Senate Standing Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments

The Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee will come to order. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for your patience as we have multiple committees going on at the same time. We have 14 measures on our agenda today, so please be mindful of time and keep witness testimony to two minutes before we hear presentations on bills.

Well, we cannot establish a quorum, so we will begin. One moment. We'll actually have. We have our first Member here. We could move on. Senator Strickland, if you'd like to approach, we have file item 2, SB335. And please begin when you are ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair. SB 335 is a simple Bill. It requires that voters must request a vote by mail ballot or apply to become a permanent vote by mail voter. This is law many years ago.

And the reason for this Bill, just in the last election in November, I have a PO Box in Huntington Beach and I looked down at the garbage can and I saw six to seven live ballots. And I don't think we've done a good enough job at cleaning up our voter rolls.

And when we have a law that says that you could ballot harvest, I think it's a very dangerous situation when we're mailing ballots, when we haven't really done a great job of cleaning up our voter rolls throughout the State of California.

And so, I think going back to the old system, where you have to actually request a ballot, and so, the other big, overriding theme here is three presidential candidates since 2000 have questioned the election results and the outcome. Our democracy doesn't work unless the people have the faith in the election system and election results.

I believe this Bill will bring voter integrity to our California election system. Therefore, I would be asking for an "Aye" vote on SB 335.

Do you have witnesses today?

No, I do not.

We could go ahead and allow any support to approach the microphone. Are there any folks in opposition today that would like to approach the bench?

Morning, Chair and Members. Dora Rose, Deputy Director with the League of Women Voters of California, and we are here today in opposition to SB 335. So, you know, I could talk about the chaos that would be caused by repealing some of California's most significant efforts to modernize elections.

About how 80% of voters are sending back their vote by mail ballots. About how 78% of Californians vote under the Voters Choice Act. About how the Voters Choice act brought more transparency and community input into Election Administration, including meaningful consultation with language minority groups and with people with disabilities, right.

About how expanded vote mail and early voting benefits peoples who face barriers to traditional voting and how the myth of widespread voter fraud and noncitizen voting is the big lie that's wielded to dismantle democracy from within.

I could talk about all that, but I think what we really need to talk about here is the broader context and the torrent of bills and efforts like this, that we're seeing at both the state and the federal level. The right to vote is foundational right. It's what stands between freedom and tyranny.

When the Trump Administration and its allies work to silence historically marginalized communities, it's not just voter suppression; It is a direct threat and attack on democracy itself. It's the blueprint for autocracy. When the powerful fear that they're losing control, they attack the vote.

And history tells us, history tells us in no uncertain terms that what follows is dictatorship. So, we urge a strong and resounding "No" vote on SB 335.

Are there any additional witnesses in opposition? Please approach.

Savannah Jorgensen, registering opposition for Disability Rights California.

Yannick Kitimer, with Asian Law Caucus. We respectfully oppose.

Seeing no additional members of the public wishing to speak, we could bring it back to the Committee, are there any? Dr. Choi.

Thank you, Chair and thank you, Senator Strickland for presenting your SB 335. This Bill is, to me, supportable, in that we—many people say that this is encouraging more people to vote, by mandatorily sending out the ballots, mail ballots to everybody. Before this time, we had to opt in.

Hey, I would like to vote by mail and only those who chose had the ballots, you know, sent to their homes—we voted. We sent them by mail. And now, it's regardless of your wishes, because I know it is convenient that many people are choosing it because the ballots have arrived at, at their homes.

So, regardless, there are some people who question if I mail or drop in—different methods of delivering your mail ballots—still, they question and they prefer to appear in person to vote. So, we are not curtailing or restricting anyone to participate in the vote. It is preventing potential fraud.

And then, also, we have a lot of question on the voter role, whether they are all completely 100% sure that they are still in there because—my Bill, one of them in the consent calendar today, it is exactly addressing that issue of voter cleanup for the register of voters. We'll work with the voter—no, no, U.S. Postal Service, which has more active currently day-to-day cleanup of the addresses.

So, I think that will update and clean up. It may not be 100%, but it'll be a lot quicker and cleaner voter roles. So, we do know that the people who are receiving will not, you know, choose to vote by mail.

So, we never had any problem, prior to mandating sending the voter—mail ballots are mandatory 100% to homes. So, even though we are attempting, through different measures, the cleanup of the voter walls, I think by leaving the freedom to choose, rather than being—to me, that's being forced. I didn't ask for this. They still receive it.

And what are we going to do with that, if they choose to appear in person? So, I think this has still merit for integrity issues. So, with that, I would love to first, make a motion for that, so that the Members will be able to vote. Thank you. Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair.

So, we do—I will allow, there was an additional witness that would like to add on to Me Too opposition, for the record.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Obed Franco, here on behalf of the Asian Law Caucus, in opposition.

We will entertain a motion once we do have a quorum. Senator, I do want to just share some concerns that I do have with this Bill. I believe that it curtails all the significant progress we have made in this Legislature, over the last decade, at improving access to the ballot for lawfully registered voters.

We know, based off of the hearing that we just had, and last November's performance by voters across the state, voting by mail has proven incredibly and increasingly popular with California voters, with over 80% of California voters casting their ballot by mail. I believe we should not go backwards.

We should be looking at ways to encourage voter participation, not hinder it. Like anything else, I believe that there are room for improvements. We need to have improvements in our election systems. I'm actually authoring a share of bills myself, in this space, with that goal in mind.

But I believe that improvements need to be made on empirical data and facts. And so, for those very reasons, I cannot support your Bill today. But I will give you an opportunity to close.

Well, thank you, Madam Chair. I really appreciate we could agree to disagree without being disagreeable. But I will say I concur with you. Voter participation is incredibly important to me. It's incredibly important for everybody here.

But the reality is, where our system is—and again, the reason why I brought this Bill forward is, again, let me reiterate, I went to my PO Box, and we have not cleaned up the voter rolls. And the fact of the matter is, in California, a lot of people move different places, especially our students, move from place to place.

We've not done a good job county to county and clean up our voter rolls. And when you mail out all those ballots without doing that. Now all of a sudden, like my P.O. box, you have live ballots right there in the garbage, that anybody could pick up, especially with our laws that says now you have ballot harvesting abilities to go ballot harvest.

I just think that it's—me personally, every vote that's illegal counts against a legal vote, and I think we need reform here.

Again, I believe our election system does not work if people don't have faith in election outcomes. And that's not a partisan issue, that's a bipartisan issue. Again, since the year 2000, three presidential candidates have called into question the election outcomes. So, this is not a Republican, Democrat issue. This is an issue for our democracy.

And if you, I believe, if you want to help bring election integrity to California, this is a simple measure that is worthy of an "Aye" vote. But I could agree to disagree without being disagreeable. But I would ask your members for an "Aye" vote, for election integrity. Thank you.

Forum. We will move to the next item on file. I do not see any current Members. I will therefore give the gavel to my Vice Chair, Dr. Choi, so I could present my election bills.

You're gonna leave us again? Oh, we needed you. Okay, okay. You're going to present. All right, go ahead. Now, your Bill is—which number is that? Okay. Item Number 11, SB 266. Two, two of them. I see. Okay. In fact, you have—I see two, two bills, right.

So, you're gonna begin with the Item Number 9, SB 3 first.

SB 3? Yeah. I think you called Item 11 first.

Yeah. And in the file order. Go ahead.

Do file order. So, then, SB 3.

Yeah. Okay, go ahead. When you are ready, we are ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to present Senate Bill 3 today. This bill is a manifestation of what we learned from the committee's informational hearing about signature carrying process in March. We know that more than 80% of California voters regularly vote by mail. Signature carrying is rapidly becoming an integral part of political campaigns in our state.

Our collective experience from the recent election cycles, especially the presidential election last November, also shows that existing laws governing the signature carrying process contains ambiguous ambiguities that create issues for voters, campaigns and county registrars. The goal of SB 3 is to provide clarity and increase guidance in the signature gathering process to make it more consistent, transparent and fair.

Among the reforms in this bill is a requirement that the Secretary of State publish a signature carrying form for the use by voters. This is the only form county registers could accept.

This would provide consistency and reduce the issues we've observed where political campaigns, political parties or other groups have created their own signature carrying forms in order to reduce the need for signature carrying.

SB 3 will also add a statement to vote by mail envelopes reminding voters that the signature they provide will be compared to other signatures county registrars have on file, including from the voter driver's license.

The bill will also improve accountability by imposing penalties on individuals who engage in fraud, intimidation or bribery when claiming to help voters cure their signatures. These penalties are taken from the ballot collection context and will help deter wrongdoing by non governmental group groups contacting voters to help cure their signatures.

Finally, this bill will help improve transparency and bolster confidence in our election results by building on the work done by my bill, Assembly Bill 63 in 2023 and require that county registrars provide updated election results twice per week during the canvas.

The reforms in Senate Bill 3 will ensure that the signature gathering process which seems here to stay becomes a trusted, better understood and increasingly reliable part of our elections in the future.

I do want to acknowledge that my team and I have had productive conversations with many folks in hopes to ha- to continue collaboration with them on clarifying- clarifying any future amendments based on their feedback as this bill hopefully heads to senate approps. Respectfully ask for aye vote.

Thank you. Do you have any lead witnesses? Any- Any public supporting the bill? Do you have any- Is there any lead opposition about in the public? No. Is there any- I'm the only member so we need the motion maker but I don't see any.

I- I- I will make a motion for adding later when members come because this is right bill for need to for us to improve the ways how we can verify the signatures because it has been always the problem of delaying and comparing and then also a lot of arguments from both sides of Republican Party, Democratic party because the signatures tend to change.

I think my signature might have changed over- over time and what the voter registrars have my how old signature they may have.

I hope my ballots have been counted with the my because I vote by mail and this will hopefully expedite the way and I think we need to continue to study how to verify the current signature that the people are using as the same- as the same one they used years ago when they registered to vote.

So I think this is a supportable bill so we'll leave it open for other members to wait on and do you have any closing remarks?

Thank you Dr. Choi for your comments and your support and when appropriate, respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay, you have another bill, right? So bill item number 12, SB 321. No, no, no, I'm sorry. 11 is SB 266. Okay, go ahead.

Thank you for the opportunity to present Senate Bill to 266 today. I want to begin by accepting the Committee's suggested amendments as they are outlined on page five of the analysis. As you know, this bill is a follow up to Assembly Bill 884, a bill I was a joint author of last session and one in which this Committee approved.

That bill was vetoed by Governor Newsom. In response to his veto, SB 266 is a pared down version of its predecessor with the goal of reducing implementation costs. This bill would approve language access to lawfully registered voters who self identify as limited English proficient by increasing the availability of translated votable ballots.

A pillar of California's strength is the vibrant diversity of its population. The Golden State has the highest percentage of households, 43.3%, that are proficient in a language other than English. This translates to 3.2 million eligible California voters or 12.3% of the state's electorate who self identify as LEP according to the latest American Community Survey.

While federal law, specifically the Voting Rights Act of 1965, mandates the provisions of comprehensive language assistance, unfortunately their scope is limited. Under VRA, this assistance is limited to Spanish language material in all 58 of our counties and non-English or Spanish language in nine counties.

Currently, there is no language assistance required under federal law for LEP voters who speak languages including Arabic, Armenian, Russian, or Somali. The health of our democracy depends on ensuring that lawfully registered California voters can exercise the right to vote even if they are not proficient in English.

While state law, existing state law may provide for the distribution of translated ballots, the usefulness of this form of language assistance is limited. The fact that often, this fact often causes confusion for LEP voters who sometimes believe the ballot should be marked specifically or having issues with translation on ballots when they receive them. And so we do have folks here who are going to be testifying in support, which I would allow both of them to self identify.

Okay, go ahead.

Good morning. I'm Deanna Kitamura, a managing attorney with Asian Law Caucus. We are a proud co-sponsor of SB 266. Thank you, Chair Cervantes, for being a champion of language access for California voters. And thank you to the various legislators for adopting many election reforms in recent years.

Unfortunately, our language access laws have not kept up with the needs of our diverse electorate. Currently, the federal Voting Rights Act requires translation of election materials only when high population thresholds are met and only for Spanish, Asian, Alaskan, Native American languages, leaving out many communities. State law has a lower threshold but only provides for translated reference ballots.

You don't actually cast a vote on them. And a court has limited state law to the same language categories as federal law. Now some counties do more, but that's not based on state law. Last year, the Legislature passed AB 884, a broader language access bill with bipartisan support. And thanks to all the Senators who voted for that.

Unfortunately, it was vetoed, as mentioned, due to budget constraints. Being mindful of our state's budget, SB 266 is a pared down version of AB 884 and focuses on the all important ballot. The bill follows states existing threshold but provides for translated votable ballots instead of just reference ballots. It also expands coverage to any group that reaches the threshold.

That means, for example, Korean language ballots would be available in certain precincts in 21 additional counties, Arabic ballots would be available for the first time in parts of Fresno, LA, Orange County, and San Diego counties, and voters in Watsonville would have ballots in Spanish.

All Californians, no matter what language we use, deserve to understand our ballots that we can vote with confidence, accuracy, and fully participate in our democracy. The co-sponsors are committed to continue to work with CACO and the Secretary of State on this bill. Because SB 266... Because SB 266 reduces barriers to voting, I respectfully ask for a yes vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Second witness.

Good morning. My name is Rahmo Abdi. I'm the Director of Organizing and Campaign with PANA, the Partnership for Advancement of New America. PANA champions economic and social and civic inclusion of refugee in San Diego throughout California.

We're proud to be co-sponsor of SB 266, a common sense approach to make California democracy more inclusive and accessible for all our community. Our community are diverse. For refugee community, not having language service makes it hard to engage in society when the truth is our democracy work best when everyone is included.

But our numbers often got lost in the census because we're not concentrated in one area and our language does not appear in the precinct data and we got left out. Right now, the state and federal language access law do not include the community we work with.

Many of our community members speak Somali, Arabic, Oromo, and Amharic, but they don't get the voting material that they can understand. There was a lot of change when Choice Voter Act model happened in San Diego because our language are not covered under the state law. Our people did not get the information they needed.

Sample ballot helps, but they're not enough. Our community members get confused when they're trying to compare English ballot to Somalia or Arabic. Many cannot read English. It's frustrating. It's overwhelming. It takes away something very important, privacy. I personally sit with our elders every election holding their hands as we go through the ballots.

One of the elders, a woman who came here hoping for peace and freedom, looked me in the eyes and said, voting should be just me, myself, and I. I am tired of asking my kids. I am tired of asking my neighbors. I just wanted to vote by myself. She was just asking for, she wasn't just asking for translation.

She was asking for independency, for privacy, for the basic right to vote in her own language by herself without having to depend on anyone. There is more than just a ballot. It's about dignity. It's about freedom. The right to be heard in your own voice and private. SB 266 will give our community what they have been asking for, ability to vote understanding in private and private with privacy. Please vote yes on SB 266 and help these elders wish come true. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Any support witnesses in the public? State your name and organization and state you are supporting.

Mona Shaigo. I'm a community partner. I will say yes, we need that.

Thank you.

Sam Mahood on behalf of California Common Cause, proud to sponsor this bill. Please vote aye today.

Dora Rose, League of Women Voters of California, in very strong support. And I have the proxy of ACLU California Action also in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Faith Lee with Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California. We're in support.

Thank you.

Kao Ye Thao representing Hmong Innovating Politics in strong support. Thank you.

Okay, any lead opposition witness? How about in the public? Okay. Now I'm the only Member, I guess. I also appreciate Chair's bill on this one, as a minority Member myself and English is my secondary language, and my wife also have seen the Korean translated materials.

So I think a language assistance in election is very important and this bill is trying to identify more than 3% of the precincts a single language area and providing such a translated material. Well, this is to help the inform the voters to vote correctly and smartly, accurately.

I think that this is very important in a country that we live with so many language groups and cultural background, so any assistance we can provide to educate the voters, I think this is a good step. Thank you. And then I will make a motion and leave it open for other Members to come and join vote on. Thank you.

If I may close, Mr. Chair?

Sure. Yeah, yeah. It's time to close.

Thank you so much. Really appreciate our witnesses today testifying in support of SB 266, which will bring us closer to fulfilling the dream of an inclusive democracy for everyone. You know, making it even more accessible if a voter does not have proficient English ability.

We want to make sure that this is accessible to every lawfully registered voter and really appreciate today's testimony. We know that language access is so direly needed, and appreciate the support. Respectfully asks for an aye vote when appropriate.

Okay, thank you. We'll leave it open for the Members to return. But I also see, don't go away. You have another bill to present. Item number is 12, SB 321 is also your bill. When you're ready, you can go ahead make a presentation.

Thank you Mr. Chair for the opportunity to present Senate Bill 321. As you know, this is the second of my two signature carrying bills today, but this one amends the Political Reform act of 1974.

This Bill would require any Committee to report any expenditure related to post election day signature carrying activities to the Secretary of State within 24 hours. Currently, PRA requires candidate committees to report contributions within 24 hours during the 90-day period during the Election Day.

During that same period, independent expenditure committees are required to report within 24 hours any extra expenditure in support or opposition of a candidate or ballot measure. However, the 24-hour hour reporting period for all committees end on election day.

The only disclosure of post election day activity to the SOS is generally the Form 460 semiannual report that must be filed weeks or months after Election Day. As we discussed with my previous Bill, signature curing is rapidly becoming an integral part of political campaigns in California.

Unfortunately, the end of the 24 hour reporting period means that the public has little to no transparency about the signature curing activities occurring after Election Day. As we know, misinformation or disinformation about our election results is becoming more and more rampant.

This means means that the lack of transparency about signature carrying can contribute to the ongoing attacks on public confidence in our elections. It also makes it difficult to hold these committees accountable for their signature carrying activities until their Form 460s are submitted long after results have been certified.

SB 321 will address this problem by requiring any Committee to disclose the SOS any expenditure related to post election day signature carrying activities within 24 hours. It will provide transparency to the public and bolster public trust in our election results, especially in close races where signature curing may be decisive.

The Bill will also help hold Committee engaging in signature curing activities accountable for their actions in recent real time. I want to acknowledge the concerns the Secretary of State has regarding the specific FPPC form that will be used to make these expenditures, how committees will file these reports and whether they will interact with the Cal Axis system.

My team and I have had productive conversation with the Secretary and her staff and we look forward to continuing to work with them as this Bill hopefully moves forward.

Okay, do you have any lead witnesses? How about the public? Any opposition, lead oppositions? How about public opposition? Okay, then I have great interest on this process of ballot curing. Transparency is always good. So you are requiring transparency in 24 hours of the activity.

Ballot querying is in essence for questionable ballots that primarily because of missing signatures and tracing after the person and the contacting hey, you forgot to sign and do not have your balance counted. If that's the case, come down and sign again. That kind of battle of curing.

To me I am interested in thinking about somehow how we can improve that kind of process so that we would not drag the ballot counting period. And I introduced a couple bills regarding to that shortening ballot canvassing period from 30 days to 10 days and then also the other integrity related bills.

But unfortunately I'm the only Republican here nobody made the motion. And even though I'm a member here I could not make up my own motion for my Bill even though I'm the Member which is another very strange rule. So they all died, as you may know. So I would like to work on this one.

But my personal feeling is that not only, trying to, government trying to honor individual's right to vote and the last even one vote to be counted. If we specifically state, please sign. If you don't sign your ballot is not going to be counted.

But we try to reach out above and beyond ample chance for them to do their job. And by now people should know that the signature is very important. The signature verification was another Bill. But this is about ballot curing for missing ones. I mean voters need to have their own part of our responsibility.

Not for them to come and save me, you know my balance even though I did not fulfill my duties which is placing their signatures. So this is a problematic process that we have. That's my personal feeling. But any obviously there will be expenditures associated of curing process. Who do you send out to that person?

Is it going to be volunteer or paid volunteer or paid official. You know, so but with that exposed expenditures of pilot curing, how that will help to eliminate the future missing signatures, I'm not quite sure.

But as a transparency policy is always good for the public to know and also officials to know, so whether there's any mishandling, you know, questionable expenditures, etc. So I will, you know, make a motion for this Bill and for other Members to vote on their own conscience. Thank you. And you made a closing statement, right?

Yes, yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As we know, the signature carrying is rapidly becoming an entire integral part of our political campaigns in California. So the more transparency and safeguards we could put on this, that is what the intention is of SB 321 and appreciate the support.

I hope we can, you and I can work in this how we can eliminate, you know, this kind of problems to begin with and shorten the vote, the counting period so that we can have results as quickly as possible rather than waiting over 30 days.

And we'll respectfully ask for an aye vote when appropriate. Thank you.

And thank you. All right. That's your last Bill? Okay. So do we have any Members to make a presentation in the room? Then I guess I will have to recess until the Members return. Okay. She's back, our Chair is.

Before we allow Senator Blakespear to begin, I'd like to establish a quorum. Secretary, please call the roll.

Senator Cervantes. Here. Cervantes. Here. Choi. Aye. Here. Allen. Allen. Here. Limon Umberg. Hello.

The secretary notes a quorum has been established. Next we up- Next up on file, we have SB 644. File item five by Senator Blakespear. Please begin when you are ready.

Well, thank you, chair and colleagues. It's nice to be back here with you. As a former Chair of elections, it's really an honor to be in front of you today. I am presenting SB 644. I'll be accepting the committee amendments that will be crossed in Senate Education.

A recent Pew Research center finds that 77% of the public believes there should be limits on the amount of money individuals and organizations can spend on political campaigns. Currently, the vast majority of races in California for public office, like the Legislature, City Council and boards of supervisors, are held to a maximum contribution of $5,900.

And this- But this does not apply. This campaign contribution limit of 5,900 does not apply to races for judicial, community, college, district or school board races. There is no legitimate policy reason to exclude judicial, community college and school board races from the campaign contribution limits that apply to all other races in the State of California.

To illustrate this, in the most recent Orange County Board of Education election cycle, a contribution from one donor reached as high as $50,000 to one candidate. Over $700,000 of contributions to the current school board would have violated state campaign limits for cities and counties.

So that is, if they had been giving money in the city and county races, over 700,000 of it would not have been allowed. I think we can all agree that a large donation has the potential to dramatically affect the race and also to give the donor an outside influence on that candidate.

By applying the state contribution limits to- to all local offices, SB 644 would unify the limits and level the playing field among these comparable local elected offices race. We're talking about bringing parity to these races with existing other public office campaign limits.

And I'd just like to address the thing that I hear the most, which is that this will just drive money into IEs, Independent Expenditures. I think there are many legitimate policy concerns about independent expenditures, and we could be having different conversations about what those limits should be.

But the reality is that if you are giving money directly to a candidate, that there is a difference and there's also an administrative and barrier difference. So it's very easy for someone to get out their checkbook and write one check.

If somebody needs to- wants to participate in the independent expenditure process, they need to form a committee, they need to file reports. There- There is a burden associated with that, which is also a barrier to entry.

And coming from a local city council that had a very low campaign contribution limit of $250, I recognized how many people gave up to the limit of 250, but they were not going to participate in IEs. They would give up to the limit but not participate in IEs.

So I think there are very real circumstances where somebody would write a check for 50,000, but they are not going to form an IE in order to participate in that race. So I just wanted to address that head on because I think that comes up a lot in conversations about this type of a bill.

So with that, I would like to introduce with me to testify is Dora Rose, Deputy Director of the League of Women Voters.

Morning Chair, Members. I'm Dora Rose, Deputy Director with the League of Women Voters of California, here in strong support of SB 644.

So, you know, at the league, we fight every day to build the public's faith in the democratic process, to combat the cynicism caused by the perception and sometimes the reality that politicians will put interests of donors ahead of the public interest. Money presents one of the greatest threats to democracy today.

It distorts incentives, it makes the competition inequitable, and it drowns out the voices of ordinary voters. That's why we backed 20- the 2019 legislation that put default contribution limits into place for candidates for county and city offices. As the Senator mentioned, it was a big step forward, but it really didn't go far enough.

So right now, judicial candidates, school board members, and community college trustees in some areas can still accept unlimited campaign donations. Those offices are not minor, right? They shape our courts, they- they- they are- shape our local schools, and they set policies that are critical to higher education.

So when wealthy donors can pour unlimited money into these races, it undermines public trust and it risks decisions that- that fail to put communities first. So SB 644 fixes that by applying the same reasonable statewide contribution limits that already exist for other local offices. It closes a loophole, right?

It puts- It puts voters and not donors back at the center of important elections. It also leaves room for even stricter local limits while protecting those that are already in place. So it's very sensibly written. The public's confidence in- in government depends on clear, consistent and fair rules. SB 644 is really necessary reform.

We urge your aye vote and we thank Senator Blakespear for her leadership on this matter.

Any other support witnesses? We could hear from our lead witnesses in opposition support.

Kamoed on behalf of California Common Cause in support today. Thank you.

Please approach.

Chair and Members. Thank you so much for this opportunity. I just want to start by. I never thought I would quote Senator Strickland, but we will agree to without being disagreeable and with great respect. We oppose this bill for the reasons that we all want the same goals of public trust.

We simply believe that this legislation will lead to more money and not less money in the system. So the 77% that was noted in the analysis and also by the great senator is exactly what we want. We want less money in the system for us as the teacher. Oh, I'm so sorry.

I am Tiffany Mok with CFT, a Union of Educators and Classified Professionals. And for us, for the union, we have a group of teachers who call us and simply say, hey, we want to volunteer on a campaign. What do I do? And if there are no limits,

we say, oh, okay, one second, let me call the campaign, figure out where they're going to volunteer on Saturday and we'll use their materials and we can go walk with them. With contribution limits, that time of coordination would count as an in kind contribution which we would report, but quickly exceed the limits for a contribution limit.

And so therefore, instead of coordinating with the campaign, we'd have those 10 teachers, we'd make our own materials, possibly, we'd set up our own volunteer opportunities for our members and we wouldn't be able to coordinate. And so we wouldn't spend less money in the end, we would spend it on duplicative actions.

And instead those duplicative actions, or independent expenditures as they're known, would often cost more. As the Senator noted, there would be an administrative cost to these expenditures, this compliance to engage. And in doing so, we would not be able to get out the message of the main candidate as much because it would be uncoordinated.

And in doing so, often a candidate would say, oh, that's an interesting way they presented me, I might want to put out more materials. But worse, statistically, the research shows that when you do independent expenditures, you're more likely to end up with negative ads, and negative ads depress voter turnout. Negative ads are attack ads.

Sometimes they're truthful, sometimes they're not. But they don't create more public trust, they don't create more civic engagement. And so for those reasons, we respectfully regret to oppose this legislation.

Are there any additional witnesses in opposition?

Annie Chow with the California Teachers Association. We align our comments with the CFT.

Seeing no additional individuals wishing to speak, we could move it back to the committee membership for questions.

I- I did just get a request from California Clean Money to give a MeToo in support.

Thank you.

Seeing no committee members who wish to speak. I will just comment that I- I do believe just given the public perception and reports finding that folks do want to see limits around the kind of contributions that candidates do receive. I- I will be moving in support of this bill today, but certainly want to also recognize the opposition's concerns and hope, you know, there could be a path forward down the line.

But certainly appreciate the author's willingness to work on this and hopefully, you know, we could find a way forward at the end of the day. And thank you for all those who spoke as well in support of this bill. I'll be supporting it today. If the author wishes to provide closing comments.

Yes, thank you. So I appreciate that there's a difference of opinion and I greatly respect CFT and CTA. I- I think that it's instructive to- to note that in all other races there are ways for organizations to participate.

So you see the pa- the different parties who will organize volunteers through their local clubs, whether Republican or Democrat, and they can walk door to door and they can communicate where, you know, are you having a door to door party? While also recognizing that they can't give more than 5,900 to a- $5,900 to the candidate.

So there is very much a difference between what it means to donate money and what it means to organize on the ground events. And we see because we have had limits in all other races, it- it's clear how the system works.

So I think it's- it's legitimate and valid for us to consider whether we would like to have limits on independent expenditures or some other types of campaign finance reform, more public financing.

There are a huge number of possible reforms, but the reality, as my witness said, is that this is essentially a loophole where there are certain races that do not have limits and there's no reason for that. So we should build public confidence by having our rules apply equally to all types of candidates.

And this bill helps accomplish that. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Yeah Chair, can I add the-

We unfortunately, the comment has been closed, but we can motion if there's a motion for the bill. We will wait for members to arrive. But thank you so much.

We can take up the consent calendar at this point in time. Madam Secretary, will you call the roll, please. Do I have a motion? We have a motion for the consent calendar. If you could please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Senator Allen, please present when you are ready. We have file item seven, SB 760.

All right. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. So, as you know, elected officials are allowed to, under the law to solicit contributions on behalf of a nonprofit to encourage charitable giving and to support causes that benefit communities.

There's no limit to these behested contributions, but the official has to report any contributions that exceed $5,000 in a calendar year that comes as a result of their having requested the support. Now, this reporting, we all know, is really important in understanding the potential influence of a donor with an elected official.

You know, donor of a particularly large donor. But there are some. The experience of these recent fires in my district has made me aware of some challenges associated with the current law.

And, you know, the, you know, as I was out there getting asked questions about everyone wanting to help support fire victims, there were a whole number of nonprofits and charities who I have no personal connection to, except that I was really impressed with the work that they were doing to help assist people on the ground in my district.

And yet I was warned that I had to be really careful about making statements in the press and elsewhere at events that might solicit a contribution that would then potentially make me subject to a behested payment recording requirement.

The problem is that under current law, contributions considered a behest, even if it's made at a simple suggestion of an elected official without any coordination with the potential contributor.

And so if an elected official makes a comment on social media or during a television broadcast appealing to the public to consider supporting a nonprofit like the Red Cross, for example, that's aiding wildfire victims, any contribution could be considered a behest. And it's true. This is true. Even if, under the law, this is true.

Even if the elected official does not know if a contribution was made as a result of a public appeal, if they don't know the contribution exceeds the threshold, they didn't coordinate directly with any of the potential viewers of that communication.

And the other thing is that the organization receiving the donation is unlikely to have any way of knowing a contribution under these circumstances was made due to a public appeal from a particular elected official.

And of course, as we know, a lot of times people may be hearing from different folks and then they decide to make a contribution. Anyway, what we're trying to address here, and I'm not doctrinaire about how we do it, I'm certainly open to continual work with the Committee.

I appreciate the work of the Committee so far, happy to work with Members of the Committee and anyone who might have concerns. All we're trying to do here is to create a situation in this kind of, you know, for those of us that don't have any personal connection.

There's no, you know, it's totally different story if your spouse works for a nonprofit and you're out there touting the nonprofit. But if you have no connection to the, no personal financial interest associated with the nonprofit, except that you know that they're doing good work in your district.

We want to create some more flexibility for broad public appeals for supported nonprofits without fear of getting crosswise with the reporting requirements. So that's what this Bill seeks to do, to provide some provisions to ensure that an official who's not benefiting from any contributions to a charity and, you know, requires.

There's also a requirement still in the Bill that, you know, requiring reporting if they know that a contribution was made as a result of public appeal.

But if they don't have that personal financial interest and they don't have any way of knowing that there was a contribution was made, if they don't know that the contribution was made as a result of their public appeal, we think that there ought to be some additional protections to elected officials to make sure that no one's dissuaded from making these public appeals for nonprofits that are doing good work in their district.

So that's the gist behind the Bill, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Do you have any lead witnesses in support, if there are other witnesses, or do you have any of those individuals in the room who would like to support the Bill? Now is the time. Are there any lead witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Are there, is there anyone who wishes to, for the record, opposed, seeing none.

We will bring it back to the Committee for a discussion. Senator Choi.

Okay. Thank you, Senator Allen, for your presentation. This Bill will supposedly enhance the opportunity for the public to support the charitable causes. Do you have any evidences how you can say that?

Well, it just. Honestly, this is from my personal experience where I was warned that I need to be really careful before, you know, answering questions of the press during the midst of the fires when people, you know, everyone wanted to help. And for example, I was really impressed with the work of the Red Cross.

I got to go visit a number of their sites. I have no personal connection to the Red Cross.

And yet I was warned by a couple of folks who work in legislative ethics and rules that I had to be careful about, you know, encouraging people to give to the Red Cross in the wake of the fires because of the way our behested payment process system works.

And so, you know, so what we're, especially with the amendments now, we're talking about broad public appeal made by an elected official to give to, you know, a nonprofit that has no personal connection to them in the way, you know, that's doing good work in the district. That's. So that's where I'm coming with this Bill.

That's where it comes from.

I'm raising the question just because, you know, Mr. Allen, would you donate for Red Cross for the victims of the fire? Just because, I mean, they all know, you already know that you can or you would like to or, you know, and that there's a need for that.

So you will do that just because I ask so somebody will donate more money.

Exactly. And that's what I'm trying to address here. I want to take away any possibility that someone could get in trouble just for making a broad public appeal under very limited circumstances the Committee's worked on.

As an attorney and someone who tries to be really assiduous, I just don't want there to be any ambiguity in the law when there's a situation like this we can all agree is a good thing for an elected official to do. And again, there's no personal interest associated.

I just want to make sure that we clear up an ambiguity in the law. So that maybe that's me, maybe that's the stickler within me. But having experienced this myself in the wake of these fires and then having been warned that I could potentially be on the hook if my appeal could possibly have triggered someone to give.

I want to make sure that we're not putting people in an impossible situation where they're somehow dissuaded from encouraging donations to nonprofits that are doing really good work with whom they have no personal financial interest just because of the way our rules are written. So that's the goal here with the Bill. But look, I welcome.

I truly would like this to be a bipartisan effort because I think this is something that. What I'm trying to get here is something that I hope we can all agree on, and I'm happy to accept suggestions if you have additional thoughts about how to hone this.

Yeah. Enhances transparency, so it's a bipartisan effort. I'll make a motion.

All right. Thank you. I appreciate that, Senator, very much.

I want to commend the author for bringing this forward and working on this. As we know, this is an issue that you have experienced yourself along with other colleagues of ours. And thank you for not just working with the Committee staff, but also the FPPC staff as well moving forward.

And I will also be supporting this measure today.

Appreciate that.

We have a motion. Senator Allen?

I appreciate the line of questioning and I appreciate you recognizing what I'm trying to do here and the work of the FPPC and the Committee. And respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. The measure has been moved by Senator Choi. The motion is do pass. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

3-0. That measures on call.

Should I do the Reyes Bill? Okay. All right.

We will now move to file item one by Senator Reyes. That is SB 316. Thank you for presenting on behalf of Senator Reyes, Senator Allen.

I'm doing this on behalf of our colleague who- who, as we know, is absent. This is SB 316. It's the High School Voter Registration Act. And I- I will first start by accepting the amendments on behalf of the senator and- and thanking the committee on her behalf for its work on this.

You know, this bill comes out of, you know, voter turnout, especially among our youngest voters. And I know the senator cares a lot about trying to instill in our youth the importance of voting and simplifying the civic engagement process.

And this bill would make it possible for 16 and 17 year old's to pre register to vote so that upon their 18th birthday, they're automatically registered voters.

And it would also provide students who are already 18 with information on how to register to vote, how to vote by mail, the importance of the voter's signature, as we have discussed as a committee, that's become a major issue. So the- the idea is that we've- these are young people. They're just figuring out their civic journey.

And this will provide some additional tools to help them with- with- with their voting experience. So with me today to testify in support, we have two students, Kylie Barker and Astrik Scoi.

Two witnesses you could please approach. You have two minutes each. Please begin when you're ready. Self identify as well, please.

Good morning, Committee Members. My name is Kylie Barker. I'm a Merced resident and a member with Power California. Young Californians are on track to being the largest voting block in California by 2028, but often do not become civically engaged until later in life.

However, we do know that the earlier they engage in our democratic process, the more likely they are to become lifelong voters. In 2020, I was 18 and a senior in high school, but I did not vote not because I did not want to vote, but because I didn't know how to vote.

No one in my high school talked about the importance of voting or what made me eligible to vote. It wasn't until a peer from Power California showed me how to register and the process for voting that I became civically engaged.

I feel like I missed out in 2020 and I still remember my passion around that election and wanting to vote because how- of how impactful the presidential race was. Since then, I've been getting my younger family Members and peers politically engaged.

Like my younger cousin who I had many conversations with this last election to prepare her to vote, I've also engaged in get out the vote efforts online to get young Californians to vote with Power

California. Bills like SB 316 remove voting barriers and engage young people early in their high school careers, creating more opportunities for them to become lifelong voters. I would have benefited from a policy like this, so I would respectfully ask for your aye vote on SB 316.

Good Morning Madam Chair and Members of the committee. My name is Astrik Scoi and I'm a junior at Arroyo Valley High School, which is in the City of San Bernardino. I am proudly here with ICUC and I'm in strong support of SB 316.

As a 16 year old, I deeply care about the future of my community and am passionate about empowering young people to take an active role in shaping our world. This bill has the power to prepare myself and other future choices and possibilities we have as voters.

SB 316 is a powerful and necessary piece of legislation because it opens up a variety of doors to students who may or may not be aware that of the importance of voting or about the steps they must take in order to become registered voters and strong participants in our community.

Many young people grow up not fully understanding how much voting can impact their lives or even how to get started with participating in the process. By creating opportunities for people like myself to engage with the system, it will help us become more informed and active citizens.

California has made meaningful strides in recognizing the importance of voter registration and pre registration in schools. However, existing legislation is not strong enough, as evidenced by low utilization of pre registration across the state.

This bill will help move the needle forward, strengthening the foundation already in place to ensure more students have access to the tools they need to participate in democracy. We know this firsthand- we know this firsthand through our work registering and pre registering students to vote on high school campuses.

We've had the privilege of delivering presentations in classrooms and witnessing thousands of young people get registered or pre registered, many of whom might not have had the opportunity or knowledge to do so otherwise. We need legislation that will help create the same opportunity all over the state, even in places where these aren't.

Where there aren't organizations like ours already doing the work. SB 316 represents more than policy, but also empowerment and preparedness. At 16, I am still not eligible to vote, but I know that my future choices will be important.

This bill gives students the chance to know more about voter registration and the power of their voices, ensures that all students are given the tool in order to be engaged within their community. And this matters deeply to me because I want all students to know that their voices are heard and counted.

Do we have any other folks in the room who wish to provide support to the bill?

Dora Rose, Deputy Director, League of Women Voters of California, in strong support. I have the proxy also of Disability Rights California in strong support. And we both want to thank the staff for their extremely creative analysis and song references, which we all enjoyed.

My name is Luna Cervantes and I strongly support SB 316.

My name is Natalie Mendez and I strongly support SB 316.

My name is Haley Cervantes and I strongly support SB 316.

My name is Damian Gonzalez. I'm a senior in high sch- in San Bernardino High School and I strongly support SB 316.

Hi, my name is Serenity. I'm from ICUC from San Bernardino and I strongly support SB 316.

Hi, my name is Atsiri. I'm from ICUC and I strongly support SB 316.

My name is Jacqueline Reece and I strongly support SB 316.

My name is Angelica Cardenas and I strongly support SB 316.

My name is Marco Sevilla and I support SB 316.

Natalie Navarro, on behalf of Inland Congregations United Change in full support of SB 316.

Ellie Lambert representing ICUC and I strongly support SB 316. Sorry.

Caitlin Valencia with ICUC and I strongly support SB 316.

Hi, my name is Achilles Warquez Vala and I'm in support of SB 316.

My name is Reuben Torres. I'm with ICUC and I'm in- I'm in strong support with SB 316.

My name is Miguel Camargo, young student leader. I'm here with ICUC and I highly support SB 316.

Hi, my name is Diego Torres. I am a student leader from San Bernardino and I strongly support SB 316.

My name is Kao Ye Thao representing Hmong Innovating Politics, an ally with all the wonderful youth here today and strong support. Thank you.

My name is Angela Cardenas, I'm a youth organizer with ICUC and I'm full support SB 316.

Alejandro Palomares, ICUC youth organizer in strong support of SB 316.

Arturo Roscoe, civic engagement organizer with ICUC in strong support of SB 316.

Thank you. We will now move to lead witnesses in opposition. Seeing none. Is there anyone who wishes to approach the mic in opposition of this measure? Alright. Seeing none. We will move this back to the committee membership if there are questions or comments. Dr. Choi?

Yeah, I would like to make a comment that unfortunately I won't be able to support this one for the same reason that last year governor vetoed this identical bill that was AB 2724 by the same author.

And the Governor vetoed and made a statement and I would like to reiterate what he said while the governor I support the author's goal of encouraging young people to pre register to vote and applaud work of the appeal's sponsors. I have concerns about creating an additional school mandate for the purpose of this time.

Schools already have the ability to fulfill the requirements of this bill without creating a new mandate. In California, we strive to make registering and pre registering to vote as streamlined as possible for all citizens. So you can see the redundancy and the mandate that being made for schools will impact their time and effort and cost and appropriate money.

So for that reason I won't be able to support. Thank you.

I want to start off my comments by thanking each of the youth who are up here and traveled from your various communities to be participants in democracy.

You know, I started out as a teenager and early into my young adult life, registering people to vote, talking to my colleagues when I was talking to my peers when I was 11th grade and 12th grade, making sure that they understood the importance of their right to vote.

And at the heart of civic engagement is the right to vote. And I believe that as a state we have a responsibility to ensure that young people are prepared to exercise that right the moment that they are eligible to do so. And so again, I am very just empowered by the youth participating today. Keep going.

This is just very encouraging to see. And with that I will enthusiastically support this bill today if the author would like to close.

Standing in for the author. But I- I will say I appreciate the comments both of the chair and the vice chair. I know that the author's office is working with the administration to see if they can't figure out some of the issues that were raised by the veto. You know, I think in the end of the day.

This is a relatively modest request that will make a big difference for- for young people in terms of providing them with the information that they need to- to be able to access the system. But it's a- it's a fair point.

And I know that the author's got her work cut out for her with the administration, and I'm sure she invites everyone's engagement in that. So with that I- I certainly, ask for an aye vote today.

Thank you. Do we have a motion for SB 316? Moved by Senator Limon. The motion is do pass, as amended, to the Committee on Appropriation. Secretary, please call the roll.

[ROLL CALL]

For when that measure is out, we will now move to file item number six, SB 241, by Senator Umberg. 249. Excuse me.

Thank you. We good? Thank you Madam Chair and Members, thank you, especially consultant Lynn Lorber, for her help on this important measure. We accept the Committee's Amendment. I'm presenting SB 249, which would require elections for elected Members of the County Board of Education to be consolidated with the general election.

The purpose of this Bill is to increase the number of voters who participate in this very important election. Elections to the County Board of Education are unique in that it does not require a majority. In fact, it only requires a plurality to be elected to the County Board of Education.

One of the benefits of presenting bills in elections is that we've got a whole bunch of experts that actually sit on the Committee because all the Members have been through an election and have personal knowledge of the differences between a primary and General election and the number of voters who participate in each.

Just by way of example, in San Joaquin County in 2024, the primary turnout was 128,492 as compared to the General, which was 267,627. Orange County had a turnout of 685,000 in the primary, compared to 1,417,000 in the General. Riverside, similarly, had a turnout of 409,000 in the primary and 959,000 in the General.

And because this is such an important election, it is my belief and our belief that we should have the election coincide with the General election doesn't add any additional cost. In fact, may even save some money. With me to testify in support on behalf of the League of Women Voters is Savannah Jorgensen. Ms. Jorgensen.

You have two minutes. Please begin.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Savannah Jorgensen. And I'm here on behalf of the League of Women Voters of California to express our strong support for SB 249.

This Bill would require that elections for county boards of education be consolidated with the statewide General election, a simple but powerful change that strengthens our democracy. Voter turnout in primary elections is typically lower and less diverse than in general elections.

That means a small, unrepresentative slice of the electorate can end up making major decisions about public education, decisions that impact every family and student in our communities. According to recent voter participation statistics from the Secretary of State's office, turnout in the 2024 statewide primary was 35% of registered voters, compared with 71% during the 2024 General election.

And studies show that the primary electorate tends to disproportionately exclude younger voters, Latinos, Asian Americans, and black voters. By consolidating the county boards of education contests with the General election, SB 249 ensures that more Californians, especially those from underrepresented communities, communities have a meaningful voice in choosing the leaders who shape our local education systems.

This aligns with the League's belief that local governance should reflect the voice of the many, not just the few. More inclusive elections lead to more accountable and representative leadership. SB 249 opens the doors of democracy wider, and we thank Senator Umberg for authoring this important Bill. We urge your aye vote. Thank you.

If we have any additional witnesses in support.

Hi. Tiffany Mok on behalf of CFT in support. Thank you.

Hello. Faith Lee with Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California, we're in support.

Annie Chou with the California Teachers Association in support.

Obed Franco on behalf of the Asian Law Caucus in support.

Sam Hood on behalf of California Common Cause in support. Thank you.

Do we have any lead witnesses in opposition? Please approach. You each have two minutes. Please begin.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Committee Members. My name is Mari Barke, and I'm the Orange County Board of Education Vice President. I'm honored to be here today. This is not the reason I ran for the Board of Education. I ran to serve kids, parents, and advocate for sound governance and educational options.

But more and more, I find myself the target of statewide legislation. In 2022, there was SB 286, that sign sought to move the County Board of Education elections. In 2024, there was SB 907 that sought not only to move our elections, but also to reconstitute our board.

Now SB249 again seeks to move not only our board elections, but also those of four other counties. I just keep asking myself why? Why do we want to spend tens of millions of taxpayer dollars for something nobody wants nor is even mentioned anywhere other than here in Sacramento?

Why do we want to assert local control and dictate to the citizens of Orange, Alameda, San Joaquin, Sacramento and Riverside counties how and when we run our local elections? Why do we constantly revisit this issue even after SB 286 was held in the suspense file and SB 907 was vetoed by Governor Newsom?

And I paraphrase the Governor here, there are local processes for altering the number of members on a county board of education and changing when elections are held. State circumvention of these local procedures should be avoided absent extraordinary circumstances, end of quote. What are the extraordinary circumstances I respectfully offer to the Committee? I can answer that one. None.

In my seven years of public service, I've never had a constituent ask me to have our elections moved. I listened to my constituents. I only ask that you do the same. Thank you for listening. I appreciate your time today.

Good morning. My name is Tim Shaw. I'm a colleague of Mary's on the Orange County Board of Education. All five of us on the Orange County Board of Education are unanimously opposed to this Bill.

My Senator, Senator Umberg, correctly points out that there are, there is a higher turnout in November elections, and that is a valid point to make bring up. It is also valid to point out that November ballots tend to be much longer, with races for Governor, President, Congress, state Legislature, City Council, all the propositions.

And the issue of voter fatigue becomes a real issue when you're wading through pages of contests. And somewhere down at the bottom is the race for Orange County, or the County Board of Education. We're not going to be very top of mind to voters.

So it is also a valid approach, we think, to hold the elections in the primary election, when the ballot will be much shorter and less jumbled for the voter to pay close attention to who they're voting for for the County Board of Education in that case. So there are five counties that hold elections in the primary.

SB 907 last year by Senator Newman only moved the Orange County Board of Education. This Bill would actually have the result of moving all five counties that hold elections in the primary. The Governor vetoed SB 907, citing costs. Now that we have five counties involved, of course, the cost will be much higher.

And this is obviously, respectfully, something I don't think Senators and Assemblymembers from around the state need to be deciding.

This is a matter of local control and there is no reason that you need to be dictating to these five counties when they hold their elections, if they choose to hold it in the primary when the ballot's not as cluttered.

That is a valid approach as well as November, which is what most counties do already when turnout is higher. So I would respectfully suggest this is would be something best left to a local decision-making and not for you all.

Will now bring it back to the Members for, any other opposition in the room before we proceed with Member discussion? Seeing none, we will bring it back to the membership. Senator Allen.

Yeah. Actually I laid off the Newman Bill last year. And you know, my concern here is and I say this with incredible, I mean I love the author and I understand what he's trying to work on here.

My concern here is that I just don't want to see us on this mad rush to take everything off of the primary ballots. The primary ballots are really important too. And we say we all of us were on primary ballots. In some cases it was the dispositive election.

And until we go to an instant runoff or something like ranked choice voting, which I support, you guys probably don't, but I do. I worry about this kind of constantly pushing everything onto this incredibly long presidential ballot.

I also will say that while some of the mid term, sorry the medium recent historical trends have showed a lot of some of the most recent results actually show more of a mixed bag in terms of turnout. So I worry also that we're making decisions based on data that's very much in flux in terms of participation.

So I respect and understand what's happening here. I just want to personally express some concern I suppose. Unless we want to totally revamp the system, which I'm very open to doing. But I do worry about giving up on the primary elections. Anyway, that's my, that's my concern here.

Senator Choi.

Chair.

Thank you. Two board Members, Tim Showa and Mari from Orange County have come up to make opposition statements. They eloquently presented the reasons why they are opposing to the Bill.

And then I share that concern. As a primary argument is that from the primary election there will be general election time. There will be more participants, voting participants. But like Board Member, Shaw mentioned that voter fatigue, they don't know sometimes way on the bottom in the, you know, turning the pages.

So not necessarily there are more voters participating, but they are not voting for everybody, just a percentage mark they may do and give up.

So I think this is their own time in the primary time, their special time gives voters ample time to study and focus on just a very simple isolated two candidates or three candidates or whichever number may be instead of, you know, sorting through hundreds of names.

So not necessarily is more valid point, but the more voters have turned out in that primary election is, you know, the general election is better. So.

And then also the other point of making decisions locally and county has his own authority to make changes as charter county if they see any problems, obviously no county will oppose more voter participation, more educated voter participation. So this is in trending, infringing upon the local authority.

And for all the reasons that the people are opposing to this, I tend to occur. So I would not be able to support this Bill.

So if I may, I'm just going to quickly note that this Bill is not targeting a single county. This is actually providing consistency across all across our entire state. And we already do this for district attorneys as well as county sheriffs. I will be supporting the Bill today. But Senator Umberg, if you'd like to close.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Senator Allen, for your feelings of affection. I heart you as well. So this is an interesting. You orange heart me. Well, thank you very much. That's even better. This is a philosophic difference. I mean empirically, more voters are going to be present in the general election.

All of us here have experienced that. We know that as a fact. So the question is here is, is it a statewide interest that we in essence tell the people of California that this is so important we want a larger turnout. I don't believe it increases costs really at all. We're just moving it from.

From one election to another. Ink costs probably the same in March or June as it does in November. And in terms of voter fatigue on the ballot, one of our former colleagues, Senator Portantino, basically did a Bill to move things around on the ballot so that certain elections fell before, for example, the sanitation board elections.

And we can certainly do that. I do think it's very important. And with all that, I incorporate my testimony with Ms. Jurgensen. She was much more eloquent and I urge an aye vote. Thanks.

Do we have a motion? Moved by Senator Limon. This measure is do pass as amended to Committee on Appropriation. Secretary, please call the roll.

Senator Cervantes. [Roll Call]

3-1. That Bill is out. We will now lift the call and file item order. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

This concludes the Senate Elections Committee. We adjourn.