Senate Standing Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments

Everyone today, who are in the hearing room today, we have eight measures on our agenda, before—we don't have quorum at the moment, so what we'll get started with is a Subcommittee. So, if we could have our first author, who is in the room with us. We have Senator Ochoa Bogh. If you are ready to present.

Our first item will be SB 270 by Senator Ochoa Bogh. You can present when you are ready. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Members. I'd like to begin by accepting the Committee's Amendments and thanking the Staff for working with my Staff. Senate Bill 270 would require the published copy of the notice of intention, in a recall election, to omit the signatures and street addresses of the proponents.

Since 1911, Californians' recall have—has—given voters the power to remove elected officials before their terms expire. In order to trigger recall—recall election— recall petitioners must file a notice of intention with the Elections Officer and serve a copy of the person being recalled.

A copy of the notice, including names, addresses, and signatures must then be published in a newspaper. While this may have made sense before information became easily available via the Internet, in today's climate of retaliatory politics, releasing such personally identifying information could lead to intimidation, harassment, and in extreme cases, violence.

While the Bill would still require all the identifying information to be submitted to the elections official and the recalled official, the street addresses and signatures would not be published. Joining me today is Chris Robles, who is happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you, Senator. Before we do move on to our lead witness, I'd like to establish a quorum. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

The Secretary notes a quorum has been established. Now that we have a quorum, we will adopt our Committee Rules. The Committee Membership has been provided. The Committee Rules—without objection—the Committee rules for the 2025-2026 legislative session will be adopted. We could go ahead and continue on with our lead witness and speaker, please.

Yes. My name is Chris Robles. I am a practicing Political Consultant, and I have, since 2001, worked on nine recalls, all of them local. And in 2023, I worked on the recall in the City of Yucaipa.

And it was at that time, I contacted the Secretary of State's Office and found out that they had interpreted the code to say that signatures, that everything that would be in the notice of intent, needs to be published, up to that point. May I show you some samples in the newspaper here?

Without objection.

Thank you. So, normally, a notice, in all cities and jurisdictions, the notice looks like this, right? We're all very familiar with that. But under the—what I call the "New Interpretation, "the Secretary of State's office said otherwise—this is what it had to look like.

And in the—in this date, where we have digital newspapers, somebody could easily take these signatures and misuse them. And I can tell you was—now that it's more than 20 signatures, it's now 60 signatures in a local jurisdiction, that's 60 people potentially, and in this case, it was more. We got more signatures than we needed.

That's a lot of people who are very upset that their personal information and signature, the signature they used to register to vote, was made public in a newspaper and was readily available to anybody that wanted to do anything to them.

When I called the Secretary of State's Office, I said, you know, in, in the early 2000s, we would do the normal notice in the newspaper with the column inch. And I said, when did it change that signatures had to be included? And they said, well, it should have always been included.

And I said, but I don't believe, in the 90s, when the legislation last looked at this, that they intended for personal information to be published like that. They said, well, it doesn't say not to. Literally, that's the quote. They said, well, it doesn't say not to. So, the only fix is a legislative one.

Thank you so much for your time.

Now, let's hear from any other witnesses in support. Seeing none. If there are any lead witnesses in opposition. Seeing none. We could bring it back for discussion to the Committee Members. Are there any Members wish to have comment, questions, for the authority? We have a motion by Senator Allen. Senator Ochoa Bogh, would you like to close?

Thank you, Madam Chair. The power of recall is a fundamental part of California's political system. In the age of digital technology, it's important we take steps to safeguard the personal information of voters who choose to engage in the electoral process. I respectfully ask for an "Aye" vote.

Thank you. The measure has been moved by Senator Allen. The motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Judiciary. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

We will leave that measure on call. Thank you. We will move to File item number four, SB398 by Umberg. Senator Umberg, you may present your measure.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Members particular. Thank you to you, Madam Chair and Mr. Matsumoto for his excellent work on this bill. As is always the case, what this does, by the way, this is a propitious day to be presenting this bill.

What this does is it basically says, hey, in California, you can't do what at least has been attempted to do in other states. And that's have sort of this ruse to incentivize folks to either register or vote by use of a lottery. There's a fellow named Elon Musk, you might have heard of him.

He has engaged in this practice both nationally and now on a state level in Wisconsin. And it is my view that we shouldn't permit this in California.

And that's simply all it does is it closes a loophole by making a crime for a person to knowingly or willfully paying or offering to pay money or other valuable consideration for someone to register to vote in. With that, I have with me Mr. Trent Langethe President and Executive Director of Clean Money California.

Now it's on. Okay, Good morning, Chair Cervantes and Members. Trent Lange, President, Executive Director of the California Clean Money Campaign. We're very proud to support SB42 and are grateful for the leadership of Senator Umberg for authoring it and for the work of this Committee.

One of the cornerstones of our democracy is a principle that no one should be allowed to buy votes. That's why federal law prohibits offering payments in exchange for registering. However, as Senator Emberg said, it does not explicitly ban the use of lotteries as incentives for voter registration.

And obviously this loophole has very recently and is still being exploited at the federal level. It's important to note that the lotteries in both the presidential election by Elon Musk's America PAC and in the Wisconsin Supreme Court races provide the lottery for registered voters and only registered voters in those places.

These are transparent attempts to give major financial inducements to people to register to vote. So far, they have gotten away with it. It almost certainly will use this tactic again and again, including possibly in California. That's why it's so important that SB398 close this loophole with the same punishments as in federal law.

We say this makes this a crucial addition to California law and we respectfully ask for your I vote. Thank you.

Do we have any additional witnesses and support?

Jeff Tartagia, an advocate Kara Sack True Dogfight. Please. This is important to be done.

Cervantes, Committee Members, Bryant Miramantes with the American Federation of State County Municipal Employees and support.

Good morning, Madam Chair. On behalf of the Asian Law Caucus in Support.

I'm Carla Kincaid Yoshikawa from San Francisco. Here on a different issue. But it's great that you move so quickly on this. Things are going so fast as we see. Please vote yes and please pass this. Through quickly and let's get it into law. Thank you.

Thank you. See no additional witnesses in support. We will now lead with witnesses in opposition. Seeing no witnesses in opposition. Thank you to our witness today for providing testimony. Do we have any Members of a Committee wishing to ask questions or comments of the author? Seeing none.

Do we have a motion for SB398 so moved by Senator Allen? We have a motion to do pass to the Committee on Public Safety. Secretary. zero, Senator. Excuse me, Senator Emberg, please skip me the head here. Would you like to close?

Sure. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Money is a powerful incentive to do things. Vote register. And quick little anecdote that was illustrated to me early on in my electoral career. 1986.

I hate to say that but 1986 I was walking precincts on in connection with a local election and my four year old daughter was with me and we were handing out little plants that had the candidate's name on it. You know, vote for the future, vote for xyz.

And she asked, after we stopped at several houses, she said why are we giving these folks these plants? I said well it's to basically symbolize this candidate's commitment to the environment and people keep it and remember his name so so forth. She said, well, why don't we just give them money?

So even a four year old recognizes the incentive of money in connection with elections. And with that I urge and I vote.

Thank you Senator. I do appreciate the work that you're doing to close this loophole. As someone who has done many voter registration drives in my day, certainly eager to see this get out of this Committee and on to the next. If Secretary Fica please call, the roll.

[Roll call]

31. It's on call. That measure is on call. We will move to File item number two. We have SB 458 by Senator Niello. Senator, please begin when you are ready. Thank you.

Yes, I am the late Senator Roger Niello. Apologize for that. Well, thank you very much. I am here to present SB 458, which is really a pretty simple proposal to just transfer the duty of preparing a ballot title and summary statements for all proposed initiative and referendum measures from the Attorney General to the Leg Analyst Office.

The initiative process is a really important part of our direct democracy system, and effective initiative processes necessitate a nonpartisan entity independent of political bias to draft an accurate ballot title and summary. Unfortunately, Attorneys General often have a bias, a dog in the fight, if you will, causing sometimes that bias to lead to less than totally accurate title and summary statements. This, of course, can lead to a confused and perhaps frustrated electorate rather than one being educated and engaged.

While initiatives themselves are inherently political, for sure, the ballot title and summary should not be. There are numerous examples of this over the history, both Republican and Democrat, I might add. In 1978, Proposition 13, written by Republican Attorney General Evelle Younger, failed to include in the ballot title and summary that the initiative would raise the threshold for the Legislature to approve tax increases from a simple majority to two thirds, which was one of the key arguments against the initiative.

Also in 1996, Republican AG Dan Lungren wrote the title and summary statement for Proposition 209, known as the California Civil Rights Initiative, which banned affirmative action in universities. The title nor the summary mentioned the words affirmative action. Instead, it used the more loaded term of prohibiting preferential treatment.

And then in 2014 was Proposition 47, which many of us on our side of the aisle has criticized for being titled the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, as opposed to fundamentally a criminal justice reform proposal. So, as I said, on both sides of the aisle. To maintain good governance and impartiality in California's initiative process, the duty of drafting title and summary should be moved from the partisan Attorney General and placed under the jurisdiction of the impartial Legislative Analyst.

Currently, the LAO is responsible for providing all of the detailed analyses of the ballot measures. Which, by the way, I would add to that, adding to that duty, just merely drafting a title and summary statement is going to take virtually no time, and therefore would really have no fiscal impact. And I would add a little history.

I have successfully had this identical measure passed out of Committee, once when I was in the Assembly and once in a second time in 2023 here in the Senate, and in both times the bill was sent to the Appropriations Committee, where it died on the infamous suspense file.

So I would emphasize again, there really is no fiscal impact. In closing, it's crucial that we preserve the integrity of the initiative process to maintain good governance and impartiality of the process. The duty of drafting title and summary statements should be that of the Leg Analyst. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. And I have here with me Gabe Petek, the Leg Analyst himself, to act as an expert witness without a position on the bill. And Dora Rose on behalf of the League of Women Voters.

Thank you. We will now move to lead witness in support.

Good morning and thank you, Senator Niello, Madam Chair, Vice Chair, Mr. Vice Chair, and Members. My name is Gabe Petek, Legislative Analyst. And I'll just reiterate something Senator Niello said there that we do not have a position on the proposed legislation for or against.

But what I can do here today is describe briefly our role on the ballot measure work that we do, particularly those that have qualified for the ballot and the ones that the Legislature has placed on the ballot. But overarching, our role, I would say, is that we aim to assist the California voters with their decision making process.

That's our fundamental purpose with these. And to do that we have four main deliverables. The first, and where the bulk of our workload resides, is providing an analysis of the measure. This includes a brief background on the topic at hand, a description of the measure and what it would do, and then some discussion of the fiscal effects that we estimate would occur, particularly for state and local governments. Secondly, we also write up short fiscal summary statements.

These are in the form of bullet points that get placed below the Attorney General's title and summary statements. And then we also write up a yes, no summary, a short explanation of what a yes vote means and what a no vote means for voters. And this gets placed toward the beginning of the voter information guide that gets mailed out to voters before elections. And then lastly, we also truncate and summarize our fiscal effects estimate for the ballot label themselves, and it goes right on those materials as well.

So in the course of doing all of this work to prepare these analyses, what I can say is that our staff do extensive research, including reaching out to both proponents and opponents of the measures. We try to seek as much input as we can to fully understand the proposed measure and get all viewpoints that we can.

And of course, we do all of this with a strong commitment to being impartial. That's just how we operate. And so with that now noted, and given the amount of work that we've done on these, I do agree that our office is capable of doing the title and summary work. I'm not sure I would say it would take us no time because if you know our staff, they will pour over every last detail. But I would agree that I would not characterize this part as having a fiscal effect.

And but with that said, I did want to mention there are several administrative type of duties that are included in the proposed language of the bill, and those ones our office is not equipped to carry out at this time. It includes monetary responsibilities such as receiving and tracking the filing fee paid by proponents of ballot measures.

And if you know our, we operate a very lean office and we really just do not have the administrative capacity at this time to take in revenue of any type or the operational structure to do that. And so that's probably the most significant one at this time that would be a challenge for us.

Similarly, probably is the role that we would have under the draft of the bill to manage and oversee the public review period before initiatives are circulated, to get signatures even. And this involves a public comment, receiving public comments, and having a way on our website to for people to submit public comments to us on the measures.

And so we currently don't have a website that would be designed for that. And so in general, what I'm saying is it would require some additional administrative and information services type of resources. So that part of the draft would be a bit challenging for us. But I will, you know, say that on the substance of the, of the bill, we are capable of doing that work.

Good morning, Chair and Members. I'm Dora Rose, Deputy Director with the League of Women Voters of California. Here today in support of SB 458, which would go into effect, as the analysis noted, if SCA 3 was enacted. We have supported this bill and the associated constitutional amendment every time it's come before the Legislature.

That's because it's a good, basic, good government, bread and butter kind of a bill. The LAO is nonpartisan by design. It's tasked with providing impartial fiscal and policy analysis to the Legislature and to the public. Its reputation for neutrality would strengthen the public's confidence in that titles and summaries are fair and unbiased.

In contrast, the Attorney General's Office is a partisan elected one. And even when the AG's office works hard to act impartially, and I believe that it does, public participation of partisanship can erode trust in how ballot materials are framed, especially in the kind of polarized political environment that we find ourselves in now.

The LAO specializes in analyzing complex policy and fiscal proposals. Its staff routinely assesses the impact of legislation, of initiatives, budget proposals, giving them the expertise to accurately articulate what a measure would do. Clear, accurate summaries are essential to informed voting.

And the LAO has proven a track record of conveying detailed information with great transparency, lucid rationales, and in plain language. The bill also streamlines and it strengthens California's direct democracy by consolidating explanatory duties under one trusted nonpartisan agency. Finally, the LAO operates under a consistent professional framework regardless of the political party in power.

This can provide voters with a more predictable standard for how ballot language is written across elections. Can you tell we love the LAO? But seriously, the LAO's office has a very distinguished history of conducting itself in a fair manner that's insulated from political pressure, making it very well suited for writing ballot measure titles and summaries. So the League of Women Voters of California urges an aye vote on this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. We will now move to additional witnesses in support.

Jeff Tartegia, advocate. Dog fight, fact true.

Hi. David Shor on behalf of California Common Cause. Thank you for the time. We support an aye vote. Thank you.

David Bolog, an advocate who have worked on very voluntary initiative process where we did not have money, and we have been negatively affected in getting petition initiative signatures by the bias analysis that had been written by the Attorney General. So we are strong, I'm in strong support of this. Thank you.

Colleen Britton with Election Integrity Project California in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Matthew Allen on the Western Growers Association, also pleased to support the bill today. Thank you.

I'm Vicki Miller Alvara. I live in San Jose, and I strongly, strongly support this bill.

We will now move to any lead witnesses in opposition. Please.

Chair and Members, thank you so much for your time. And I first want to start with my deep apologies to the author for this opposition of which I did not submit a letter. I really apologize and don't like to do that. So with that my name is Tiffany on behalf of CFT, a Union of Educators and Classified Professionals. We have had a long standing opposition to moving the title and summary to a non-legal office. With deep respect to the LAO and for the elaboration on the due process that occurs.

We believe that the title and the summary are by nature a legal summary and consequently should be in an office that staffs attorneys and further is accountable to the voters. So just as the we believe in the nonpartisan nature the Attorney General takes an oath of neutrality and in their analysis and that we just believe that because of the installation of the LAO.

If you oppose the title and the summary the way it is created, you don't have as much accountability as if you have the Attorney General who is an elected official who you can vote out if you do not believe they do their neutral job properly. Thank you so much. And once again, deep apologies for the late opposition.

Are there any additional witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, we will bring the discussion back to the Committee. I do want to start by asking, will you be accepting the Committee amendments?

Oh, yes.

Thank you, Senator. Do we have questions? Yes, Senator Umberg.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Senator Niello, for bringing this forward and your tenacity in this quest here. I think I'm going to support it, not just because I'm a joint author, but because it's the right thing to do. The challenge is that while we Democrats have a super majority right now, that's not always the case. I actually am, I think the only Legislator here that has lived experience with the Republicans taking control of the Assembly. I know that...

Yes, you are that old.

Yeah, I am old. Yeah. I mean I realize that when I say that my colleagues look at me like it's like when I talk about the Martians invading, but nevertheless, sorry to my Republican friends. Nevertheless, things change here. And as you point out, as you point out that various Attorneys General in the past, for example, Attorney General Younger, Attorney General Lungren, have provided ballot summaries and titles with a partisan, strongly partisan bent to them.

And so I think it's in the interest of good governance over the course of the next umpteen years that we do provide an institution that is not of partisan nature with the ability to provide that title and summary. So with that, I'll be supporting it. Thank you, Senator Niello.

I just associate myself with the comments of my colleague, except for the Martians comment.

Seeing no additional questions. Senator... Senator Choi, yes.

Yeah. Let me add also, I will be supporting this measure because many times general voters don't have much time to read, even if they read sometimes so hard to understand what it really tries to do. So they go by the title and the brief summary. And sometimes those titles and the brief summaries are not exactly reflecting the intent and the consequences of the bill if it passes. So I think this is really hopefully that nonpartisan analysis and the title will be very helpful for that. I will support, and I would like to make a motion.

Senator Niello, would you like to close?

Yes. When I first started this quest 2006, almost 20 years ago, I didn't want to believe that voters made decisions based upon the title and summary statement. I have since discovered that a surprising number of voters do indeed, viewing the election materials without a lot of time left in the election cycle, make a decision strictly based upon the title and summary statement.

With regard to the accountability, can anybody cite for me a time that a major campaign issue of an Attorney General election was an unbiased title and summary statement? I think you'd be hard pressed to find an example. So much for the accountability. And this also is accompanied with a constitutional amendment that will cement the authority of the LAO to draft such amendments. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. The measure has been moved by Senator Choi. The motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

That bill is on call, 4-0. We will move to file item three, SB 42, by Senator Umberg.

Thank you once again, Madam Chair, and thank you to Ms. Cornwall also for your excellent work on this very, very important Bill. This is a very simple Bill.

What this Bill does is it simply removes the ban on local governments to be able to create their own system of public financing should the local entity choose to do so. Let me be clear. This, this does not require public financing. All this does is remove the ban on general law, cities and counties.

So, for example, if a city wants to enact some sort of public financing system, they can do so. If they don't want to have a public financing system, they don't have to.

This has been a long standing ban and I fully expect that there will be some cities that decide that they want to experiment, and I fully expect there will be a number of different processes that will be enacted and some that will never be enacted here in California.

And with that, we can see what that does to voter engagement. I think that all of us have seen that the influence of money has huge impact on governance.

And so this is just a measure to let, again, local voters make their own determination as to how they want to have public financing if they choose to, to engage in the election process. With me, I have Mr. Trent Lange. Once again, thank you, Mr. Lange, for being here and David Shor from California Common Cause.

Yes, we move to lead witnesses and support. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning again, Chair Cervantes, Members. Trent Lange, President of the California Clean Money Campaign. We're very proud to sponsor SB42 and are very grateful to the leadership of Senators Umberg and Allen for authoring this Bill, to the Chair for her work on this issue, and to the Committee for its work.

It's patently unfair that all California jurisdictions don't have the same right that charter cities have to explore and experiment with public financing systems that empower voters and that work for them. The measure SB42 will place on the ballot will give them that right.

I wanted to address concerns that governments might be able to arbitrarily prohibit certain candidates from receiving funding. Actually, SB42 protects against this by explicitly stating that public funding statutes, charters, ordinances and resolutions shall not discriminate based on party or according to whether a candidate is a challenger or an incumbent. So that should address that concern.

Concerns have also been raised about pressure on jurisdictions, budgets. But public financing systems generally have a very low price tag. Currently implemented systems range from only 0.02% to 0.07% of the budget.

A small price to pay to reduce the perception of influence by special interest donors and of course, SB42 doesn't actually implement any public financing system at all, so jurisdictions will have complete control about whether they want to pass them and how much they wish to allocate.

Lastly, opponents point out how in New York there were accusations of illegal foreign contributions using straw donors to illegally illicitly benefit from public campaign financing system in New York City. SB42 in fact addresses this by increasing the maximum amount of fines on illegal foreign contributions to three times the amount of contributions on expenditures.

This measure will ensure that public funding systems protect taxpayers by requiring voluntarily participating candidates to abide by expenditure limits and meet strict criteria to qualify, and by placing responsible limits on what the funds can be used for. We therefore respectfully request your aye vote to give voters the opportunity to decide. Thank you.

Hi. Thank you to the Chair, to all Members of the Committee. My name is David Shor and I'm here on behalf of California Common Cause and a broad coalition of democracy, community and grassroots organizations supporting SB42.

Common Cause is proud to co sponsor SB42 because we believe in a more inclusive democracy where everyday people, not just the wealthy, have a real voice in elections. SB 42 would end the state ban on public financing and help build a political system that works for all Californians.

We urge this Committee to support this Bill and place the California Fair Elections act before the voters on the November 2026 ballot. Across California, people feel shut out of the political process. Many believe only the wealthy or those with well connected donors can compete, discouraging participation in our democracy. Data shows this concern is real.

In Oakland, half of campaign contributions come from outside the city. In San Jose, 81% of local candidate funding comes from donors giving $500 or more, which is far beyond what most Californians can afford. Small dollar public financing is a proven solution. It's worked before and it can work in the future.

It broadens the donor base strong, strengthens representation and makes it possible for more diverse candidates to run. We are working to expand these programs in Oakland, San Jose and San Diego. But this reform must be an option for all California communities. SB42 will make that possible.

We thank the Committee, Bill author, Senators Umberg and Allen and our coalition partners. We request an aye vote. Thank you.

For additional witnesses and support, if you could please state your name, organization and position.

Jeff Tartagia, advocate. Kara Dogfight Sac True in support.

Thank you.

Dora Rose, League of Women Voters of California. We are sponsors of this Bill. We are sponsors. Thank you. Of this Bill and in strong support.

Good morning. Obed Franco here on behalf of the Asian Law Caucus and support.

Craig Dunkerley from Sunnyvale speaking for Courage California in strong support.

Ryan Mira Montez with the American Federation of State County Municipal Employees in strong support.

Pamela Brigham from San Ramon in strong support.

Carol Osorio. Sorry, I'm using my voice. From San Francisco. I represent The Wash Club and we're in strong support.

Good morning chair Members. JP Hanna on behalf of the California Nurses Association in support.

Good morning. Kelly Graham from San Jose, strong support.

Vicki Muller Alvaro from San Jose, strong support.

Susan Sanderhome, San Francisco. Strong support.

Eleanor Clark from Berkeley, California representing the Wellstone Democratic Club. Strong support.

Tom Whitehead from the great City of San Francisco, strong support.

Dao Vang, field manager at Hmong Innovating Politics and we support.

Marquis King Mason, California Environmental Voters in support. Thank you so much.

Paula Randall, Santa Rosa. Particularly considering what's going on in the country, please support this Bill.

Dr. James Stevenson from Santa Rosa, California very strongly support this.

Cynthia Valencia, ACLU California Action, and support.

Chris Hamilton from the City of Berkeley with public financing already in support.

Pat Schwinn, Oakland. Strong support. Thank you.

Pamela, San Francisco in strong support. Thank you very much.

Elaine Elbizri, Member of California Clean Money Campaign from Palo Alto. Very, very strong support. Thank you.

Linda Bailey from Taylorsville and Indian Valley Indivisible. Strong support.

Ken Bailey from Taylorsville, California. Strong support.

Carol Weed representing the Democrats of Rossmore in Walnut Creek and strong support.

Jeff Angstrom from San Francisco, strong support.

Ron Zucker, Sebastopol in support.

Nancy Neff representing the Unitarian Universalist Church of Palo Alto in support.

Howard Matis from Oakland, strong support.

Bill Walzer from the charter city of Berkeley and all cities should have this choice.

Robert Copeland from Sacramento, California. Strong support.

Lawrence Abbott, San Leandro, California representing Move to Amend California. Strong support.

Carla Kincaid-Yoshikawa from San Francisco. I'm here again on this issue. Please pass it this year.

Graham Huey from Water Creek and from the Commit to Democracy and Diablo Valley Democrats and strong support.

Amy Huey from Walnut Creek with Indivisible Resisters Contra Costa in strong support.

David Schmidt, volunteer with the California Clean Money Campaign for the past 20 years from San Francisco, soon moving to Santa Rosa. Strong support.

Shannon Geis. Strong support. Thanks.

Carol Badger from San Francisco, California Clean Money Campaign. Please support. Thank you.

Deirdre Booker from San Francisco and I strongly support this Bill.

Hi, my name is Ann West, San Bruno and I support this because I'd like to see the voters have the final say.

We will now move to any lead witnesses in opposition. Seeing none, we will bring it back to the Committee for discussion or comment. Senator Allen.

I just want to personally thank the lead author. I'm joint on this, something we've all worked on quite a bit over time just to emphasize the reasonableness of this proposal. It's not forcing this model on anybody. It just allows for a local jurisdiction to take it on.

We have it in some places that are charter cities, so they've got some more rights. So it's very reasonable. There's no budget allocation from the state associated with this. So I'm just hopeful that folks will see the wisdom of this and we'll be able to finally get this done. I will move when appropriate.

Thank you, Senator Allen. Dr. Choi?

Yeah, I'm so surprised this big idea of public financing is supported by so many people. My concern is that why for the candidate, the taxpayers money tax money has to be used of public financing. That means the government has to support that campaign for the individual who's running for certain elected officials. So I'm very concerned.

Senator Umberg, will you be accepting the technical amendments listed out on item five?

Yes, I should have begun with that statement. Yes.

Thank you. I certainly do agree with many of the statements made today. Voters are concerned about the money in politics and we do need to enhance public confidence in our political process. And certainly eager to support this Bill today and would love to be added as a joint author if you will help me.

Thank you, Senator.

Sure.

Thank you.

Well, with that we will go ahead. We have a motion. Senator Umberg, again, love to have you close.

Thank you. I won't repeat the story of my daughter and the money issue, but I want to thank, I want to especially thank Senator Allen who has been working in this space, been a champion in the space for many, many years and I'm proud to join Arthur with Senator Allen and it sounds like you as well, Senator Cervantes.

Thank you very much. And thank you to all the folks that have traveled so far to support this measure. This is, as you point out, very, very important for the future of democracy. And this will be if this gets on the ballot. This will be a grassroots campaign.

It's important to emphasize that this is a two step process which has been sort of lost in some discussions of this Bill.

This simply puts it on the ballot then over 50% of Californians have to go ahead and support it before localities can even begin to really initiate the process to provide whatever method they would like for some sort of public financing. And with that I'll urge and I vote thank you also to Mr. Shor and Mr. Lange.

Thank you. The measure has been moved by Senator Allen. The motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. Secretary, please call the roll.

Senators Cervantes.

Aye.

Cervantes, aye. Choi.

No.

Choy, no. Allen?

Aye.

Allen, I. Limon. Umberg.

Aye.

Umberg, aye.

That measures on call. Our next item is item number five, SB405 by Senator Choi.

Thank you, Chair and good morning Committee Members. I stand before you today to present my Bill, SB405, which would repeal the current prohibition of local governments requiring photo identification when voting in an election. This measure is essential to to uphold the integrity of our electoral process and ensure that every voter vote cast is legitimate.

SB405 does not seek to impose any specific form of voter identification requirements or mandate, but instead will allow local governments to decide which voter identification works best for them. As local governments are closer to the people than the state legislators in Sacramento, they are better positioned to decide which voter ID requirements work best for their constituents.

Studies have shown that such laws can prevent in person voter impersonation, a rare but serious threat to our democratic system. In California, asking for ID is currently prohibited. But you can think about any activities that you do in California, such as getting on the airplane, making hotel reservations, purchasing alcohol, even renting a car.

You can name so many. So as a result, the recent poll indicates that 84% of likely voters support this implementation. Bipartisan support of this Bill will underscore the public's desire for enhance the election security. In conclusion, implementing voter ID requirements is a common sense approach to safeguarding our elections.

It ensures that each voter is valid and that our democratic process remains robust and trustworthy. Today we have support witness Colleen Britton from California Borough Election Integrity Project, California.

Thank you. We will now move to our lead witness and support.

Thank you, Chairman. My name is Colleen Britton. I'm with the Election Integrity Project California. It's an all volunteer, nonpartisan public benefit organization. Since 2010, EIPCA has been working tirelessly to ensure the integrity of our electoral process.

We educate and train election observers, conduct research and advocate for laws which protect the rights of citizens to choose our representatives by fair, honest and transparent elections. EIPCA vehemently opposed the passing of Section 1005 of the California Election Code.

We see it as an example of egregious legislative overreach and an intrusion on local government's right to self govern and assure the validity of their own local elections. It was a bad decision by the California Legislature and it should be repealed. Over 70% of Americans support voter ID as a positive step to further secure our elections.

Despite claims that our elections are already secure, checking a box with an empty threat of penalty of perjury is not enough. It's no wonder there are still so many unanswered questions about voters eligibility.

For example, between June 2017 and November 2020, EIPCA researchers identified 93,911 registrants who show an inexplicable change of birthplace from from a foreign country or another state to simply California. There are 14 pages of those names. Of these, 95% appear to have occurred during either online DMV registration or regular online registration systems.

These changes hinder the identification of noncitizens who may have unlawfully registered to vote. EIPCA asked the Secretary of State for credible explanation of what appears to be invalid birthplace changes. As yet, no response. It's time to acknowledge that the exclusive focus on inclusive democracy has been at the expense of Citizens Trust in fair and secure elections.

We urge you to listen to your constituents, vote aye on SB405, eliminate election code 1005 and begin to restore the trust in California elections. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any additional witnesses in support? Seeing none. Do we have any witnesses in opposition.

Good morning, Chairmembers. My name is Dora Rose and I'm the Deputy Director with the League of Women Voters of California. I'm here in opposition to SB 405, which would repeal a law that was chaptered less than a year ago. Current state law prohibits local governments from enacting their own laws requiring voter identification.

The Legislature got it right the first time. California already has comprehensive and effective safeguards in place. Under state law. Voters have to provide verified information when registering, sign under penalty of perjury, which is actually quite serious, and go through identity checks when voting by mail or in person.

The notion that voter fraud is widespread has been repeatedly debunked by experts, by elections officials, in courts and studies. What is real, however, is the disproportionate burden that strict ID laws place on historically marginalized communities.

A 2024 study found that nearly 21 million voting age US citizens lack a current driver's license, including over a quarter of black and Hispanic voters. Another 28.6 million people have a non expired license, but it doesn't have both their current address and their current name on it.

Older adults, people with disabilities and low income people are also more likely to lack government issued ID. For for many Californians, obtaining an ID to show at the ballot box means navigating red tape, taking unpaid time off work, securing transportation and paying fees amounting to what we consider to be an unconstitutional poll tax.

The League of Women Voters rejects that vision of democracy. Our elections are secure. We do not need new obstacles. We need inclusive systems that welcome every eligible voter. Strict voter ID laws are well documented forms of voter suppression, pure and simple. They create barriers for millions of voters.

These laws do not make our elections safer, they make them less fair. Democracy is on fire. The last thing that California should do is to feed the flames with a law that is born of disinformation and serves to erode people's trust in our system of government. We respectfully urge a no vote on SB 405. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Cynthia Valencia. I'm a legislative advocate with the ACLU California action here in opposition to SB 405. The California Constitution empowers the Legislature to protect voting rights and bar improper election practices, which is what led to the passage of SB 1174 last year, which this Bill is attempting to undo.

Our organizations know from Firsthand experience and from research findings that voter ID legislation imposes additional and unnecessary hurdles on voters and will uniquely burden voting rights amount among low income voters, voters of color, voters with disabilities and senior voters. Voter identification laws translate into racial disparities in ID access into racial gaps in voter turnout.

I have been a voter in Huntington Beach for 14 years. Measure A, which was making its way through the court system and this Bill is attempting to allow was brought as the City of Huntington Beach's demographics have become increasingly diverse.

It is not a coincidence that the city, whose elected officials have taken a number of racially charged and discriminatory actions pushed for Measure A's adoption in the wake of recent demographic changes in our city, Voter ID laws like Measure A also worsened disparities in mail in voting.

Studies show of other jurisdictions that voter ID restrictions on mail in ballots significantly increase the rejection rates of those ballots, particularly for young voters and voters of color. Increased mail in ballot rejection rates as a result of voter ID will substantially impact the Asian American voters who have a higher rate of mail in voting than average.

Barriers to mail in ballots like Measure A are especially concerning since California already disproportionately rejects Asian American and Latina mail in ballots. Voter ID laws perpetuate the myth of voter fraud and do nothing to improve election integrity. The state Legislature has been steadfast in rejecting legislation that requires unnecessary hurdles placed on historically disenfranchised communities.

So we urge a no vote on SB405.

Do we have any additional witnesses in opposition?

Chair Cervantes, Committee Members, Bryant Maramontez with the American Federation of State County Municipal Employees and respectful opposition.

I do have proxies for vote writers that asked me to express their opposition and also Disability Rights California, thank you.

See no additional witnesses in opposition. We will bring it back to the Committee for discussion. I certainly want to just share just a few words given my personal experience in voter registration drives across our great state. Senator, I do have a lot of philosophical problems with this very bill.

Under existing law, voter registration forms include questions related to the applicant's eligibility to register to vote. These include requests for a driver's license, a state identification card number, as well as the last four digits of the applicant's Social Security number.

And if the applicant does not provide this very information when they register to vote but later attempt to cast a ballot, the relevant county registrar will reach out to the voter to get the required proof of identification before the voter's ballot came can be counted.

We know that over 80% of voters in California vote by mail and the signatures that voters provide on their mail ballot envelopes confirm their identities. Our informational hearing just two weeks ago provided a very thorough review of that process and as the Committee analysis notes, the actual occurrence of voter fraud in California is extremely rare.

When these incidents have occurred, they have been swiftly and rightfully addressed by both county registrars as well as prosecutors. And given all of these facts, I do not believe the circumstances warrant reversing the enactment of SB 1174, which I was a proud co author of just this last slide session.

For these very reasons, Senator, I will not be supporting your bill today.

Senator Umberg, just a couple questions. Thank you, Madam Chair. To Ms. Britton. Ms. Britton, I think you'll agree with me that there are at least some Californians who are citizens who do not have identification. Do you agree with me on that score?

I suppose that's correct, sir.

And how many of those folks you think would be in essence disenfranchised if we were to require identification?

I think. What's your estimate if these nonprofit groups and other groups that are supporting non proof of citizenship would devote half of their effort to making sure that these undocumented citizens had documentation, problem would be solved. I don't think it's insolvable. I think it's very, very solvable.

So you think that at some point every Californian will have identification.

There's the new law that goes into effect in May that you have to have the real ID card to fly. To fly.

You agree with me that there are many Californians who don't fly?

That's absolutely true. Yeah, that's true.

So I'm just wondering what the estimate would be. I mean, this law would disenfranchise some Californians. And I'm trying to get a sense as to what you think the estimate is as to the number of Californians that would be disenfranchised.

I think it would be very few, sir.

Okay. And in terms of reports of voter fraud, how many reports of voter fraud have there been in the last two elections?

There have been a lot of. Of reports of unaccountable phenomenon. We have registered all kinds of complaints with the Secretary of State and had absolutely no reply from her. And no reply does not mean that it doesn't exist. I have a letter here that I would like to give to you.

Actually, this letter was filed by Election Integrity Project California in September with a number of, I would say, oddities that were found in the 2022 election.

Thank you. I would. I would like to have you. So. By the way, it doesn't surprise me that after our process has been attacked at the very highest level of government with misinformation in terms of the Number of folks who have voted illegally.

In fact, I think the President United States said that he actually would have won the election in California had there been some sort of voter verification process. A completely false statement, I think that virtually everyone agrees with.

But attacking the system, constantly attacking the system and then saying apparently voters don't have trust in the system seems to be one follows the other, at least to me.

Well, my concern is that since, Gosh20172018 we have been asking questions of the Secretary of State, asking for a response on all the findings that we have. If you go to our website, you'll find a whole list of findings with numbers that are mind boggling. And she has not responded to any of these.

So there's no response. There's nothing. No proof, no response, no answers. And that's a problem that creates doubt in the mind of elections. Anybody that's studying the elections, when you don't get answers from the Secretary of State, you have more doubts.

So in my own county, Mr. Page, and we've had a history of I think really excellent registrar voters in Orange County, traditionally representative. And both Mr. Kelly as well as Mr. Page have both said that our process in Orange County is in essence safe, secure, and is almost inviolate in terms of voter fraud.

In fact, I'm only aware of two instances of voter fraud. One that brought me to electoral office was the Pole Guard Incident in 1988 where folks posed as police officers with signs that said non citizens may not vote. I assume you don't think that's a good idea.

Well, I know in Orange County you had a bomb threat during this last election that stopped counting and processing for a while. The results of several of the congressional districts didn't come in until the last day before certification. That's, that's not normal, that, that adds questions. So I'm going to say that's we're.

Not fully exactly correct. If you want to attack the integrity of the process, then you can do all kinds of extraordinary things. The same as with respect to creating fake polling places with signs that create fake polling place. You don't, you don't think that's a good idea? That's the other.

I think that's a good, the second event that happened in Orange County in connection, I think, with a congressional election. But having said all that, it is my concern that this misinformation has created distrust in the system, which is really unfortunate because the system is trustworthy.

And I'm concerned that the number of voters that we would disenfranchise by enacting this far and away exponentially exceeds those who somehow would try to vote when they're not eligible to vote and therefore I'd be voting no. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional comments or questions from Committee Members? Seeing none. Senator Choi, would you like to close?

Thank you. Listening to all opinions, I am so puzzled and the question why this bill simply asking for ID vote in voting in person, it has nothing to do with disenfranchising voters to vote. It has nothing to do with the voter registration.

Voter registration issue that must be citizen is a totally different issue that I will be dealing with later.

Because we believe, assuming that all votal registration was correctly done, all the legally qualified citizens have registered and listening to Senator Omberg's statement, how many people don't have IDs and some people may not fly, so they may not need the ID. But so many activities locally, even citizens who may not fly, they do need ID.

So it may not be driver's license, but there's an ID issued for senior citizens for applying for social programs, for ride service requests, things like that. So I assume 100% people will have some form of ID. And asking for those people who are so called legitimate voters showing up to vote, nothing to do with your mail ballots?

Mail ballots, Let them vote. I do have another Bill that the following about the mail ballots. But this one does not require anything to do with the registration and voter ID. Showing voter ID when they show up to vote in person as irrelevant. Show me what your name shows on the Bellator.

So why do you connect with the minority, this advantaged community? It has everybody, just about everybody has a photo identification. But when they choose to show up in person, why are they afraid of showing the ID?

Any activities as I described a while ago, or even checking into hotel, they require ID, you know, even with a credit card. So don't connect this wrong information to this simple request identifying who the voter is, discouraging this enfranchising for voters to vote. Think about it, Is there any direct correction? Are we discouraging them?

Why are they afraid to show the ID? Why are you opposing opposing witnesses? You mentioned several things, but it has nothing to do with the validation qualifications that already they claimed and registered to vote. So this is a very common sense Bill to affirm our Committee to vote on.

If I can get your I vote, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator, is there a motion for SB 405? Given that we have two Committee Members out of the room, we will wait for their return. If to see if anyone does make a motion, we will move to the next item on file today is item number six, SB406.

Okay, thank you, Chair. My Bill, SB 406, will significantly improve the efficiency and the timeliness of our election process. As we all know, California has long embraced voting by mail, that we talked about, as a convenient and accessible method for our citizens to exercise their right to vote.

We have taken the admirable steps of sending mail-in ballots to all registered voters, without requiring them to make a request. This has undoubtedly increased voter participation, but it has also presented challenges. Under the current system, ballots are only required to be postmarked by Election Day.

However, this system has led to inconsistencies in the timely delivery of ballots. The US Post Office, despite its best efforts, can be unpredictable. Some ballots arrive quickly, while others are delayed, and in some other cases, ballots are even lost.

As a result, we face a prolonged vote-counting period, which broke down the system, and can undermine public confidence in our election process. My Bill, SB 406, proposes a simple, yet effective, solution that is all ballots must be received by Election Day.

This would require voters to mail their ballots earlier, allowing ample time for processing and counting, while still preserving the conveniences of voting by mail. By continuing that all ballots are in hand by Election Day, we can expedite the counting process and avoid unnecessary delays. This change will not disenfranchise any voters.

California already offers a generous period of early voting, and voters will still have the option to return their ballots to secure drop boxes, or vote in person, if they prefer. This—the goal here is enhance efficiency, without sacrificing accessibility.

In closing, I ask for your support for this Bill, as it will streamline our election process, build greater trust in the results, and help us improve the efficiency of our vote-counting process. Thank you for your "Aye" vote.

Thank you. Senator Choi will now move to lead witnesses in support.

Our Election Day has become an election season, 29 days prior to election day, and 30 days following election Day. America is tired of this stretched out election season.

The current law states that a vote-by-mail ballot is timely if cast—if postmarked—prior to election date, time stamped, and received by the ROV, no longer than seven days following election date.

Not to mention that if there is no time stamp, or date stamp, on the envelope, the date written on the envelope by the voter is accepted. So, that's, that can be problematic in itself. The seven-day extension past Election Day is an unnecessary time extension, that results in an additional delay in ballot processing for election officials.

Vote-by-Mail Voters have their ballots in their possession for 29 days prior to the election. They have a myriad of options to deliver them in a timely manner. Drop off ballots at the ROV's office. Drop boxes placed throughout their community. Vote centers open 11 days prior to Election Day. Election Day drop off at polling locations.

And of course, there is legal ballot harvesting, which allows the voter to give his or her ballot to virtually anyone and assume that it will be delivered promptly by Election Day. Voters who mail their ballots via USPS need to plan ahead, take some personal responsibility, mail their ballots in a timely manner.

There's no excuse for late ballots. Plan ahead. SB 406 makes the exception for military and overseas voters. This is an acceptable compromise. We would prefer that all ballots be required to be in the ROV's office by Election Day. We urge an "Aye" vote on SB 406. Thank you.

Are there any additional witnesses in support? We will now take witnesses in opposition. In support?

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the Shasta County Board of Supervisors, in support.

We will now take witnesses in opposition.

Hello again, Chair Members. Dora Rose, Deputy Director, League of Women Voters of California. We are here in opposition to SB 406, which would upend California's vote-by-mail process by—as a Senator indicated—requiring that ballots be received by the close of polls on Election Day, instead of postmarked.

California is among 18 states, plus Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Washington D.C., that count mail ballots received after Election Day. Our state officially encourages vote-by-mail. We send every voter a vote-by-mail ballot, and over 80%, as the Chair noted earlier, of California voters use vote by mail in 2024.

SB 406 would cause massive voter confusions for those who have justifiably grown to depend on what they've been told. If you vote by Election Day, your vote's going to be counted, right? For a decade now.

And it would serve to disenfranchise tens of thousands of voters, especially in rural, remote, or underserved communities, who rely heavily on the mail, and whose ballots may be delayed through no fault of their own.

SB 406 would mean that voters who complete and post their ballots by Election Day could still be silenced, just because the post office didn't move fast enough. And that risk is real, right? The US Postal Service is facing severe delays, compounded by the Department of Government Efficiency—DOGE's recent plan to cut 10,000 jobs, from, specifically from the post office.

Stripping away our current 7-day receipt window would punish voters for problems that the government itself is creating. SB 406 is not about election integrity. It's about limiting access. California's existing system has built trust by being clear, consistent, and fair. The rule is simple. If you vote on time, your vote counts.

Changing this now would create chaos, reduce turnout, and erode public confidence in our elections. Our democracy should be built on inclusion, not arbitrary deadlines. We urge you to vote "No" and protect the rights of every Californian, to have their vote counted. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any additional witnesses in opposition?

Cynthia Valencia, ACLU California Action, in opposition.

Brian Mayor Montes, with the American Federation of State County Municipal Employees. In respectful opposition.

Because these candidates don't take office until—oh, Ann West, San Bruno, California—because these candidates don't take office until two months later, there is no emergency. And so, that would be my concern, that we would—there is no need to press this forward, if people are going to be simply waiting for two months to take office.

So, I disagree with this Bill.

We will now bring it back to the Committee, for any questions or comments. Senator Allen.

Yeah. I know that Assemblymember Berman is working on a bill in this space, and I'm certainly, you know, looking forward to the work. I, I, you know, this is one of these challenging things where I don't think the deadlines are arbitrary, right? I mean, you know, Election Day is an arbitrary deadline.

You know, they're trying to get the process moving and counted faster, and I think that, I think that California has suffered because of our delays. We—there are a lot of benefits.

It's the enfranchisement that you talked about—the fact that we make sure that every vote counts, and that we're not just cutting people off because, you know, they don't, their ballot doesn't get in, in on time. You know, that's a benefit. That's a very good thing.

The flip side is that the results end up coming out later from us than others. And I think that that's—it ends up, it ends up being a part of the national narrative. And so, I think there's some challenges here. I'd like to see us get more expeditious while we're also ensuring enfranchisement, real enfranchisement.

So, I'm not supportive of this particular Bill, but I understand the issues that are being raised by the author, and I am certainly sensitive to them and concerned about them, and I know that they're at the heart of what Assemblymember Berman's working on with his Bill.

So, I, I do think we need to make some progress in this space. I don't think the status quo is working particularly well, at least from—because you have all these other states that are putting out results much more quickly. Again, they're also not being as open, they're not enfranchising as many people.

There's a tradeoff here, and it's a tricky one. I remember, as a young person, I was living abroad for a little while and I wanted to get my ballot in. I got it, you know, I was, of course, very into politics and government, and here I am.

But, you know, I worked really hard to get my ballot in, really, with a lot of advance notice, so as to make sure that it got counted. We understand not everyone is quite as committed to this process as we all are, and yet, we want to make sure their voices are heard in this process, as well.

So, there's got to be a special balance that's struck here. I'm hopeful that the Berman Bill will provide that. I'm hopeful you'll be engaged in those conversations if the bill—if this Bill doesn't move out of Committee today—because I do think you're working on something that's important here.

I'm not supportive of this Bill, but I think it's—you're addressing some broader issues that I'm hopeful we'll be addressing through this Berman Bill.

Thank you, Senator Allen. I certainly want to be able to echo my concerns, as well, as relates to this Bill. As I stated just moments ago, over 80% of Californians vote by mail.

And with this particular Bill, if it is enacted, it would disenfranchise a significant portion of voters in our state, by preventing their ballots from being counted, due to mail delivery issues, even if they did everything we asked them—to return their ballots in a timely fashion.

I am proud to have been a co-author on AB 37, which made our permanent universal vote-by-mail system, in which every lawfully registered voter receives a ballot by mail.

It also requires that ballots be accepted up to seven days after Election Day, because California is an inclusive democracy, which means that we do everything possible to ensure that every ballot return is returned in a timely fashion, through the mail, in giving everyone an opportunity for their ballots to be counted. Certainly, look forward to our continued discussions.

As Senator Allen mentioned, we do need to work on certain provisions, and I certainly look forward to having those conversations with Members of both houses. But for those reasons, I cannot support this Bill today. Is there a motion on SB 406? Let me allow Senator Choi to close.

Okay. Thank you for your comments. Again, this, as I stated, Bill, would not—the practice of making sure that the ballots will be mailed in advance, for voters to make sure the ballot will arrive by Election Day.

If they are afraid of getting delayed or lost, they have a number of ways that they can present their own ballot in person on Election Day, at the voting box, or drop boxes, and even ballot harvesting in person. There are a number of ways, but simply, allowing them to vote—to send to mail the ballots early, this has nothing to do with, again, this enfranchising—not including all the voters.

So, this is only to improve the efficiency, so that we can have very quick around ballot counting and the results will be announced as quickly as possible. So, I ask for your "Aye" vote.

Senator Choi, I did forget to ask, will you be accepting the Committee Amendments?

Committee Amendment was?

To require the Secretary of State to adopt regulations.

In this vein, yes.

Thank you. So, we will wait for other Committee Members to arrive.

Madam Chair. So, if he's accepted—so, if he's accepting the Committee Amendments is that?

This is still—I still remain opposed to the Bill, even though we did offer Committee Amendments.

That he's accepting?

That he's accepting, yes.

Yeah, sure. Yeah.

Any, any, any amendments, whoever initiates, even Secretary of the State, or Senators, to balance—to arrive on by Election Day, to make the election process quicker, I will accept that.

Again, I'm focused on the negotiated settlement of the Berman bill. But I do think that the proponents ought to make sure that their voice is heard as part of that conversation too.

So we will await for our final member to arrive. I do want to ask if there is a motion on SB 406. Without that, we will move to the next item on file, which is Dr. Choi, file item 7, SB 407. You may proceed when you're ready.

Okay, thank you. My next bill is SB 407 which would reduce the county post election canvassing period from 30 days to 10 days. This is directly related to my bill proposal 406. The ballots shall be received by election day to achieve this SB 407. In other words, reducing the ballot canvassing period from 30 days to 10 days.

Because you can see my whole purpose is to make it efficient and the ballot counting will all be finished, not in 38 days. This measure is essential to improving trust in our electoral process and ensuring that the residents get the election results in a timely manner.

California's election system has unfortunately become a national joke for this inability to report timely election results. In this past election, there were still millions of ballots left to be counted weeks after the election day.

Unduly delayed results caused more voters to lose confidence in our election process election process and start to believe in even conspiracies regarding the integrity of elections. SB 407 will enhance trust in our elections by shortening the canvassing period to ensure that the election results are finalized more quickly.

This would reduce the window for potential disputes and perceptions of irregularities. Faster certification will allow elected officials and policymakers to act on election outcomes sooner, particularly in time sensitive situations like runoffs or legislative sessions. You may know that in our legislators situation, last time when I got sworn in was December 2nd.

That was way before the Secretary of State certified our elections. To my memory, the certification period required by the SOS Secretary of State was December 23rd. So I mean to me this is not correct process that how can I can we believe we can be sworn in even before Secretary of State certified?

Yes, you are the legitimately elected official that was way before the certification. But we do practice this is very illogical. So this is what I'm trying to correct to make it logical. And two previous bills are all related to this. I urge you to support this common sense bill respectively for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. We will move to witnesses in support.

Following the November 5th, 2024 general election, America waited and waited for final results from California. Newly Elected legislators from across the country were being sworn in while Californians impatiently waited for results. In light of California's claims of being the tech leader of the world, this 30 day delay and critical election results is an embarrassment.

We are mocked by other states and countries who can finalize their election results within several days. What's the problem with California? Our current election laws codify that 30 day unnecessary delay. We allow vote by mail ballots to be received by the county ROVs up to seven days following election day.

Following that, they must be verified before being counted. We allow vote by mail envelopes with no or non matching signatures to be cured for up to two days prior to certification. That's currently 28 days.

It's time for voters to accept personal responsibility for following simple directions, signing their vote by mail envelope properly and mailing their ballot in a timely manner. SB 407 would reduce those deadlines to 10 days for counting all ballots and and preparing the certified statement of results of the election.

And seven days and 11 days for sending the Secretary of State a complete copy of all election results. The bill would require that the Secretary of State be-be to prepare, certify and file a statement of vote no later than two days after receiving the election results from all county election officials.

That's a huge improvement over our current laws. The 10 day count is a lofty goal, but it cannot be achieved without addressing all the other additional election codes that must be addressed. Election Integrity Project California requests that this committee work with Senator Choi to make those amendments to his bill and move it forward.

Are there any additional witnesses in support?

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the Shasta County Board of Supervisors, in support. Thank you.

We can now turn to witnesses in opposition.

Hello again. Dora Rose.

Third time's a charm. Deputy Director with the League of Women Voters of California. And I am here to respectfully oppose SB 407. This bill proposes a really dramatic and dangerous reduction in the time that counties have to complete the official canvas of election results for 30 days to 10 days.

It also shortens the window for counties to submit results to the Secretary of State and for the Secretary to certify them. So let me be clear. California's election system is designed to both maximize participation and to ensure accuracy. We mail every voter a ballot. We allow voters to register and vote on the same day.

We count ballots that are postmarked by election day and received up to seven day late, seven days later. And critically, critically, we allow voters to fix issue with their ballots, such as missing signatures or ones that don't compare to the signature on file. All of this takes time and it is time that is very well spent.

Accurate ballot tabulation involves a series of really crucial tasks performed by experienced staff. Each of these steps plays a very vital role in in protecting the integrity of our elections. Ensuring that every eligible vote is counted.

Rushing this process to meet a 10 day deadline would overwhelm the limited election staff available, increase the risk of errors and potentially lead to certification of incomplete or inaccurate results.

We believe that if the speed of the count is really an issue for the public at large, and we're not convinced that it is, that's something that we think wonks focus on more than the public.

But if it is, then we should counteract conspiracy theories with consistent, reassuring messaging about the importance of precision and enfranchisement over fast results. And if we want to encourage faster counting, we should be looking at whether things like funding for more staff and high capacity processing machines might help with that issue.

Our elections have got to be both efficient and trustworthy. But SB 407 forces a trade off that we just cannot afford. Accuracy, transparency and counting. Every eligible ballot must not be sacrificed in the name of speed. So we urge your no vote on SB 407. Thank you.

Do we have any additional witnesses in support? In opposition?

Cynthia Valencia, ACLU California Action in opposition.

We will now bring it back. Additional witness in opposition.

Well, sister, she wrote the statement. Reality- excuse me, rapidity is valued in the case of this bill over accuracy and the right to vote. The right to vote matters more than rapidity.

Name organization, please.

Sorry, Ann West, San Bruno. I'm a former teacher who taught writing and argument, so I tend to write more and more.

We will now bring it back to the committee for questions or concerns.

Proxy for Disability Rights California in opposition. And I should have said also for SB 406. Apologies.

See no comments or question from committee. Senator Allen.

Again, I, you know, I'm. This is part of the Berman conversation. I- I- And I welcome. You know, I think a number of the key arguments are real. This is hard, right? I mean, I think, I think we. I respectfully push back on the idea that. Look, I think people do.

I think, I think in the end of the day we have been able to make the case to what the electorate that our process is allowing for- for precision and enfranchisement.

But the more we can do to preserve those two core values while speeding up the process, the better, because I do think we're taking hits in the national conversation in ways that I- I- I would love to see us avoid.

So with that I look forward to the discussion that we're going to be having with this Berman Bill and welcome your participation.

Thank you, Senator Allen. Dr. Choi, you know, as I had mentioned before, just given the number of bills that we've passed in this legislature, you know, processing 13 million ballots does take time, but our process ensures that every ballot that is cast in a timely manner is counted.

Like many, I would also like to see our election results to be published faster. There are legitimate reasons as to why it does take time to conduct the canvas of the vote in California. As we discussed earlier, more than 80% of voters vote by mail in our state.

And signatures on those ballots, the envelopes need to be verified so that we can be sure that every voter's identity is verified. Damaged ballots need to be duplicated before being counted.

Voters are given a chance to cure their signatures if they did not sign their mail ballot or the signature they provided did not compare to the signature that the county registrar does have on file.

There's also risk limiting audits that are performed while ballots are still being counted so that we are even more confident in our results in our elections in our state. And so for those reasons I cannot support your bill today. But I certainly do welcome more conversations that will be had in this legislative session.

Is there a motion for SB 407? Hearing none. We will wait for our last member to join the committee. We will move to allow Dr. Choi, I will move to allow you to close on your bill please.

Thank thank you Chair and Senator Allen for making your comments on the bill. Largely what I hear is that the accuracy would be sacrificed but I don't think we will sacrifice any accuracy over the speedy process. And then also changing the system while ago 406 requires that the ballots to arrive.

In other words burden the election participants the voters. They are exercising their very important rights and at the same time they should also bear some responsibilities by regulations. Instead of allowing for instance the previous mere 6 days to 7 days to allow, why not then 10 days to include this one is instead of accounting over 30 days.

10 days means that we can even temporarily hire more people in the train and ready to be focused in counting the canvassing the ballots. Once the election, all the ballots are in by the election date and then we can get in.

And then also we California are so proud we have high tech people companies who are right here and they will definitely help how we can achieve it. And then also the accuracy and including the missing signatures etc.

I wonder how many ballots have been had to be delayed because of missing signa- signatures and those we all know by common sense and clearly stated on the ballot your signature has to be on the envelope when they neglect their responsibilities. Why for few millions of people will have to sacrifice that's my question.

They also need to carry their responsibility to sign and do not mark anything on the signature verification process is a little more complicated which I did not deal with here because it can change over time as people get aged. So it has nothing to do with that.

So this one is simply we change the efficiency and the canvassing will be done. It can be done. And then also when I hear there's almost 16 million people, all the ballots should be counted. But we don't count them all together. As you know the each county has a registrar of voters and they are responsible.

Small counties, they have a smaller number of ballots account large counties like Orange County, LA County will have a larger ballot count so they have more staffers to get involved in canvassing the ballots. And then also Instead of prolonged 30 days, that is also time and cost.

So instead of 30 days in 10 days they can hire accelerate additional if necessary. Additional why not in- in- in rotation by shift day and night rather than resting whole night and weekends. We can so they don't count. And so I think we set the goal to achieve the efficiency. We do have a way so we can achieve that.

So therefore I urge your vote. Aye vote.

Thank you. Senator Choi, is there a motion for SB 407? Hearing none. This bill will remain in committee. We will move to the next item on file, item number eight, SB 280 and I will hand it off to my Vice Chair, Senator Choi.

Okay, next Bill is now SB 280. Senator Cervantes, if you're ready, go ahead and make a presentation.

Thank you Mr. Vice Chair and Committee Members, for allowing me to present Senate Bill 280 today, which strengthens California's commitment to transparent and ethical governance. In 1982, this Legislature prohibited the receipt of delivery of campaign contributions in state government buildings, including the Capitol complex, but explicitly exempted legislative district offices.

So SB280 closes this loophole by extending this prohibition to legislative district offices and local government buildings. By expanding the existing prohibition this way, this Bill will reinforce transparency and public confidence in government by deterring even the appearance or possibility of quid pro quo arrangements.

SB 280 provides a clear line of separation between government operations and political campaigns, ensuring that our district offices exist to assist constituents in dealing with government agencies and facilitate representation by the Legislature, not to provide an AB avenue for Political fundraising. Thank you, colleagues. I respectfully asked for an I vote today.

With me to testify in support is Lindsay Nakano. Who. The sponsors of the bill, The Fair Political Practice Commission.

Any support witness.

Hello, I'm Lindsay Nakano, Senior Legislative Council with the Fair Political Practices Commission. The Commission is pleased to sponsor this bill, SB and our comments are very much reiterating. Senator Cervantes, comments. Receiving or delivering contributions in government spaces can, at the least create the appearance of quid pro quo in government decision making.

SB280 is a straightforward and common sense bill that will strengthen the important line between government activity and campaign fundraising, which will support greater public trust in our elected officials and institutions. Thank you, Senator Cervantes, for your leadership on this Bill and thank you to the Committee for your Consideration.

Any public support statements? Okay. If not, any opposition witnesses? Any public opposition statements? Okay. If not, then any Committee Members questions and the discussion. Okay, then if not, I will support this Bill and make a motion because I always thought that receiving any campaign contributions in government buildings was illegal and.

But there was such a loophole, I didn't realize. So I think closing that kind of loophole is a very common sense Bill. So therefore, I will support and make a motion and any other discussion and comment.

If not, then, yeah, I'm learning.

So now you can make a closing statement.

Thank you. Well, I appreciate the support. We believe that it's vital to have more trust, public trust. And I believe this is a step forward. I believe many Members already thought this was already a prohibition. And so we are now closing this loophole and respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you. And.

Just. Okay. Secretary? Yeah. You have a question.

So I. I don't know if the chair can move the bill or the acting chair can move the bill. So I'm happy to move the bill if it is not. If the acting chair cannot move the bill.

I didn't realize that the chair. Can I make a motion? Why not? I. Anyway, then the measure has been moved by Senator Remo and Secretary Koh had. Make a roll call.

[Roll call]

Thank you. Research. What was it? Okay, now vote is 50 to pass to a Committee on appropriations. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. We will now open. Lift the call. We could start with file item one, SB270. Secretary, please call the roll.

[roll call]

That measures out 5- 0. We could please lift the call on item number two, SB458.

[roll call]

50. That is 50. That Bill is out. We will now lift the call on item number three, SB42.

[roll call]

That Bill is out four to one. We will now move to item number four. We have SB398.

[roll call]

Chair. I would like to ask if I can amend my vote earlier. The sequence was changed. I was not paying attention. I voted no for the previous one. So for this item number Sb398, my vote shall be aye.

Chou. Changing vote from no to aye.

That measures out 5 to 0. We will now move to item number 5, SB 405. Is there a motion hearing? None. This Bill remains in Committee. Item number six, SB406. Do we have a motion?

Chair, I have a question. As a Committee Member, I cannot make a motion.

That is. That is accurate. It is not custom for the author to make a motion on their own Bill.

I mean, I'm the Member of the Committee. I should have. I mean, you can always vote no, but I should have really right to make a motion.

I do hear you, Senator Choi, but the author of the Bill cannot move their own. Their own measure that Bill. So hearing no motion, this Bill remains in Committee. We will now move to item number seven, SB407.

All right, so we have dispensed with all items, and thank you for all individuals who participated in today's hearing. If you were not able to testify today, please submit your comments to the Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee. The Senate Committee on Elections and Constitution Constitutional Amendments is now adjourned.