Assembly Standing Committee on Elections

Good morning. We have many authors here, but we're still waiting on Committee Members. So if you are on the elections Committee, please come to room 444 as soon as possible so we can get started. Thank you. It all right. We're very excited.

We have our Vice Chair, Assemblymember Macedo, here, so we are going to go ahead and get started as a Subcommitee. And again, just a shout out. If Members of the Committee are monitoring this hearing, please come to room 444 and the state capital so we can establish a quorum.

I'd like to welcome everyone who is here in the hearing room today and who is watching this hearing online. For the purpose of this hearing, we are accepting witness testimony in person and we are also accepting written testimony through the Legislature's position letter portal.

That portal can be accessed through the Committee's website at aelc.Assembly.Ca.gov the Committee has 15 bills on its agenda. There are three bills on consent.

When we hear the bills on the agenda, we will hear from a maximum of two primary witnesses in support and two primary witnesses in opposition of the Bill, with a limit of two minutes prior per witness. Other witnesses are limited to providing their name, the organization they represent, if any, and their position on the Bill.

Additional comments will be ruled out of order. We seek to protect the rights of all who participate in the legislative process so that we can have effective deliberation and decisions on the critical issues facing California.

In order to facilitate the Committee's business and public participation in today's hearing, we will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings. Violation of these rules may subject you to removal or other enforcement actions. With those announcements out of the way, we will now move on to the Committee's agenda.

And at this point, since we do not have a quorum. We do have a quorum. zero, we do have a quorum. Okay. At this point, we have a quorum. Let's take up the Committee's consent calendar. No. Oh, okay. We're gonna call the roll first. Sorry.

[Roll Call]

So we have a quorum. So before we get to the rest of the agenda, let's take up the Committee's consent calendar. There are three bills on the consent calendar. The Committee secretary will please read the items on consent.

File item number 48808 by Assembly Member Addis. The motion is do pass as amended and Be re referred to the Committee on Appropriations with recommendation to consent calendar File item number 6, AB 1029 by Valencia. Do pass and be re referred to the Committee on Appropriations with recommendation to consent calendar and File item number seven, AB 1072 by Assemblymember Pellerin. The motion is do pass and be re referred to the Committee on Appropriations with recommendation to consent calendar.

Does any Member wish to remove an item from the consent calendar seen and hearing? None. Do we have a motion on the consent calendar moved by Assemblymember Macito, seconded by Assemblymember Berman. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

That's out. The consent calendar is out. But we'll keep the roll open for absent Members to sign on. We will now move on to the other business on the Committee's agenda. The we're taking it in Member sign in order. The first item on the agenda is item 11, which is AB 1249 by Assembly Member Wilson.

You may come on up. Begin when you're ready. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Madam Chair and members, I'm pleased to present AB 1249. This is a bill that reflects our continued commitment to strengthening democracy and expanding access to ballot for all Californians. Today, only 29 of our 58 counties provide early voting through the Voters Choice Act, while the remaining 29 do not.

Two of those counties are actually in my district. For many working families, caregivers and voters with transportation challenges, voting on election day can be incredibly challenging. AB 1249 bridges this gap by requiring all non-BCA counties. Those are the 29 counties that currently do not participate to offer at least one.

As a reminder, this is a minimum, not a cap, but at least one early voting location on the Saturday before the statewide election. Additionally, this bill streamlines the vote by mail process. Current law allows voters to submit their vote by mail ballots in person without the need for an identification envelope. Now, reminder.

Although there's not an identification envelope, they still have to go through the full process and verification as they normally would. This bill would also include it would allow it to be happened at designated county offices or satellite locations.

I will be accepting the committee's clarifying amendments to keep the amount of public notice required for satellite locations to two weeks, which is consistent with the current law. And by expanding early voting opportunities, we are helping to ensure that every eligible voter can participate fully in our democratic process.

Now, this bill is sponsored by the California Secretary of State and so I'd like to introduce my witness who is representing our Secretary of State, Tim Cromartie, who's the Deputy of Legislative Affairs.

Thank you for being here this morning. You have two minutes.

Thank you. Morning, Madam Chair. Members .Tim Cromartie, on behalf of Secretary of State Shirley and Weber. The secretary is proud to sponsor this bill which will establish a minimum standard for early voting across all California jurisdictions.

As has been said, we want to emphasize that the polling places, the precise location that is at the discretion of the local county registrar. However, the polling place must be open for a full eight hours on that Saturday.

The goal is to ensure that some degree of early voting is available to all voters statewide, many of whom have work obligations or transportation issues that make voting on Election Day problematic for them. This measure seeks to remove those obstacles that might prevent them from voting. I'll be glad to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. We will now move on to primary witnesses. Actually, are there any other additional witnesses who would like to register your support for this bill? If so, please come up to the mic and state your name, organization and your position.

I don't think we have any.

See none in the room. We'll now move on to the primary witnesses in opposition.

Looks like it's a done deal. Okay, we have a motion and would you like to close? Is there any discussion from. I'm sorry.

Just want to make sure.

Anybody else have any questions about the bill? Assemblymember Macedo, good morning. Good morning.

So I understand what you said about when they turn it in in person, it's not in the envelope, Correct. That doesn't have to be currently.

Right. Because what they're doing is they're directly. It mirrors what happens on election day. They are turning it in directly into the scanner. So they're not just dropping ballot anywhere. So there's. When you go on election day, there's two ways to vote.

If you're doing vote by mail, you can walk up and in a secured bin, so to speak, you can take your ballot that you've put in the envelope and did all the signatures and stuff and put it in. Or you can come in and say, I'm ready to vote.

And you walk through the process and then you go and you actually put it in the scanner. So what this allows is that option is still available on the early voting day.

You can come in, drop your ballot off in its envelope, or you yourself, no one else can do this for you, walk to a scanner and put it in. And that's what it means by not an identification envelope.

But if you do it that second way, you do have to go up to the counter, verify that you're voting because you are now voting in person. You're no longer voting by mail. You're voting in person, but you're just using the ballot from home versus getting a ballot from somebody.

So. But what happens there? Is there a signature that I have to give when I'm giving my ballot to that person? Because I could say I'm David Tongipa or I'm Gail Pellerin, they're not gonna know that that's necessarily my ballot correct.

So you. So you would have to go just like you would on voting day. On your normal voting day, you would go to the front counter, you would say, I'm this person. And you would get your. You usually sign.

And as a signature, when I hand the envelope to the person at the office.

Not the envelope.

So not the envelope. They collect my signature.

Yeah. So when you are turning in a ballot that's not in an envelope. So. Right. So I have a ballot that I filled out at home. So they didn't give me a ballot, but I have a valid ballot that I received in the mail that I'm filled out at home. Then you walk through the normal.

You, you wait in line like all the voters. You go to the front, you do your verification, which is where you sign your signature. Normally you would go to the next stage, the next table. Well, and I'm going by what happens in Solano County where I vote.

You would go to the next table and you would get a ballot. So you would skip that step. You would not get a ballot because you already have a ballot. And you would walk right over to the scanner and put your ballot in. So that.

So everything that happens on voting day would just happen on the Saturday before for at least eight hours. So all the processes are the same. There's no distinction.

Would you be willing to include an amendment that it just had to be in the envelope, or are you dead set that no envelope involved in this particular event?

Well, I think you would be treating those voters different than those on voting day. The whole point of this is to say that you have an extra voting day in person voting day.

So voters currently, right now, today, across all 58 counties on voting day can take a ballot that they filled out at home, which, you know, we have in our county.

I know a few people who do like these family voting parties where they all sit down and talk about the bills and they fill their valid out some mail. It in, right.

Then some drop it off because some people like to see that it went into the bin, you know, and some people go and they get it scanned in directly because they want to see it not in a bin. They want to, they want to feel secure that they scanned it in.

So you would in essence be treating those other voters differently, all because they're doing it on a voter day. And keep in mind that the majority of our counties do have early voting through the Voter Choice Act, which is a minimum of 10 days, and have done this process without incident.

So I think you'd be treating, you'd be disenfranchising those voters to not treat them like the whole point is this, to treat that like a normal voting day. And so.

And I respect and appreciate that. I just don't see an envelope with a simple signature on it as a huge barrier, especially if you're going out of your way anyway to go and do this ahead of time.

But what would you do with the envelope? So, so here's the thing. When I scan it, because remember, these people are scanning it in, they're going through the process, putting a signature and then they're going to direct themselves, going to scan it in. What would you do with the envelope?

I think it's just an add for me. I personally don't feel comfortable with this because I just like it's an added layer of security.

No, no, no. But I, but I get what you're saying.

It's just an extra verification for the.

But what do you do with the envelope.

To have that signature so I can compare it to the signature on file? Because right now that is the minimum level of verification that we have. So I'm not following you as far as the verification that happens leading up to that.

That I just want to make sure that if I end up taking my bill, my ballot in, that that's the person whose ballot it is. Because I have concerns for people in our senior citizen community. Right. That maybe are going to say, hey, daughter.

I mean, and I know there's a process, somebody else can turn your ballot in for you. I appreciate that we're increasing access to voting. That's something I'm very passionate about. But I also want to make sure that we're having a way that we can verify the voter.

So you are not allowed to turn in someone's ballot except by an envelope where you've signed and said that person has permission. So right now in the state of California, whether you're taking advantage of the Voter Choice Act or not on election day when you turn in a ballot.

You cannot turn in a ballot of your own without an envelope. So if my elderly mom wanted me to take her ballot in, I could not by law today, and even with this bill, if it wasn't in place, take her ballot and scan a naked ballot in. I can only use a vote by mail envelope.

If, if she wanted, if I wanted to drive her there, she can go in, go to the front verification desk first, sign her name with her ballot. They would switch her from an in person from a vote by mail to an in person.

And that means they know what that they know the every ballot has a code so they know that that is attached to her. They would scan it in and once it's scanned in, there would be that two part verification that you know, Sally Jo voted. Right.

She came in, switched from vote by mail to in person, signed her name and turned in a ballot that associated with that. If that signature didn't match, then it could be challenged that whether Sally Jo did it or Sally Jo Jr. did it. Right. So I understand your concern.

I think that concern exists today, not what this bill is trying to do. So I don't accept that amendment. And if that means you can't support it, I completely understand that. And that's your right, representing the voters that you represent in your district.

And if I might just try to explain a little bit here. So basically, it's the same process that you have on election day. Exactly. It mirrors the same process. It's just she's moving it to a Saturday as well. So those provisions are already in law.

So a voter coming in to vote who is not bringing their ballot in would sign in, get checked in, verified, they get a ballot, they go vote. If I'm using the ballot I have from home, I'm saving paper and I'm saving the process of having to check that signature again a second time at the elections office.

So the person comes in, same manner, checks in, gets verified and instead of somebody handing them a ballot, they can use the ballot they have already in their hands and submit it.

And just to update, and I think you know this so well is they the ballots are coded and so once I vote in person and I get a ballot, the ballot that I got at home is no longer a valid ballot as well.

Another key piece of that is the voters that vote by mail ballot is voided at that point. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So Member Tangipa, could I.

Excuse me, could I just add one last point on this regarding the ability to turn in a ballot without the envelope. That is a continuation of existing law, which I believe was initially authored by the chair. So we're just simply applying that to the non VCA counties.

So I've spent a lot of time volunteering at our local elections office. What this really does is actually get rid of that check that we need to make sure to verify. Because now it's illegal to show your ID.

You have to clarify. I do not understand what you mean. I think that's falsely incorrect. False.

When you show up and you have your ballot, and right now, the process is you can show up to a vote center, hand in your ballot, they will give you another one that after they verify, check you in a provisional absentee ballot, whichever one it is, at the vote center, and then you vote because they make sure that there's a verification.

If you bring a ballot from home and you don't have your vote by mail envelope, you're saying that you should just show up, walk in with that piece of paper, and then just submit that vote.

Hold on.

But there's no verification.

There is absolutely. There absolutely is verification. And I don't know what's happening in your county, but I will tell you, if they. If they are doing it that way, they are doing it against the law. So right now, today. So I want to be very clear that all my bill does is say that you have to.

Whatever is happening on Election Day, that you have to do that one other day, the Saturday before, for eight hours. And in order to use a satellite location, you have to announce two weeks in advance that that is a satellite location. That's what this bill does. So any mechanics. Hold on a second if I could.

And it removes the signature.

Hold on. Any mechanics as it relates to voting are not being changed with this bill.

So now, today, by law, which I've said, the chair said, Cromartie said, is that with this, you can today, by law, on voting day or on early voting days where counties have done this, you can take a vote by mail ballot from home. You can bring it in, and you have two options.

When you bring it in, you can bypass talking to anyone and you can drop it in a secure bin. And of course, in order for that to be accounted, it has to have a signature. It had to have. If somebody else was dropping it off, it had to have all that stuff. Right.

The second way that you can turn in a completed vote by mail ballot is you wait in line, go to the front, take the first step, which means verifying where you have to sign that you came in just like you normally would and then you go to the next step.

Instead of taking the next step, which a normal voter would do, who didn't come in with a ballot, they would get a new ballot, that ballot would be assigned to them and their vote by mail ballot would now be voided. But since they're not doing that step process, there is no voiding of their vote by mail.

They actually walk to the scanner and they scan that vote by mail ballot. So my bill doesn't address any of that because that is current law and we can have a debate about whether that should be current law. That is irrelevant to this bill because my bill does not change any of that.

My bill just says that if you have, if you are, if you do not accept the Voter Choice Act and choose to have a minimum of 10 that you at least should have a minimum of one the Saturday before at least eight hours.

And if you're going to have a satellite location, you should give notification at least two weeks in advance that that is going to be a satellite location. I change no mechanics as it relates to how someone votes.

And, and I, and I understand and outside of the having and representing a lot of my rural counties as well, some of our elections office are extremely small. A lot of my counties have less than 10 people that actually work.

And then they try to bring in temporary workers, but they're having a huge issue with that as well. I think about Mono and Inyo County, some of the smallest populations in the state. You know, this adds an additional day for an overly burdensome county elections.

Is there an allocation for some of the rural counties to make up for that?

My bill doesn't authorize an allocation. There are shared funding when it comes to doing voting in general, which is why we as people who are on the ballot pay a pretty significant fee to be on the ballot.

And so I would say to the counties that are rural, this is all the more who have not selected to do at least 10, which 10 is a great burden, especially if you're a small county, to have at least one is sufficient because the same burden that those county workers have in regarding to conducting election is likely the same burden that people have in that community of getting to a polling pace to be able to vote.

I will tell you as a person who always votes in person, I've only voted by mail once and that was because literally the day before election day I got Covid and didn't want my only time getting Covid and didn't want to go of course outside and go to a polling place.

And was really glad that all of a sudden now I could vote by mail and that option was available to me. And so I think there are some people across this state who only want to vote in person. They only feel comfortable doing it in person.

And so this gives them that opportunity to do it in person and not have to worry about doing it on the day of the week. They could do it on a Saturday, which is a more convenient day for the majority of folks. And so this gives them that option.

So this is about opening access, keeping in the same parameters. And like I said, you can have a debate about whether the parameters right now are sufficient. But my bill doesn't do that. My bill just says if you're non voting county, if you're a non Voter Choice Act county, then you vote.

You get a single voting day on Saturday. And that sets. And that's a standard across the state. But that's what my bill does.

When I was looking at the data in my district as well, and almost 90% of my district voted by mail.

Great.

And they turn in a lot. I have actually a lot very heavy voting district as well.

You know, and when I was looking at some of the data on ballots that were turned in or in person in some of my more rural areas, there's one precinct that has a voting center at a senior center for the last three days that they really had to be open and make sure that people could vote in person.

They had two voters come in and yet the workers were mandated to be in some of these rural communities.

This I think makes it a little bit, quite a bit harder on counties like Calaveras, Mono, Inyo of just mandating them to be there a little bit earlier when the voting process is fairly high in some of the rural.

So are you saying you had in person voting for three days? So that means you're two people showed up. Just so you know, that means your county likely. If you had in person voting early, your county is likely under the 10 county, the 10 county 10 day minimum rule.

That was Fresno County. So it's. Yes, that was a rural portion of Fresno county, which I know you're very familiar with.

I am absolutely familiar. So that means that this county could elect not to be a part of the voice choice and move to just one day. And so that's a decision at the county. But just so you know, in your particular county is very diverse in terms of population centers. I have seven counties.

Okay, I was referencing Fresno.

Why I was Looking at Fresno is because Fresno is a very large county.

Yes.

With very rural areas. And what this does is paint with a broad brush. Some of the rural areas that I speak to, a lot of my mountain community, you know, they're mandated to do some things that Fresno and the city really want.

And it makes it significantly harder on some of the mountain communities that now we would be taking policies that really work very well. I love when people can go in and turn in their ballots. I want more people to vote. I think everybody should have their voices heard.

But we're not looking at the counties that have populations less than 30,000 people, 40,000 people that have offices that are significantly less that now they have to do. What is so much easier for some of the more urban counties. And they don't charge a lot of these, which I'm very grateful for as well.

I mean, Mariposa's filing fee was like. And ballot statement was 230 bucks significantly less than a lot of areas because they don't. They just don't have the services available. And this adds an additional one. I think this adds a state mandate.

My rural counties would need additional support, whether it's financing to make sure that they have the staffing in place, to make sure that if we're going to mandate them to be there on a Saturday, you know, they need those financial services. I do also have issues with a removal.

I understand if we're in the position to try to save paper, but I think removing signature verification, whether it's one way or the other, I do like the process right now where you can, even if you don't have the ballot, you turn it in, they give you a new one on the provisional one, and then you go.

Because I think that is another.

Different process. I just want to make sure we're very clear, because I don't want. If you don't mind, I don't want to make sure there's just falsehoods or misunderstandings around this bill. We are not changing the mechanics in any way, shape or form. Nothing in our legislation changes the mechanics of current operating.

So I just don't want it to be said that I am, through my legislation taking away signature verification. Absolutely not. In no way, shape or form within this language. Hold on one second. The mechanics do not change. It is simply adding a day. I would also like to note that you noted that Mariposa had lower fees.

Our fees that you paid less. Our fees, which are set by the state, are determined on population. So the reason why you paid less in Mariposa because you had less people in Mariposa in comparison to Fresno County. And so the fees are different for state versus local.

There's lots of ways for a local county clerk to recoup whatever their cost is, but some are set by state and our positions are set by state. I know that the witness through the chair wanted to make a clarifying point. If that's okay.

We spent a lot of time on this and talking about issues outside of the this bill. So let's try to stick to the issues on the bill. But thank you.

In terms of the resources at the in the smaller counties, one of the things we tried to do in the bill to address that or to at least alleviate it is to give the local registrar the option. And it's only one location. They can decide that location.

If it's cheaper and easier and less burdensome, they can have the main registrar office open for that eight hours so that they don't have the expensive logistics of having to go out to one of the outlying areas. So that is at least an attempt to address the issue that you raised.

Which I do get as well. But we're also. And some of the things that we're moving forward today, earlier counting, earlier work that's going to be allowed for a lot of our smaller counties that are going to have to do that. I know it doesn't affect the purpose.

Which is where I'm saying this is in addition to more work that some of the smallest counties that have always been left out when we think about legislation, it makes it harder on them that you know, at the bare minimum, this what does create a state mandate.

I think we fundamentally disagree and I think that you're using this platform to misinform about the voting process process and get off the bill through the chair.

I do what I'm saying, it's the same process that they've been doing for the 29 days before the election when they open as a voting location. What she's saying is take that same exact process and open your doors on a Saturday for more access. If you don't like that idea, you'll be voting no. Okay.

Do we have any other. We're going to try to wrap this up.

I understand, but I'm just saying what we are voting on today is additional work. It's another day smaller counties.

And. And from my experience, which is decades in this business, I will tell you, every elections office staff is in the office on the weekend before the election working.

And I get that working on something else that this now opens up another job for them that this now.

And I'm sure that.

And I represent the rural counties.

I understand and I'm sure that the member will be reaching out to those that was CACO and seeing if there's burdens that can be addressed.

I made sure. Through the chair, I made sure that I have two counties in this district who did not elect to do the Voter Choice Act. I made sure to reach out to those two counties which are rule by nature to let them know of this bill. We have no opposition on file.

And I think that speaks a lot that speaks to.

Yeah. Okay. And okay. All right. So we have a motion and do we have a second? I am going to go ahead and second the bill and I want to thank the I think thank the author for bringing this bill forward.

I think the bill takes a reasonable approach to ensuring that all of our VCA counties provide in person early voting opportunities for voters on a Saturday. And so I'm recommending support with the technical amendments outlined in the committee analysis. Secretary, you may please call the roll.

On AB 1249 by Assemblymember Wilson. The motion is do pass as amended and be re referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

[roll call]

So we're going to put that bill on call. Thank you so much. Okay, we will now move on to our next item on the agenda and that one is AB 25 by Assembly Member DeMaio. Assemblymember you thank you for joining us today. You may present your bill when you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair, as well as Members, for this time to present Assembly Bill 25, the California Voter ID and Election Integrity Act. I want to have a fact based discussion about how to restore public trust and confidence in California elections. Facts. Facts matter.

And that is why I am having a report passed out to you from the Transparency Foundation, an audit of California's 2022 election. And I will be citing facts and evidence presented in that audit to really justify the common sense reforms that are contained in this Assembly Bill proposal.

Assembly Bill 25 deals with a growing cancer on the democracy here in California. We have the lowest level of public trust and confidence in our elections that we have ever seen. All the polling shows that, and that is something that Democrats and Republicans should see as a democracy issue, not a partisan issue.

I don't want Democrats to say that the election was stolen in 2016 by Russian hackers and have voters on the Democrat side feel that they were disenfranchised. At the same time, I don't want Republican voters in 2020 to be told the election was stolen through a number of mechanisms and not have public trust and confidence.

It serves no good purpose. Frankly, it is designed to divide us and weaken our democracy. Assembly Bill 25 would bring California in line with 28 other states that require voter ID. And as you know, just this past week, the voters in Wisconsin approved a voter ID requirement. There are six problems currently with California's voting system.

First, we lack proper review of citizenship eligibility when registering individuals to vote. Frankly, your own staff report reflects that. I read with some amusement the report that said, well, we don't know how to verify citizenship of individuals. That's the point. That's the point behind Assembly Bill 25, to require a citizenship verification with a government document.

Second, we do not properly maintain our voter lists in California. The evidence of that is overwhelming. Our constituents know that because about 10% of our constituents receive what we call orphan ballots. Orphan ballots are mailed out to a person who no longer lives at a residence. Maybe they moved.

Maybe they were a college student, maybe they were the previous occupant. Or maybe someone receives a ballot for someone and they just don't know who the ballot's for. You can ask any postal worker during elections, how many ballots do you receive that are rejected because the person doesn't live at that address.

We're talking about bins and bins of orphan ballots. I would draw your attention to the Transparency Foundation's report on page 13, which identified an erroneous ballot rate of 9.2% on our state voter rolls. Third, we have switched to universal mail in ballots using those outdated voter lists. Nothing in my bill changes the convenience of mail in ballots. It is clear that Californians enjoy vote by mail, and it is a process, a voting option that I too support. There's been a lot of conspiracy theories around vote by mail that are unfounded.

And I believe that having a voter ID requirement that would also apply to vote by mail would help settle some of those corrosive allegations that, again, I believe are unfounded. Third, sorry. Fourth, we allow for ballot harvesting unlike any other state. We have changed the rules so that strangers can come into possession of an individual's ballot, handle it and return it. The chain of custody has been broken. We do have chain of custody requirements for vote by mail.

Postal clerks are subjected to stronger oversight for the return of ballots in the chain of custody than the individuals that this Legislature has wrongfully empowered to harvest ballots from voters during election time. Fifth, we have inadequate signature reviews. I would draw your attention to page 21, which shows an appalling disparity between counties in California. For example, in the audit, the Sacramento County rejected 0.23% of ballots because the signature didn't match. 0.23%. San Joaquin County rejected 2.56% of ballots.

Now, are we to somehow believe that Sacramento voters have better penmanship, that San Joaquin County voters have worse penmanship, or are we to conclude that signature review regulations are inadequately or unevenly at least implemented in the state, meaning that we can't verify the identity of an individual? We need to improve identity verification for the return of ballots.

And then finally, the sixth issue, and I know that some of my colleagues on the other side of the political aisle have expressed concern about this, and that is the amount of time it takes to count ballots in this state. Most third world countries can get their election results by midnight on election day.

We take 30 days to count our ballots. And some races, the lead in those races shifts dramatically. I'm not suggesting that anything illegal is happening, but I do suggest that by having the process drag on that we are laying the seeds or allowing for conspiracy theories and unfounded allegations to be made against election officers across the state.

We have to do a better job of the timely counting of our ballots. How does AB 25 address these issues? Well, first, we would require citizenship verification for anyone who registers to vote in the State of California. And it is quite simple to do. Second, in returning any ballot, whether it's voting in person or as 95% of citizens do today voters do today, voting by mail. They would have to use a government issued identification in order to vote.

It's simply the last four digits of whatever government issued document they have chosen to use for their citizenship on the outside of their mail in ballot. We would also require proper list maintenance. We would do this by having oversight. We would have the auditor randomly sample the voter registration list of each county, and if it is not properly maintained, we would admonish the county to do a better job. But we would also then say you can't use that same outdated list to mail out ballots.

Third, we would require the timely counting of ballots within 72 hours of an election. I'm open to amendments perhaps to extend that. The penalty would be that if you can't count your ballots on time and properly manage the intake of your ballots, then we wouldn't do universal mail in ballots for the very next election for that county.

We know that the mail in ballots are the real driver of the lengthy counting times on our ballots. And finally, we would continue to look at the signature review process and verification of identity by having a random audit of the signature review process of each county for, again, best practice, comparison, and oversight.

This is not a partisan issue. The polling shows that Democrats support voter ID. In fact, 52% of Democrats, according to Public Opinion Strategies in January of 2025, said they support voter ID. A super majority of independents and Republicans do. 68% of overall California voters support voter ID. 79% of overall California voters support citizenship verification.

And before people make the false and divisive and toxic claim that somehow it's racist to do voter ID, well, you might as well tell African American Californians that because 56% of African American Californians in the public opinion survey show that they support voter ID. 70% of non-white Californians also support voter ID.

This is a time, this is an issue, an idea whose time has come in California. Let's show all Californians that this is not a partisan issue. That we want to restore public trust and confidence. The way to do that is by implementing a voter ID requirement for our state. Thank you.

Thank you. We will now move on to primary witnesses in support. As a reminder, each primary witness has a maximum of two minutes. We have a motion on the floor.

Good morning. Welcome. You may begin when you're ready, and you have two minutes.

My name is Colleen Britton. I'm with the Election Integrity Project California, and we are in extreme support of AB 25. Warranted or not, the public trust and faith in our election process is very low. Continuing the same mantra of nothing to see here, all is well does, not fly with the public. We know better.

The failure to address what most see as very illegitimate, very legitimate concerns with substantial, reasonable, and verifiable mandates severely weakens public trust and the California Republic as a whole. AB 25 addresses a large majority of those citizen concerns. First, the potential that non-citizens are registering and actually voting. AB 25 requires proof of verification of citizenship. It's not a hardship.

It's favored by a vast majority of Americans across all racial, ethnic, political, and socioeconomic groups. Second, the lack of a legitimate voter ID. 75 to 80% of the electorate nationwide by all polling favors a robust voter ID requirements. Nowhere else in our society, public or private, business or government, are people taken at their word.

Third, subjective signature verification. AB 25's mandates audits of voter rolls through random sampling will give continued reassurance to the public that the ballots are from legitimate, from legitimate and phantom voters are not skewing the election results. This is important. And 30 day delay in election results.

Election certification is accomplished in one to three days by all the other 49 states and every worldwide western democracy. While the complete certification of election results cannot be produced by California in an acceptable timely fashion until several laws are also modified or eliminated.

The demands of AB 25 for all in person and vote by mail ballots to be counted within 72 hours of election day can be met without compromising legitimacy of verification. The people of California deserve these protections. Election Integrity Project California urges an aye vote on AB 25. Thank you.

Thank you. I went over the to two and a half minutes for you, so. That's okay. Are there other additional witnesses who would like to register your support for the bill? If so, please come to the mic. Give us your name, organization, and your position please.

David Bolog. This is great legislation, and I hope you pass it. Thank you.

Thank you. Other witnesses in support? Seeing none. We'll go ahead now and move to primary witnesses in opposition. As a reminder, each primary witness has a maximum of two minutes. And you may begin when ready.

Morning, Chair and Members. I'm Dora Rose, Deputy Director with the League of Women Voters of California, here in strong opposition to AB 25. This bill is a sweeping proposal designed for no purpose other than to restrict voting access, despite the very well put and calm testimony that we've heard today. Millions of eligible voters don't have the kind of voter ID and documentary proof of citizenship that would be required by this bill. It hits hardest among communities of color, people with disabilities, the elderly, and women.

Getting the necessary documentation is extremely costly and amounts to what we consider to be an unconstitutional poll tax because you have to go through a lot of bureaucratic hurdles to get that documentation. Its audit provisions would eviscerate vote by mail access in entire counties based on very poorly defined standards. Right.

And in fact, this audit plan, which is sort of concerns us greatly because it will hunt down people deemed not qualified to vote. And it sort of harkens to the bogus fraud squads that we've seen operating nationally. Trying to game the system by shaving off and purging eligible voters.

72 hours for ballot counting under the provisions of this bill would mean throwing out valid ballots and punishing voters for postal service delays, which are only going to get worse due to federal cuts of postal workers. Right now, they're estimating 10,000 postal workers are going to get slashed. Look, the bottom line here is that California's elections are already secure.

Right? We've got signature comparison. We've got ID verification during registration. We've got real time voter roll maintenance. We've got serious criminal consequences for people who do break the law. The idea that voter fraud is a widespread problem has been debunked time and again by courts. Right. By studies, by academics, and by elections officials across the country. AB 25, in fact, it mirrors a national coordinated campaign led by the Trump Administration to restrict voting rights under the false flag of election integrity.

And if you could wrap up. Thank you.

Americans have fought long and hard to overcome our sordid history of voter suppression. We cannot go backwards, and we should not, we must not build policy on a bed of lies.

Thank you. Thank you. Next witness, please. Two minutes.

Chair and Members, my name is Aubrey Rodríguez. I am a legislative advocate with ACLU California Action, and we are in strong opposition to AB 25. The California Constitution empowers the Legislature to protect voting rights and bar improper election practices, which led to the passage of Senate Bill 1174 last year, which this bill is attempting to undo.

The ACLU knows from firsthand experience and research findings that voter ID legislation imposes additional and unnecessary hurdles on voters and will uniquely burden voting rights among low income voters, voters of color, voters with disabilities, and senior voters. Voter ID laws translate racial disparities and ID access into racial gaps in voter turnouts.

I have long been a voter, and I am from Orange County, so I paid particularly close attention to Huntington Beach and their attempt to pass measure A, which is make its way through the court system right now. And this bill being brought by Huntington Beach as was brought as the city's demographics have become increasingly diverse.

It is no 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 the city. Voter ID laws like Measure A also worsen disparities in mail in voting.

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

Barriers to mail in voting 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 that place a burden on historically disenfranchised communities. We urge a strong no vote on AB 25.

Thank you so much. We'll now move to any additional witnesses who would like to register their opposition to the bill. As a reminder, please just state your name, organization, and your position. Thank you.

Yeah. Madam Chair and Members, Coby Pizzotti with the California Association of Psychiatric Technicians, actually speaking on behalf of the patients we treat who this bill will severely disenfranchise, in opposition. Thank you.

Eric Harris, Disability Rights California, in opposition.

Madam Chair and Members, Sara Flocks, California Federation of Labor Unions, in opposition. Also registering opposition for the United Food and Commercial Workers. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Mari Lopez with the California Nurses Association in opposition.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Bryant Miramontes with American Federation of State County Municipal Employees in opposition.

Thank you so much. We'll now bring it back to the Committee. Are there any comments or questions from Committee Members? Okay. We have a motion from Assembly Member Macedo, a second by Assembly Member Tangipa. Any comments or questions?

I've got a quick question.

You may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. DeMaio. Thank you, Mr. DeMaio, and thank you for this very long report from the Transparency Foundation. You mentioned that the bill is, you know, you're trying to get after nonpartisan issues, and would you argue that the Transparency Foundation is a nonpartisan foundation that does not have a political agenda or a political slant, considering that so much of your presentation was based off of the details of this report from the Transparency Foundation?

Well, I can't speak on behalf of the Transparency Foundation. That would not be appropriate. But every 501c3 has some worldview. I think it's only the left that claims that nonpartisan organizations don't have a worldview.

So you're arguing that the Transparency Foundation has an agenda. They do have a partisan slant. In my understanding...

Not a partisan slant, but they have a worldview. And I think that you could go to their website and understand that they're for open government and that they are for the highest level of integrity.

Okay. So Transparency Foundation has an agenda. The Transparency Foundation. I love the name, the Transparency Foundation.

Mr. Berman, let's be very...

Mr. DeMaio, I'm asking the questions. The Transparency Foundation. Please don't interrupt me. Yeah, the Transparency Foundation. If you go to the Transparency Foundation's website, I notice that there's a gentleman, Dylan Martin, who's the Communications Director for the Transparency Foundation. Now out of maximum transparency, is this the same Dylan Martin that serves as Communications Director on your office staff here in Sacramento?

Yes. Mr. Martin can work...

Okay, thank you so much. Any other comments or questions?

Through the Chair. Through the Chair. Let's not have the heckler's veto in this building. It's not representative in a good fashion on how we speak on behalf of our constituents.

You were asking about facts and this was a fact.

To the point, I present evidence of weaknesses in our election system. We need to have a fact based discussion here, not hysterical accusations of racism.

Thank you. Thank you. We have the report. We have the report.

The Communications Director for the foundation that your whole bill is dependent on is your Communications Director. Just for the record.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Assembly Member Berman. We have that fact on the record, yes. Any other comments or questions from Committee Members? Assembly Member Macedo.

I just want to thank Mr. DeMaio for bringing this forward. I think it's something that has been on the hearts of a lot of us. And me being somebody who hasn't voted in an abundance of elections, I've always kind of wondered and even had an experience recently that I got to the airport, I didn't have and my ID. I was treated as though I was hostile and taken behind closed doors and searched.

My belongings completely taken out of my suitcase and made to take off items of clothing, and that was to travel from here to another location in California. So for me, when I hear in the previous bill that something like an envelope is a barrier or something that's of concern here, something as simple as writing in the last four digits for mail and voting of some type of government issued ID, you're not even saying a Social Security number, Just last four digits.

I don't think that this is asking for a lot. I actually think this is a very reasonable ask for voters. But clearly I have a lot to learn when it comes to this. But I would tell you that I hope we can continue to work on this and find a reasonable place that people don't feel like they don't have access to voting because that's very important. But having people feel like when they cast their ballot, their voice is being heard is very important.

No matter what your political affiliation is, your ethnicity, your background, your geographical area, the list goes on and on. So thank you for bringing this forward. I am sure this will be an uphill battle in here in Sacramento, but the numbers, in my opinion, are on your side. So best of luck going forward.

You mentioned finding a reasonable place to advance this. I think, as evidenced by the absurd issues and questions have been raised thus far on this common sense bill, that that common sense place, that reasonable place, will probably not be here. It will probably be out in the streets of our state, across our state, and working with citizens to bring some sanity and common sense and impose it on a broken political system. I look forward to working with you.

Thank you. And I believe Assembly Member Tangipa has a comment.

Thank you. You know, and I just wanted to say, as a Polynesian individual, as an individual who grew up in extremely impoverished conditions, as an individual who is here today, I completely reject and I find offensive the argument from the opposition that minorities are too dumb, too poor to not be able to get an ID.

And the soft bigotry of low expectations that is held on minority and impoverished communities is something that has always bothered me throughout my entire life. That somebody, just because I was a minority or I lived in a poor community, that I was too dumb and I needed somebody else to fix it.

That if voter ID is racist to ask for, then all forms of ID are racist. But yet they don't make that argument. They make the argument of compassion, that we're doing this for those communities. I grew up in that community. I lived in that community. I believe we are smart enough to meet the standards, the minimum standards asked of us to just put in our voice. That we don't need a savior from somewhere else to tell us that we can't do it. And so I completely reject the opposition's I position on that.

I do not believe in the soft bigotry of low expectations. I know more than enough individuals who can get an ID to drive, to get on a plane, to travel. My own mother has had one. I sponsored her immigration to do so. She's not a citizen, so she can't vote. But just requiring an ID is not racist. It's racist to argue that they're not smart enough to get one.

Any other comments or questions? Assembly Member Stefani.

Thank you, Chair Pellerin. I just want to get back to the fact based discussion that we want to have here. And I just want to say on the record that there's no evidence of widespread voter fraud or non-citizen voting in California. And I believe that this bill weaponizes misinformation to justify voter suppression.

And I believe it's dangerous. I believe it's built on a dangerous lie. And the 72 hour deadline I think is reckless. Coming from the Board of Supervisors in San Francisco, we have an incredible Department of Elections led by John Arntz.

And the idea that you're going to put 72 hour deadline on this, I think you're rushing a process that is supposed to be deliberate and accurate. I will not be supporting this bill today. And again, I look forward to a continued fact based discussion on these issues. Thank you.

Excuse me. Thank you, Assembly Member Stefani. I will now recognize our Vice Chair, Assembly Member Macedo.

You did say you are open to amendments on the 72 hour rule, correct?

Yes, but let me just say I think the Assembly Member mentioned that it was somehow unreasonable to impose a 72 hour deadline again. Third world countries count their ballots by midnight. The rest of the nation, they count 90%, 95%, 99% of their ballots by midnight.

What's so screwed up in California that we can't get it done within 72 hours after midnight on election day? And then I think, Ms. Macedo, I would like to point out the reason why we came here with evidence and an audit, documented facts about the problems in our election system.

Is that on page 35 of the Transparency Foundation report there is evidence of voter fraud. And so you, you can offer hysterical rebuts to this problem. But here's the thing. The voters don't agree with your point of view. You're the minority, you're the extreme voice. They want voter ID, they want citizenship verification.

Why can't this broken political system hear that and give them what they've been asking for? This is not a partisan issue. It's about restoring public trust and confidence. We need to get this done. Whether the politicians get it done or the voters get it done, it's going to get done in 2026.

Thank you. Thank you. Would you like to... Any other comments or questions? Would you like to close?

Yes. There were two points made by the witnesses in opposition that I think need to be responded to. First, the notion that this is an unconstitutional poll tax. You may need to familiarize yourself with the Supreme Court case law. Repeatedly, time after time in conservative courts, in liberal courts, in moderate courts.

The US Supreme Court has ruled that voter ID requirements are perfectly constitutional and that they certainly do not infringe upon the rights of minorities. Georgia recently moved to a voter ID system and minority voting participation went up in those areas. And so you simply don't have facts on your side on that accusation.

Moreover, I think minorities in California are getting sick and tired of being used as window dressing to support bad policies. So don't sit here and say that you somehow represent the minority community and are fighting racism when they have spoken in all the polls. Widespread support by non-white voters for voter ID and overwhelming case law demonstrating that voter ID laws are not racist and do not suppress votes of any demographic group.

If you could please wrap up your close. Thank you.

For these reasons, I ask this, this body, to show the voters that you hear them, to show that your concern for the health of our democracy is legitimate, honest, and genuine. If you care about the health of our democracy, giving voters what they've demanded, voter ID, citizenship verification, and more oversight on the elections process should be a no brainer. I respectfully ask for the aye votes.

Thank you. Thank you for the robust debate around this bill. This bill would impose major new barriers to voter participation without a shred of evidence that voter fraud is a significant problem. California has voter ID laws. We have strong voter protection laws. I agree that public confidence in our elections is paramount.

And the most important thing that public officials can do to build confidence in elections is to stop lying to the public to make them think that voter fraud is rampant. So I hope that my colleagues on the Committee will join me in rejecting baseless attempts to erode public trust in California's elections.

To my colleagues who question the integrity of our elections, I say this with respect. If you honestly believe there are serious problems with the integrity of our state's elections, then you must also believe your own election was flawed.

And if that's the case, how can you in good conscience believe that you have the support of the majority of the voters in your district? If you don't trust the process that put you in this office, perhaps you should consider resigning. So I will not be supporting this bill, and I am recommending a no vote. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

On Assembly Bill 25 by Assembly Member DeMaio, the motion is do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on Judiciary. [Roll Call]

We're gonna keep that bill on call. It's two votes yes and three votes no. Thank you so much. We'll now move on to our next bill, and that is item 3 by Soria. Is she still here? Yes, she is. Oh, Rhodesia. Okay. Okay. We're gonna make a little switch in order. And Assembly Member Ransom is up next. You may begin when you're ready. You may begin when you're ready. Thank you.

Yes, ma'am. Good...

Excuse me. Can we please get the attention to our Member here? Thank you.

All right. Good morning, Madam Chair and members. I'm here to make your day a little bit brighter. I'd like to start by thanking the committee for working with my office on this bill. And I'd like to say that we accepted the amendments that came in your analysis.

As we all know here, voting is a fundamental right that shapes the future of our state and our nation. And as elected officials, it is our responsibility to make sure that casting a ballot is a secure and as streamlined as possible for our voters.

This bill addresses a current deficiency in the law, which would specify all situations in which a voter may receive a replacement ballot. It would require the Secretary of State's Office to update printed materials and resources to reflect a definition for the term "spoiled ballot."

To that effect, California's Voters Bill of Rights is being updated because that is essential to keep the voters aware of their rights at the ballot box. As news coverage of the November elections highlighted, confusion remains for voters and elections officials alike.

In some cases, the language of this bill makes a voter's right to a replacement ballot explicitly clear as it spells out what California's voters can do to replace their spoiled ballot and to ensure that their vote is appropriately counted.

We want to make these clarifications so that the bill can standardize ballot replace replacement process for California's counties. So, with that, I'm going to thank you for your time today and introduce my witness, my first witness is Mr. Tim Cromartie with the - he's a deputy for the Legislative Affairs for Dr. Shirley Weber's Secretary of State's Office.

And we also have Ms. Dora Rose, the Deputy Director of the League of Women Voters. Thank you.

Thank you. You each have two minutes, and you may begin. And we have a motion and a second. Keep it rolling.

Madam Chair, members, good morning. Tim Cromartie, on behalf of the Secretary of State Shirley Weber. Secretary is proud to sponsor this measure which seeks to amend the Voters Bill of Rights to clarify all circumstances under which a voter is entitled to a replacement ballot.

Typically, in each election cycle, the Secretary of State's hotline receives a number of complaints of replacement ballots either being denied outright or different rules being imposed for the same scenario in different jurisdictions.

At its most basic, this bill is an attempt to clarify the rule on replacement ballots and settle on language conveying a standard that will be uniformly applied.

The Secretary of State has been forthright in working with the committee, the League of Women Voters, and others on potential amendment language to increase the clarity of the language and reach a uniform, broadly understood, and, we hope, broadly enforced standard going forward.

We respectfully ask for the committee's support as we continue to work with the author's office and stakeholders toward a common objective. Our discussions to date have been encouraging. We're confident that we have complete agreement on the horizon. I'll be glad to answer any questions.

Thank you. Next witness. You have two minutes.

Good morning, Chair and members. Dora Rose, Deputy Director with the League of Women Voters of California, here in support of AB 1164.

This bill is going to clarify the California Voter Bill of Rights by specifying that voters who haven't already cast a ballot are entitled to a replacement ballot, both when they make a mistake and when they don't have a ballot that was mailed to them.

That may seem like a small change, but for voters on the ground, it can really make a significant difference. California's long recognized that empowering voters with clear and accessible information is healthy imperative for a healthy democracy.

That's why in 2015, the league worked with the Secretary of State and the Center for Civic Design to rewrite the Voter Bill of Rights in plain language. And that collaboration actually helped raise the standard for how we communicate with voters, especially those with limited English proficiency and low literacy levels. AB 1164 builds on that foundation.

It ensures that voters know that they can get a new ballot not just when they make a mistake, but also when they simply don't have the ballot that they got in the mail. We believe these updates are going to reduce voter confusion, support election workers, and increase voter confidence.

We, along with the Center for Civic Design, plan to once again work with the Secretary of State to ensure that the final language that will appear in the Voter Bill of Rights itself is voter friendly and plain language. AB 1164 is a commonsense measure. It promotes clarity, consistency, voter confidence in our elections.

We thank Assemblymember Ransom for her leadership, and we respectfully urge your aye vote.

Thank you so much. Any other witnesses in the room that like to come to the mic and just state your name, organization and your position please.

My name is Colleen Britton with Election Integrity Project California and we're in strong support of this bill. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members. Larissa Marcato on behalf of the California Association of Clerk and Election Officials and support. Thank you.

Thank you. See now that no other witnesses in support. We'll now move on to any witnesses in opposition. Any witnesses in opposition to this bill. Anyone who just wants to go the mic and register your name as an opposition.

David Bullock, in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any questions or comments from committee members? Seeing none, I believe I have a motion from Assembly Member Tangipa; second from Berman. Assembly Member Ransom, would you like to close?

Awesome. Again, thank you so much for your committee for your thoughtful analysis and for your help in making sure that this bill was sound. I think it's in all of our best interest to make sure that there are no subjective rules when people have a spoiled ballot.

We want to make sure that everyone is on the same playing field, everyone understands the assignment when it comes time to cast their ballot in the election and this is a commonsense way to do it. So, with that I'm going to go ahead and thank you for your support and ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. I'd like to thank the author for working with the committee on the bill language to clarify a voter's right to a replacement ballot. However, I still think we need further refinement on the and encourage the author to continue to work with the Secretary of State and the Center for Civic Design to further refine the language.

When that gets translated, it takes up more space. We want to make sure we're as succinct as possible. So, but I'm recommending support today and with the amendments outlined in the committee analysis. Madam Secretary, please call the roll

On Assembly Bill 1164 by Assembly Member Ransom, the motion is do pass amended and be re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call].

[ROLL CALL]

So that bill is out, but we'll keep the roll open for our absent members. Thank you so much.

Thank you for your time.

We're now going to move on to our next bill and I believe that is Assembly Member Soria Her AB 1441. Come on up. You may begin when you're ready.

Good morning, Chair and Members. I would like to start by accepting the amendments recommended by the committee analysis and thanking the committee staff for the work on this bill, making sure that obviously the size of the county was taken into account as we're detailing the structure of the commission.

AB 1441 establishes an independent Citizens Redistricting Commission in the County of Merced to improve participation, transparency, and public trust in the redistricting process. This bill is really about enhancing our democratic process and ensuring that there's a fair representation of all residents in the redistricting process.

Since the establishment of California statewide Citizens Redistricting Commission in 2008 by Proposition 11, California has taken numerous steps to put the responsibility for drawing California's electorate districts in the hands of the citizens at every level of government.

What has previously been a closed door process in many parts of the state has been opened up to interested citizens who want to see the unique composition of their communities reflected in the district used in their elections, including local elections.

Over the last two decades, many have followed the lead set by Proposition 11 and sought the establishment of Citizens Redistricting Commissions for their cities and counties. Legislation has brought the benefits of Citizens Redistricting Commissions to urban cities like LA and San Diego and also rural counties like Fresno and San Luis Obispo.

I believe that it is time for Merced County to join these counties. The people of Merced want the opportunity to participate in and a transparent process where they are all at the table. This commission will be a structure that truly represents the diversity of the community and the interest of our community.

In 2020, in fact, the City of Merced, the largest city in the county, successfully established and use a citizen Advisory Redistricting Committee for the redistricting process, further demonstrating the desire of this process in Merced County. To ensure the engagement of its diverse citizens AB 1441 would establish a Citizens Redistricting Commission in the County of Merced in time for the completion of the next census and redrawing of district lines which will take place in 2030.

This is really a district bill for me, an important bill for the community. And so here with me today to testify in support of AB 1441 is Anna Lisa Vargas on behalf of Communities for a New California. And we have, I know some supporters that have come from the district to show their support. Thank you.

Move the Bill.

Thank you. We have a motion, but go ahead and take your two minutes, please.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair, Members. Excuse my voice. My name is Anna Lisa Vargas. I live in Merced, California and I work for Communities for a New California Action Fund which is a cosponsoring organization for AB 1441. I strongly support Assembly Women Soria's AB 1441, which would establish an independent Citizen Redistricting Commission in Merced County.

And several staff of CNC Action Fund participated in the last redistricting process with, within several counties throughout the San Joaquin Valley. This is about building a stronger foundation for the 2030 redistricting process and the cycle. And its opportunity to strengthen public trust. And it shouldn't wait until there's a crisis.

So we've heard concerns from the Merced County Board of Supervisors about local control and cost. But let's be clear. This bill is about local control. It puts power back in the hands of the voters of Merced County. Voters should choose their elected officials. Elected officials should not choose their voters.

And Merced County residents deserve what voters across California have already demanded and received. A redistricting process free from political interest. AB 1441 creates transparency, public input, and community representation at the core. Rural counties like Fresno and San Luis Obispo are already moving in that direction. The idea that Merced can't afford democracy is unacceptable.

We cannot afford not to invest. We can't afford not to invest in public trust. And the current process may follow the letter of the law, but that's not enough. AB 1441 ensures we meet the spirit of fair representation. Especially for communities that have been historically left out.

So we believe this is forward thinking, especially, and also community centered reform. And it's Merced's turn. So I respectfully urge your support for AB 1441. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in the room that like to just come up to the mic? State your name, organization, and your position, please.

Dora Rose, League of Women Voters of California. In very strong support. Thank you.

Diana Diaz, North Valley Labor Federation. In strong support.

Sarah Flocks, California Federation of Labor Unions. In support.

Aisha Warsame, on behalf of UDW AFSCME Local 3930. In support.

Good morning, Jennifer McQueen, she/hers with Central Valley Pride, in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Tejpal Singh, Jakara Movement. And in support of 1441.

Thank you. Are there any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill. Come on up and you will have two minutes.

Good morning, Madam Chair Pellerin, Vice Chair Macedo, and distinguished Members of the Committee. My name is Josh Pedrozo, Chairman of the Merced County Board of Supervisors. On behalf of the Merced County Board of Supervisors, I am here to express opposition to Assembly Bill 1441, a bill that intends to establish a Citizens Redistricting Commission solely in our county.

Merced County takes great pride in its community diversity and has a proven track record of ensuring that its supervisorial redistricting efforts are fair, equitable, and fully transparent by engaging the community through the process. Thanks to our long standing commitments in this regard, our efforts have consistently resulted in diverse points of view being represented on the Board of Supervisors for decades. Madam Chair, three brief points.

This bill imposes a requirement for a 14 member commission to be established with a stringent set of unrealistic service requirements. With only 291,000 people, rural counties like Merced often find it challenging to attract residents to serve on committees and commissions. This legislation will likely create a commission of individuals unfamiliar with governmental processes or redistricting and will likely undermine, directly or indirectly, a fair, equitable, and transparent democratic process, something that Merced County takes very seriously.

This bill creates unnecessary bureaucracy and taxpayer costs. Interestingly, this bill creates a mandate without the corresponding funding to support it. At a time when there is so much fiscal uncertainty, this bill disadvantages Merced County and places an undue burden on the hard working taxpayers and families of our area.

Merced County has a spotless record when it comes to redistricting requirements and has consistently proven its commitment to minority voting rights. Not only has Merced County complied with all Voting Rights Act and constitutional requirements, former United States Attorney General Eric Holder also found that our county had taken proactive steps to encourage registration and voting by minority voters.

We are proud of our commitment to diversity, and our actions certainly speak louder than the words included in this legislation. In closing, my colleagues and I respectfully request your no vote on Assembly Bill 1441, as it's unnecessary, costly, and not reflective of the county's existing long standing commitment to transparent redistricting processes. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses that like to come to the mic and state your name, organization, and position in opposition? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Committee. Any comments or questions? Yes, Assembly Member Stefani.

Thank you, Chair. I just want to say I am from Merced, so. And I think we know each other's family actually, so. And I want to say too, coming from the Board of Supervisors in San Francisco, there was a lot of turmoil when it came to redistricting and hearing your concerns. I'm definitely going to vote yes on this bill today, but would love to hear more of the concerns as it goes forward. It is something that, you know, know your comments, having come from the Board of Supervisors, I want to look into a little bit more.

But at the same time, I want to respect the Assembly Member in terms of what she's trying to do in her district. But it was something that we went through in San Francisco that proved to be very difficult. And we're still working through some of those issues. But will be voting for it today, but will look further into some of the issues that have been raised. So thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Assembly Member Macedo.

So once again, still learning this elections process. But I read through because I have some major concerns with this, but recognize it's been done other places. But the verbiage that stuck out to me was the Legislature finds and declares that a special statute is necessary and that a general statute cannot be made applicable within the meaning of Section 16 of the California Constitution because of unique circumstances facing the County of Merced. What are those unique circumstances that you guys are facing in Merced that you find this necessary?

So, as I mentioned, in terms of the goal of the bill and the intent is to make sure that we have a process that is inclusive of the voters of the district. And so for us, I think that when we look at the process and the history of it, yes, there's been a public engagement process, and I've been able to sit down with Merced County Board of Supervisors, or a few of them, in conversations and have heard, you know, some of the concerns.

But I think that there is an opportunity for us to ensure that the diversity of the county is reflected in the redistricting process when it comes to those that are on the independent redistricting commission. And so I think that that is extremely important when it comes to the value that these commissions bring to our local communities.

And I... But what makes... I'm confused what the unique circumstance, like what sets Merced different from Tulare or Fresno or Kern or Kings? Like, what's the uniqueness of it?

I think each community is unique in itself. Like, we are trying to create a independent redistricting commission that fits. It's not maybe what would fit in your district, but that's the uniqueness of it. And so we have to separate it from a broader, you know, more, I guess the broader general statute that is out there for redistricting commission, which we've had in the State of California by set by Prop 11. And so that's why we're distinguishing it because it's very focused on our local community in Merced County.

Supervisor, do you agree with that sentiment?

I do not. I think that, you know, the, you know, Fresno County went through this process because they were forced to. Kern County went through this process. They were sued because they had to do do it. Merced County would be the second smallest county that would have to do this.

And without any information in regards to, you know, the question of uniqueness, the eight Central Valley counties are very similar. And so what our concern is who's next in this, in this regard. Who's going to be forced again to pass this legislation and who's going to pay for it? I mean, this thing is it's expensive. And so it's one of those things to where we're looking at it and saying we just don't have that right now. And it's one of those, we've cleared the Voting Rights Act. We've done everything, and we've made it even more open and transparent.

I mean, we've had when we went through redistricting last time, we had multiple public hearings in multiple languages all across the county. Merced County is very large. And so we went to the west side, had it on the east side, nights, weekends. We did everything we could to engage the people in their communities. And so I don't see the question of uniqueness. I don't think we're unique or different than the other counties of the Valley.

Okay, thank you.

I think when it comes to the uniqueness, I think that we do have to look at the population size. Like this committee, I mean, commission will be different than Fresno because of the population size. And so I think that there are some differences amongst county even though we're rural and that it is important that that is reflected in the establishment of the structure. And so that's why I do want to thank the Committee staff for working with us and making sure that the structure ends up fitting, again, the, or the county and the size of the county.

Assembly Member Tangipa.

The well, that was an interesting statement right there. Before I get into my general comments, what's the difference in structure between Merced County and what was forced upon Fresno County?

They have it's a larger number because it's a bigger county. And so the Committee...

14 for Merced and 14 for Fresno.

As you heard in my introductory remarks, I actually accepted the Committee amendments. The Committee amendments indicate that there will be a lower number. So it's a smaller number of folks that are part of the independent redistricting commission.

Does it, does it give you the number? It's 11 now? And so, you know, this is something that is fairly unique to me because I obviously worked for Fresno County Board of Supervisors prior to this and very familiar with the redistricting process and what the board did to make sure that there was transparency, engagement. The amount of meetings was fairly vast and fairly engaging as well. And you know, it seems like, and especially since we have your constituents here. And Supervisor, I want to ask, were you duly elected by the citizens of Merced?

Yes.

Do you represent the voice of the citizens of Merced?

My district is District 2, which is actually the large, has the largest population in the city or in the county. So, yes, Merced.

And what I think a lot of this bill does is, one, it tells those who were duly elected and the natural process and how redistricting has done before with the local electeds who spend a majority of their time there, that you no longer get to be part of that voice. And this was forced on Fresno County.

And I completely reject the idea that that should be used as a model because the Board of Supervisors rejected it as well. I believe it was forced onto other counties that also rejected it as well. And you have your citizens right now telling you, a majority of your district telling you they don't want it with their duly electeds here today. And we can get to the crux of it, this type of legislation.

And it was something that I wasn't in a position to do when I was working for Fresno County, but I am in a position to do now is just to call it out at what it is face value. This is a targeted legislation to target these communities, in my opinion, that don't fall in line.

And it creates right now a majority based off of partisanship that this doesn't even take the stringent standards of what our state Citizens Redistricting Commission looks at where at least three Republican voices are needed to move those maps forward. This right now has no requirement to where not a single Republican could approve this.

And yet it can be pushed all the way through. And I think about the voters of Merced, and even in this last election, the voters voted and confirmed in a Republican way. Merced County went red and we're stripping their vote away. It's the same thing that happened at Fresno County. And that was targeted right there. And I just want this to be very clear. This is targeted towards these areas that haven't fallen in line, in my opinion, and done what we've wanted. If the locals don't want it, I don't understand why the state wants to force it upon them.

Okay, thank you so much for your comments. Any other comments or questions from the Committee? Assembly Member, you may close.

Thank you so much, Chairwoman, and I appreciate my colleagues' comments. We will continue to work with the stakeholders. And you know, we're in continued conversations with Merced County. I know that one of the biggest concerns is the cost of the bill.

That is something that, again, we have talked about and we've committed to figure out a way to support a county such as Merced to ensure that they have the proper resources to be able to implement an independent redistricting commission. Again, as I mentioned in my remarks, this is not something that is new. Merced City very thoughtfully put together an independent redistricting commission in the last redistricting process.

And so I applaud their efforts. And Merced City is the largest city of Merced County. So guess what, our residents are saying we want this. We heard from the stakeholders too, today, residents that came up from Merced that are saying they want this. And with all due respect, I also was elected by the majority of the voters of the three counties in this district. And they sent me to Sacramento to ensure that their voices are represented. And so with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you. I want to thank the author for this bill, for working with our Committee staff on amendments to ensure that this bill can be implemented effectively. As you stated, there are eight counties that have independent redistricting commissions. They've worked extremely well. And I support efforts to expand the use of citizens redistricting commissions. And with that, with that reason, I am recommending a support position. And Madam Secretary, please call the roll. We only have a motion. A motion. Okay. Motion by Berman. Seconded by Stefani.

On Assembly Bill 1441 by Assembly Member Soria, the motion is do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on Local Government. [Roll Call]

We're gonna go ahead and put that on call for our absent members. Thank you so much. We will now be bringing up our next author, which I believe is Alanis for item two, AB 16. Okay. Before we get the motion in the second - hang on one second. When he accepts the amendment.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me start off by saying I will be accepting the committee amendments and appreciate the Chair and her committee staff on working with my team on this bill. It is not lost on me that the challenges that our dedicated county elected officials face every election cycle and sometimes even during special elections.

And while our election officials work hard in fulfilling their role under the law.

Excuse me, can we please take conversations outside? Thank you.

We as legislators - thank you. We as legislators must commit ourselves to ensuring that they are given the tools to do their jobs effectively. AB 16 aims to clarify and clean up authority already granted to election officials in processing and counting ballots during elections.

AB 16 primarily ensures that the county election officials have the explicit authority to begin processing vote by mail ballots earlier, thus helping to free up precious resources on the back end when county election officials and their staff are most impacted during peak busy times, as you may know.

And I've seen what crunch time looks like for the county registrars in my own county, it's impressive seeing them work. AB 16 also cleans up the obsolete code referencing a time decades ago when some counties still tallied ballots by hand rather than by a computerized voting system.

As a history nut, I found that fact really interesting. Madam Chair, unlike public safety and penal code, I would not consider elections laws one of my areas of expertise. So, I value the time you and your team took to share your experience and the knowledge with me and my team.

And I think just me watching this committee this morning, also educated as well. I look forward to continuing to learn more and I thank you very much and ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much. You have a primary witness in support here? No. Are there any primary witnesses in support? Anybody want to come to the mic just to give your name and support. Your name, organization and position, please.

David Bullog in support. Thank you.

Calling Britain, Election Integrity Project California, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any primary witnesses in opposition to this bill? Anybody who just wants to come to the mic and share your opposition? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the committee. Any comments, questions, committee of one?

I think we lost a couple colleagues. I think there's a press conference going on. But I want to thank you for bringing the bill forward. Happy to support it today.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Okay, so would you like to close?

Just thank you guys for your time. I know it's been a busy and hard morning and hopefully this will be a little easier on you guys and I respect ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much. Okay, if we can now open it for a motion now, after he took the amendments. Oh, okay. We have a motion by Assemblymember Macedo. A second by Berman. Yes, you're in there. Okay.

So, this bill updates the code section on processing mail ballots to align with the previously enacted law that allows elections officials to begin mailing ballots sooner than 29 days before the election. And county elections officials work diligently to process as many vote by mail ballots before election day as possible.

However, many voters prefer to hold on to that vote by mail ballot and return them shortly before or actually on election day. And those ballots need to go undergo signature verification before they can be counted, which is a major reason why more vote by mail ballots cannot be counted on election night.

So, this bill will modestly help county elections officials approve the efficiency of counting their ballots. And I want to thank you for bringing it forward today. And so, with that, as long as you are agreeing to accept those amendments, then I will support the bill. Madam Secretary, please call the vote on.

Assembly Bill 16 by Assemblymember Alanis. The motion is do pass as amended and be referred to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call].

That bill is out, but we'll keep the roll open for our absent members. Thank you so much. Very efficient. Okay, we're looking for authors. I have one here in the room, so we'll take Sharp-Collins. Come on up.

And you have Assembly Bill 14, but this, item 14, and that's Assembly Bill 1411. So you may begin when you're ready.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. I am here to present AB 1411, a measure that aims to provide more information to voters in support of them exercising their constitutional right. In 2016, California approved the Voter's Choice Act, a new election model that allows voters to choose how, when, and where to vote.

Unfortunately, not all counties adopted this model, creating an imbalance in voting flexibility and information for residents.

AB 1411 requires counties that did not adopt the Voter's Choice Act to create a voter education outreach plan that will provide voter information about online registration, vote by mail procedures, pre registration opportunities, ballot tracking options for oversea votes, and key election dates.

AB 1411 also requires the secretary of state to provide county election officials a template for their voter education outreach plans. This is essential to advancing voter equity. And also by addressing the unique barriers faced by different communities, these measures ensure that all eligible individuals have equal access to the democratic process.

This is particularly crucial for historically marginalized groups such as low income individuals, people with disabilities, non English speakers, and communities of color who face many systemic barriers when it comes to voting. By removing barriers to the participants, we create a stronger, more inclusive democracy where every citizen's votes matter.

With me today to add to this conversation is Tim Cromartie, the Deputy Secretary of State for Legislative affairs, from the Office of Secretary of State Dr. Shirley Ann Weber ,and Jana Lean, head of the Elections Division, also from the Secretary of State's Office.

You each have two minutes. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Tim Cromartie on behalf of the Secretary of State. The secretary is proud to sponsor this measure which restore the requirement for all counties in California to prepare voter education and outreach plans. As of 1976, all counties were initially required to craft such plans, but by the mid-1980s, compliance had dropped off dramatically.

State enforcement mechanism to ensure compliance involving action by the attorney general has rarely have ever been used. Since that time, the Voter's Choice act, which requires participating counties to produce education and outreach plans, has grown until fully half of all counties are VCA Members. This bill will cover the other half, 29 counties.

Of those, our information is that nine counties are already engaged in efforts to do outreach plans. But this bill simply requires all non VCA counties should produce such plans as part of a broader effort to ensure that all jurisdictions are devoting resources to educating their electorate about the issues they will be called upon to vote.

It also requires, as has been stated, the secretary of state to provide important guidance in the form of a template for the voter education and outreach plan that will be available on our website to assist counties in their compliance efforts.

I want to emphasize that this bill is not an effort to impose all VCA requirements on counties statewide. Its focus is on a single requirement geared toward ensuring that outreach to voters with pertinent elections information is part of every county's elections protocol. I will be glad to answer any questions.

Are you speaking as well? Just here for technical. Okay. Any other supporters of the bill who'd like to come to the mic to register your support? Are there any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Or, we got a motion. Anybody wants to come to the mic and express opposition?

Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Committee. Any comments or questions? Assembly Member Macedo.

Hello.

Hi.

So I just wanted to clarify a couple of things. First and foremost, I'm gonna just state that I believe the parties have the responsibility to go out and educate voters on their platform and then get registered, people registered to vote.

I love the fact that we're going to add potentially a way to get to people that aren't registered to vote, But I have concerns with a template. What does that template look like? Or do you have an idea of what that template would look like in a way that's educating voters on the platform of the parties?

Because I'd imagine when they're registering, they're going to be registering for a party in a way that we can assure it's not going to sway voters and it's going to be very nonpartisan, but in a very, over a very partisan issue, which is voter registration.

Thank you. I'm gonna have Tim speak to it.

The template is very specific. It's pretty straightforward in terms of there's four key requirements. As to what they are, they don't speak to any sort of partisan leaning one way or the other. Excuse me, but I, I'm sorry, but I don't have the, those four requirements.

But they are, they're meant again to educate voters on the specific issues. They give specific deadlines, but we don't, I don't have the actual.

When you say specific issues though, are you talking about issues as in how to vote or how to register to vote, or party issues?

Well, at a minimum, the template is to provide information to the public about online voter registration, pre registration opportunities, vote by mail procedures, ballot tracking services, as well as specific options for military and overseas voters. It also highlights key election dates and deadlines. So at a minimum, that's what would be required.

So I'm going to abstain from this vote today and would love, when we see it on the floor, if you could provide us what that template is going to look like. Because I would feel much more comfortable supporting this bill because I'm very supportive of voter outreach, seeing what the contents of a template would look like prior to saying that it has my support.

So I know the author well enough to know that she's working hard on this and look forward to seeing this template and hopefully being able to support it when it's on the floor. But today we'll be abstaining from the vote.

Well, we're happy to do that. The template is not going to be terribly detailed, I think, for very good reason, which is that you have a great variety and diversity of counties in terms of population size, sophistication as well as resources, which has been pointed out.

And so the template is going to be very general and it may not deviate from what, I will be happy to give you full disclosure on it, but it may not deviate from what I've just stated in terms of what those items will be.

I look forward to seeing it. Thank you.

And Assembly Member Tongipa.

Yeah, thank you for clarity on that. Because anytime there are more mandates, I'm always gonna think about the counties that are, I mean, just struggling right now to keep up with a lot of the state mandates that are coming down. I mean, they've shared with me all the time.

You know, we're asked to do more and more, but we never receive resources to do more. Is there an allocation for resources for some of those counties that are not participating in this?

And I've heard from them as well, they simply don't participate in the VCA program because they don't have the resources to achieve all the goals that are intended.

There is no allocation in the bill for that. We are, we are trying to, at least, particularly for the smaller counties that may have fewer resources, we're trying. The purpose of the template is to ease the burden of compliance on the local.

Yeah, well, and I appreciate that. I just have a large scale of sympathy for them because they always do more with less. And in a district, my district's the size of North Carolina, and I've really got to make sure that I'm focusing on some of those.

While I understand the goals in this, I'd love to see that template as well. I'm just gonna hold off, but I thank the author for bringing it forward.

Any other comments or questions from committee members? See none. Assembly Member Ransom, you may close.

Sharp-Collins.

Oh, sorry. I'm so sorry. Assembly Member Sharp-Collins.

No worries. Thank you guys so much for allowing me to come in to present AB 1411. And I just respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much. And we had a motion, I believe from Assembly Member Berman. A second from Assembler Member Stefani. I think voter education and outreach is critical to ensuring our elections are representative of all voters in the state. I'm very grateful for you to bring this bill forward today and I am recommending a support position.

And Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[ROLL CALL]

We're gonna go ahead and put that on call for absent Members. Thank you so much.

Okay, thank you

Okay, our next Assembly Member who's here is Boerner. Boerner. You may begin when you're ready.

Good morning, Chair and members. First, I'd like to accept the committee amendments to narrow the scope of this bill and thank the committee consultant for their work on this bill. AB 1286, the Public Employment Transparency Act, will require an elected or appointed official to disclose on the Form 700 arrangements for prospective employment.

The public official will be required to disclose the date of the arrangement and the identity of the prospective employer. Presently, the Political Reform Act forbids officials from participating in decisions that affect their future employers, as would it would create a conflict of interest.

However, public officials are not required to disclose when they accept a future job offer, creating an opportunity for conflicts of interest. By adding prospective employment disclosure to Form 700, AB 1286 closes this gap and creates a transparency for the public. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

And with here with me today, I have Adam Silver, the Chair of the Fair Political Practices Commission, to testify in support of the bill and answer any technical questions you may have. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. You have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair Pellerin and members. My name is Adam Silver. I'm Chair of the California Fair Political Practices Commission. We administer, interpret and enforce the Political Reform Act. I'm here today to express our Commission's strong support for AB 1286.

It's a common-sense necessary bill that's going to increase transparency and bolster enforcement in regards to the state's conflict of Interest rules.

So, under current law, a public official cannot make, participate in, or influence a governmental decision that directly relates to a future employer after they've accepted that future employment all the way up until the end of their time in office.

So, for example, if I accepted a job with Google that I was going to start after I was done as Chair with the FPPC, I would be precluded from voting on matters that would directly benefit Google from the day that I accepted that position all the way till the end of my term as chair. Right.

Doing otherwise, it'd be a violation of law. Pretty straightforward. However, enforcement has not been as straightforward. And that's for the reasons that the Assemblymember laid out. And that's because public officials are not currently required to disclose the date that they accepted their prospective employment. Right.

So that makes it impossible for the public and very difficult for the FPPC, in fact, to determine when that future employment was accepted and thus whether there was a specific conflict as to a decision that a public official engaged in as to their future employer. Right.

So, this is a serious problem in our estimation, and AB 1286 addresses it directly and that's why we support it so strongly. So, this bill requires officials to disclose their prospective employment on their Form 700.

That's going to include the name of their prospective employer as well as the business activity that they engage in and the day that they accepted that prospective employment.

Having this information available to the public is going to make it so that the public itself, the press, the Commission, can ensure that the law is being followed, and the public officials aren't using their positions to benefit their future employers.

So, on behalf of the Commission, I'd like to thank Assemblymember Boerner and her staff for their leadership on this issue and thank you, the committee, for your time and consideration. More than happy to answer any questions that you may have.

We have a motion and several seconds, so. And do we have any other witnesses who would like to register their support for the bill? See none. Anyone in the room who is a primary witness in opposition? Seeing none. Anyone who wants to come to the mic and express opposition? Seeing none. I'll bring it back to the committee that seems very supportive. Assemblymember Berman.

Just wanna say for, I know we've got a lot of new members on the committee, for those who don't know, Chair Silver was the Assembly Ethics Council. I think was your title or, yeah, Assembly Ethics Council for most of my time in the Assembly. Great guy.

Good to see you in a new role and appreciate you bringing this idea to Assemblymember Boerner and happy to support it.

Thank you, Mr. Berman.

Thank you. Seeing no other comments or questions, Assemblymember Boerner, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. And I agree there's a compelling public interest in requiring arrangements for prospective employment to be disclosed in the Form 700.

And I appreciate the authors and sponsors willingness to take amendments that more closely tailor the requirement to the public interest being served. We have a motion by Assemblymember Berman, a second by Assemblymember Macedo. I am recommending support as amended. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

On Assembly Bill 1286 by Assembly Member Boerner, the motion is do pass as amended and re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call].

That bill is out 5 to 0. But we'll keep the roll open for our absent members.

Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, I believe we saw an author walk in. Assemblymember Patterson, come on down. You've got two bills up today. Which one would you like to begin with?

Let's begin with 1370: non-disclosures.

Okay. That's item number 13. Yes. Great. You may proceed when ready.

Well, thank you. Thank you Madam Chair and Members. Great to be here today and first time presenting this Bill. But I know it's not the first time similar bills come before this Committee.

We've worked very hard on this Bill over the last couple years and appreciate the work of the Committee and Committee staff and we are accepting the amendments that were proposed.

The excellent amendments AB 1370 is really a, you know, this is a Patterson special and so is the next Bill on, on something that I saw and you know, just really read reports on something that was occurring or may have occurred and that was legislators signing non disclosure agreements and whether or not that that happened.

Although one former Legislator did indicate that he had signed them on multiple occasions. Whether or not that happens on a regular basis, I think, you know, restoring the trust in public and ensuring that we aren't signing them in our roles to prohibit disclosure of what we do here to the public.

Now that doesn't exclude, you know, maybe meetings we're having and things like that. But as we're actually deliberating legislation itself, the signing of non disclosure agreements probably is already not permitted under the law already they're probably not really enforceable.

But my legislation will make it clear that when it comes to legislation that non disclosure agreements are not enforceable and are invalid. That of course does not prevent legislators in their own private matters and business matters signing non disclosure agreements on their own personal items.

And so so with that and just given the crazy day, my witness didn't attend which probably makes you all happy. But I respectfully asked for an aye vote. I'm happy to take any questions as well.

Thank you. We have a motion in a second. We'll go ahead and open up to the mic. Anybody wants to register a position of support, come on up. State your name, organization and position if any.

David Bollog in support.

Thank you. And we'll now move on to any primary witnesses in opposition. See no one. Anyone want to go the the mic and express opposition? Seeing none bring it back to the Committee. Any comments or questions. Assemblymember Macedo, hello.

I was really excited to see this Bill and I actually watched last year's hearing and really like how you honed in on this is on us what people do and outside of the elected Legislature I'd hope that they're being moral in their business dealings.

But I like that you focused this on us and I like that we are also showing the public regardless of if this is already in statute or not, we want to be transparent. We're doing the people's work. So I love the amount of transparency in this.

I would ask that you add me as a co author and you have my full support. Thank you.

Thank you. And Assemblymember Tangipa,

I too, I'm excited. That this has come forward to us. I actually went back and watched the Committee hearing last year and I knew that it needed some time to make sure that we're focusing on transparency.

I think anybody who works in a position of public service should have no issue when it comes to drafting their legislation from hiding any conversation that has the potential to change anybody's life. So I just want to thank the author. If you are taking co authors anything that brings transparency and we can answer back to the people.

I love that type of legislation and love to sign on with you.

Any other comments or questions from Committee Members? Seeing none,Assembly Member, you may close.

Well great. Thank you very much. Just want to emphasize again that I think, you know, we all strive to act in the most ethical manner ever but sometimes for. For reasons, you know, maybe not our own bringing people don't necessarily trust the work of the Legislature and I'm.

I know we're all here about restoring faith in government and this is just one small step. I do think it could be broadened but we can continue those discussions another way so. Or Another time.

So I look at this as making sure we are not signing non disclosure agreements or at least that they're non forceable pertaining to legislation. So with that I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much. I I know for me I have never signed a non disclosure agreement so thank you for bringing this Bill forward and thank you for working with our Committee on those amendments and with those amendments the I am. And you've accepted those right? I think I heard yes and I am recommending support.