with that, I would ask this committee for an aye vote. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. We don't have any motion at this point, so if somebody. If we make a motion later, then there will be a vote. So thank you, and thank you again to everybody who came for this. Okay, our next item is. Okay, our next item is assemblymember Carrillos, AB 3239.

And we invite you to come forward and present your measure.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators, proud to present AB 20. Sorry. Proud to present AB 3239. This desk is so low. Just got to bring things up. Which would permit campaign funds to be used to pay or reimburse airline travel expenses related to an emotional support animal belonging to and traveling with an individual whose travel is authorized to be paid using campaign funds. We often discuss the importance of mental health, the lack of access to mental health resources.

But we find ourselves fighting against systems that don't support actual mental health treatment. Up until 2021, this law would not even have been needed, and a doctor's note was needed to allow an emotional support animal to be exempt from travel fees that can range from anywhere between $125 to $175 per one way travel.

This policy changed in 2021 on a federal level, and the cost associated for anyone traveling with an emotional support animal became that of the individual. The presence of an emotional support animal can cause calming effects to an individual at work, at school, and in everyday life experiences. This Bill passed the Assembly Elections Committee with bipartisan support and no opposition. Respectfully request an aye vote.

Okay, thank you. Do you have any witnesses in support?

No.

Okay. Anyone else in the room wishing to express support? Seeing none. Do we have any opposition witnesses wishing to come forward? Seeing none. Do we have any opposition witnesses in the room wishing to express opposition? I see none. So we will keep this Bill open, and thank you very much. Oh wait, I'm sorry. We'll allow you close.

Respectfully request an aye vote, Madam Chair.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, this is AB 2951 by Assemblymember Cervantes, and Assemblymember Carrillo will be presenting it.

Thank you Madam Chairs, Madam Chair and Senators and Committee, thank you for the opportunity to present AB 2951 on behalf of my colleague, Assemblywoman Cervantes. We would like to begin by accepting the Committee amendments as outlined on page five of the analysis and also want to thank your staff for working with her team and the sponsors. Assembly Bill 2951 is a follow up to Assembly Bill 2841 by Assemblymember Lowe in 2022. We want to point out that Assemblymember Lowe's is also a joint author on this particular policy. AB 2841 went into effect on January 1 of this year.

Among other provisions, AB 2841 set out a new procedure for handling the cancellation of voter registration due to several situations, including the death of a voter, a change in their residency, or imprisonment due to conviction of a felony. However, due to delays in the upgrading of VoteCal, California statewide database of registered voters, the Secretary's office has been unable to implement some provisions of AB 2841 in a timely manner. In particular, the Secretary's office has been unable to comply with the provisions of AB 2841 regarding voters whose registration is canceled due to death.

AB 2951 would extend a deadline to comply with that particular provision of AB 2841 until July 1 of 2025. The Secretary of State believes that this extension will provide sufficient time to ensure full implementation as intended by the Legislature on AB 2841. Here to testify in support of the Bill is Tim Cromartie, on behalf of the Secretary of State Doctor Shirley Weber, and respectfully request an aye vote.

Okay, thank you. You have two minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Members Tim Cromartie, Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber's office. Again, I also like to thank the Committee staff for the hard work and perseverance that brought us to this point. This measure delays implementation on one narrow aspect of AB 2841 which regulates disqualification from voting. And again, as has been stated, this is primarily due to the complexity and time consuming nature of the required upgrades to the VoteCal system, the state's voter registration database, to assure full compliance.

Nonetheless, our elections division, after a major effort, has implemented most AB 2841 provisions through a manual process, and they continue to work toward full implementation by July of 2025. This measure will bring the law into line with the completion date that our staff determined as of 2022 would be feasible. And based on the information provided by them and assuming no intervening unforeseen circumstances, we're confident that the Secretary's office can achieve full implementation of AB 2841 by July 1, 2025.

As a final note, I just like to say that we're concerned, however, about one of the proposed amendments. We don't take issue with them. We don't want to upset the ... at this point, but we're concerned about one of the proposed amendments pertaining to a reporting requirement. We would prefer to have that language softened to require periodic updates, as opposed to formal reports to the Legislature, only because the latter may slow our efforts at implementation. With that, I asked for an aye vote.

Okay, thank you very much. Anybody else in the room wishing to express support?

Good afternoon. Now, I think now. Afternoon. Larissa Mercado, on behalf of the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. I think it's still. It's 11:46. Close. Yes. Anybody else wishing to express support? Okay. Anybody wishing to express opposition, lead witnesses in opposition may come forward. Not seeing any. We will move on to opposition in the room. Not seeing any. Bring it back to the Committee. Any comments or questions? Okay, thank you very much. We will turn it back to you to close.

Respectfully request an aye vote.

Okay. Thank you. All right. We'll leave it open. Yes. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Okay. With this, we will go back to a recess. Thank you. Okay, we are coming back from recess to do - to lift the call on votes and also to take motions. So which one are we starting with? We're starting with AB 2803, file item seven. Is there a motion on this Bill? There's a motion by Senator Allen, and the motion is due passed to Appropriations.

[Roll Call].

It's 3 to 0. We will leave that on call. Okay, next is file item eight, AB 2911 from McKinnor. Do we have a motion? Okay, seeing no motion, we will go to the next item. item nine, AB 2951. Cervantes. This is due passed as amended.

File item nine, AB 2951. Motion is due passed as amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call].

That's 2 to 1. We'll leave that on call. We're on to file item 12, AB 3239, from Assemblymember Carrillo. And we would need a motion for that. Okay, so there's no motion on that. We will keep that on call. Okay. We are coming back from recess. And before we move on to summer recess here, this is actually our last scheduled policy hearing. So I want to take a moment to recognize Senator Portantino. This is the last regularly scheduled Elections Committee.

So as you may or may not know everybody, Senator Portantino would ask trivia questions when he was in his role as the Chair of Committees. So I have a couple. I have three very important questions for you. Okay. In what year did California voters approve the constitutional process of initiative, referendum, and recall?

72.

No, it was far before that. Guess again.

1910.

Close. 1911. Okay. And who was the Governor in 1911?

Oh, my goodness. Hiram Johnson.

Good guess.

I have help from the peanut gallery.

Okay. Which California Governor had to row to his inauguration?

Stanford.

Yes. Good job, Leland Stanford. It was 1862 and there was a flood. That's why he had to row to his inauguration. Okay, and here's the last very difficult question. Which Senator authored a Bill reversing the ballot order for Los Angeles County where local offices appeared before state and federal offices?

That's my favorite question of all the questions. And I have to credit the Glendale City Clerk, Arikasaki, for bringing me the idea to do that. And we should do it statewide.

Yes. Good. You could have run that Bill to do it state, right?

Well, we did. We started out statewide, but I had they. In order to get it through Assembly Elections, they made me do LA County.

Yes. Okay, so, bonus question. What was the SB number?

That's too hard for me.

It was 25. So we want to thank you for your service and your fun trivia. And also I want to thank the staff and the public for their time, thoughts and effort over the past many months.

And I want to commend the Chair for upholding the trivia tradition. When I leave this place, you should mix it in in your hearing. So I really appreciate you doing the trivia and thanking me.

Yes, I might do it. I find it entertaining. Okay, so we are going to now lift the call. So we'll start with AB 270.

Lift the call on file item one, AB 270. Motion is due passed as amended to Appropriations. Current vote is 3 to 1. Chair voted aye. Vice Chair voted no. [Roll Call].

4 to 1. We will keep that on call.

Lifting call on file item two, AB 884. Motion is due passed to Appropriations. Current vote is 4 to 0. Chair voted aye. Vice Chair voted aye. [Roll Call].

5 to 0.

Lifting call on file item three, AB 996. Motion is due passed as amended to Appropriations. Current vote is 4 to 0. Chair and Vice Chair voted aye. [Roll Call].

The vote is 5 to 0.

Lifting call on file item four, AB 1784. Motion is due passed to Appropriations. Current vote is 4 to 0. Chair and Vice Chair voted aye. [Roll Call].

Vote is 5 to 0.

Lifting call on file item six, AB 2724. Motion is due passed to Appropriations. Current vote is 3 to 1. Chair voted aye. Vice Chair voted no. [Roll Call].

That is 4 to 1.

Lifting call on file item seven, AB 2803. Motion is due passed to Appropriations. Current vote is 3 to 0. Chair and Vice Chair voted aye. [Roll Call].

That's 60. Keep that on call.

Lifting call on file item nine, AB 2951. Motion is due passed as amended to Appropriations. Current vote is 2 to 1. Chair voted aye. Vice Chair voted no. [Roll Call]. 2951. My apologies. Lifting call on 2951. Motion is due passed as amended. [Roll Call].

That's 5 to 1. We'll keep that on call.

Lifting call on file item 10, AB 3123. Motion is due passed to Appropriations. Current vote is 3 to 1. Chair voted aye. Vice Chair voted no. [Roll Call].

That's 5 to 1. We'll keep that on call.

Lifting call on file item 11, AB 3184. Motion is due passed to Appropriations. Current vote is 4 to 0. Chair and Vice Chair voted aye. [Roll Call].

All right, that's 60. We'll keep that on call.

Lifting call on the consent calendar. Item includes AB 2631. Current vote is 4 to 0. Chair and Vice Chair voted aye. [Roll Call].

Okay, 6 to 0, we will keep that on call. We will go into a brief recess and then come right back. We are lifting the call on the items on Elections and Constitutional Amendments. So please call the roll.

Lifting call on file item one, AB 270. Motion is due passed as amended to Appropriations. Current vote is 4 to 1. Chair voted aye. Vice Chair voted no. [Roll Call].

Okay, well, hold on. We're still on the first Bill, so you can vote on this one.

File item one, AB 270. Motion is due passed as amended. Go ahead. [Roll Call].

Okay, so AB 270 is 6 to 1 and it is out.

Lifting call on file item two, AB 884. Motion is due passed to Appropriations. Current vote is 5 to 0. Chair and Vice Chair voted aye. [Roll call].

7 to 0 and it is out.

Lifting call on AB 996, file item three. Motion is due passed as amended to Appropriations. Current vote is 5 to 0. Chair and Vice Chair voted aye. [Roll Call].

File item 3 is 7 to 0. It is out.

Lifting call on file item four, AB 1784. Motion is due passed to Appropriations. Current vote is 5 to 0. Chair and Vice Chair voted aye. [Roll Call].

7 to 0. It is out.

Lifting call on file item six, AB 2724. Motion is due passed to Appropriations. Current vote is 4 to 1. Chair voted aye. Vice Chair voted no. [Roll Call].

6 to 1. It's out.

Lifting call on file item seven, AB 2803. Motion is due passed to Appropriations. Current vote is 6 to 0. Chair and Vice Chair voted aye. [Roll Call].

7 to 0. It's out.

Okay, do we have a motion on AB 2911? Seeing none, we will move on to item 2951.

Lifting call on file item nine, AB 2951. Motion is due passed as amended to Appropriations. Current vote is 5 to 1. Chair voted aye. Vice Chair voted no. [Roll Call].

6 to 1. It's out.

Lifting call on file item 10, AB 3123. Motion is due passed to Appropriations. Current vote is 5 to 1. Chair voted aye. Vice Chair voted no. [Roll Call].

6 to 1, it is out.

Lifting call on file item 11, AB 3184. Motion is due passed to Appropriations. Current vote is 6 to 0. Chair and Vice Chair voted aye. [Roll Call].

It's 7 to 0. That is out. We're now on to AB 3239. Is there a motion on that? Seeing none, we will move to the consent calendar.

Lifting call on the consent calendar. Item includes AB 2631. Current vote, 6 to 0. Chair and Vice Chair voted aye. [Roll Call].

Okay, thank you. And for a lack of a motion, both AB 3239 and AB 2911 are held in Committee. It didn't fail, so there's nothing to reconsider, but you can seek a rule waiver in a future hearing. Okay, we are officially adjourned.