Assembly Standing Committee on Elections

Good morning. I'd like to call the April 30, 2025 hearing of the Assembly Elections Committee to order. We don't have a quorum right now. Before we proceed, we will begin as a Subcommitee. If Members of the Committee are monitoring this hearing, please come to room 444 of the state Capitol so that we can establish a quorum.

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

That portal can be accessed through the Committee's [email protected] the Committee has 13 bills on its agenda. There are six 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 per witness.

As a reminder, primary witnesses and support are those designated by the author. Other witnesses are limited in providing their name, their 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.

Violations of these rules may subject you to removal or other enforcement actions. Before we move on to the agenda, I have a couple of additional announcements to make. First, I have a letter from Speaker Rivas appointing Assemblymember Tom Lackey to replace Assemblymember David Tangipa on the Committee for the purpose of today's hearing only.

And we will look forward to seeing Lackey when he gets here. And second, I have a letter from Assemblymember Ortega indicating that she is unable to present her AB 1188 due to illness and requesting that Assembly Member Stephanie be permitted to present that Bill on her behalf.

With those announcements out of the way, we will now go ahead and establish a quorum. And Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

We have a quorum. Okay, so let's go ahead and take up the consent calendar. There are six bills on the consent calendar. The Committee secretary will please read the items on consent File

[Consent Calendar]

Thank you very much. Does any Member wish to remove an item from the consent calendar? Seeing none. Do we have a motion on the consent calendar? Motion moved by Assemblymember Macito. Seconded by Assemblymember Stephanie. Madam Secretary, please call the roll on consent.

[Roll Call]

So that consent calendar is approved, but we'll keep the roll open for our absent Members. We'll now move on to the other business on today's agenda. And you said the first one was the word yes. Okay, we're gonna begin with item five by Assemblymember Ward. Come on up and you may begin when you're ready.

Thank you and good morning, Madam Chair and members. First, I want to thank the chair and the committee staff for all their hard work on this bill, and I'll gladly accept the proposed amendments.

AB 930 updates the California's elections code to reflect how people actually vote today, especially with the growing reliance on vote by mail and the need to for clarity and recounts. Now, current law allows vote by mail ballots to be counted if they arrive within three days after the election, even if they were mailed in on time.

This can disenfranchise voters for no fault of their own, such as in cases where the mail service has been slowed. Recount rules are outdated, inconsistent, and can vary widely between counties, causing confusion and eroding some trust in election outcomes.

So AB 930 would strengthen election integrity by doing a few things: allowing vote by mail ballots postmarked by election day to be counted if they arrive within seven days giving voters a more realistic deadline and respecting timely participation, making recount procedures clear and fair by allowing the requester to define the order of precincts or counties reviewed while requiring full recounts to change an election outcome, requiring counties to post recount results online so the public has easy timely access to how the process unfolds and strengthening ballot handling and ensuring voter privacy is protected during the recount process.

This bill has been developed in close partnership with local local election officials and has their strong support. With me to testify in support of AB 930 is James Kus who who is a Fresno County Clerk and Registrar of Voters as well as the Elections Legislative Committee Co Chair for the California Association of Clerks and County Election Officials.

Thank you very much. You have two minutes.

Thank you. Assembly Member Good morning Chairman Pellerin and Committee Members. I'm James Kus, Fresno County Clerk. Register our voters and I'm here today representing the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials. CACEO is happy to sponsor AB 930 with Assembly Member Ward. AB930 updates and aligns election code with modern election processes and procedures.

The bill provides additional routes for voters to request and conduct recounts. AB 930 further allows counties flexibility in the sitting and payment of recount boards, potentially reducing the length of recounts and the overall cost to requesters. This bill clarifies the existing law prohibiting unauthorized access to voting system and copying and distributing voters.

Personal identifying information also applies during a recount. AB 930 additionally would require that a recount requester specify in writing prior to the commencement of a recount, all relevant materials they wish to review during the recount, reducing delays and unnecessary extensions of recount processes.

As Assemblymember Ward mentioned, AB 930 updates a section of Vote by Mail Election Code to match vote by mail acceptance periods that were updated in AB 37 in 2021. It is for these reasons that we proudly sponsor this bill and respectfully request that the Assembly Elections Committee vote yes on AB 930.

Wonderful. Anybody else in the audience who would like to sign on as a me too? Just go up to the mic and state your name and your position in support. If you're here. Seeing none. Are there any primary witnesses in opposition? Anybody who wants to just state opposition to the mic?

Seeing none. We have a motion, but let's check to see if anyone has any questions or comments. Seeing none, would you like to close?

Thank you. Respectfully request your I vote.

Thank you. So we have a motion by Assembly Member Bennett. Anyone have a second? Seconded by Assembly Member Stefani. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

On Assembly Bill 930. The motion is due, passes amended and be re referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

[roll call]

We'll go ahead and keep that bill on call for our absent members. And thank you so much and welcome Assemblymember Lackey. Good to see you. I believe our next item is item 2, AB 459 by Assemblymember DeMaio. Come on up and you may begin when you're ready.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. I'm here today to present Assembly Bill 459, which is designed to expand upon California's very successful experiment in progressive reform, direct democracy. In the 1910s, Governor Hiram Johnson and reformers decided that special interests had too much power in Sacramento.

They were able to influence the decisions of politicians through campaign contributions, through the lobbying efforts. And they said, you know, we ought to give the voters the opportunity to check decisions by politicians and from time to time put their own ideas on the ballot.

So they created direct democracy, the citizens initiative process, and it's a cherished right here in California that has actually been exported to other states in our union. It has ushered in profound reform movements, including Proposition 13 to limit the power of taxation by politicians.

In recent years, however, special interests have used the petition process with millions of dollars with the help of politicians, to make it harder to put grassroots initiatives on the ballot. This Legislature has actually restricted the ability of grassroots organizers to use volunteers, to use paid signature gatherers to put reform measures on the ballot.

Assembly Bill 459 will streamline the process by embracing modern technology. It would allow instead of a pen and paper process with clipboards, which is very labor intensive, very costly, and very difficult for grassroots organizers to succeed, it would allow for a process of electronic signatures.

Now I am in receipt of opposition letters from very powerful, very well funded special interest groups, the labor unions, from our Secretary of State who says we don't know how to do this, we don't know how to use technology to have someone sign a government document.

Well, she may want to consult with banks, mortgage companies and a variety of other government agencies that already allow for electronic signatures. You can register to vote, you can update your registration online. You can submit tax returns to the state and Federal Government online. You can pay penalties to the state and Federal Government online.

You can buy a multimillion dollar home online. You can apply for a $50,000 credit card line of credit online. You can open bank accounts online. You can sign all forms of legal documents, you can waive your constitutional rights online, but you can't sign an initiative in the State of California online.

An added side benefit of this Bill of making it possible to sign ballot measures and recall measures online is that it will save millions of dollars a year. I had to laugh when Shirley Weber said that she was concerned about the cost.

But right now, when we get these wet signatures from various groups, they have to be submitted to every county and every county then bears the cost of hiring part time staff. At a moment's notice because there are strict deadlines to verify signatures.

It's a time consuming, labor intensive process that the taxpayers have to pay for even when initiatives fail by going to electronic signatures. By having that be an option, it streamlines and achieves a variety of cost savings because we can verify the identity of the individual at the time of signing the initiative.

Look, I get the reason why politicians don't like direct democracy. They don't like the public looking over their shoulder. They don't like sometimes some of the reforms that citizen activists would like to place on the ballot for public vote. But this is important.

It's important to the health of our democracy to allow as much public participation as possible and to allow citizens a check and balance on the decisions made in this body, which are all too often influenced by big money. Let's give direct democracy a good old shot in the arm.

Let's bring California elections into the 20th and 21st centuries by allowing electronic signatures for citizens initiatives. Thank you.

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

I never bring witnesses in support.

Okay, anybody? Okay, we have a motion. Anybody in the room who likes to provide their support? You can go up to the mic and state your name, organization and position.

Proposition 13 is mentioned, and I appear Scott Kaufman, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association in support.

Thank you. Anybody else? Go ahead, step up to the mic. State your name, organization, if any, and your position, please.

My name is Keith Avila. I'm just a local person. Do I have two minutes or no? No, you just state. I support the Bill.

Great. Thank you so much. Thank you. Okay, now we'll move on now to our primary witnesses in opposition. Anybody in the room? We see people walking up. You each have two minutes. Thank you very much.

Morning, Madam Chair and Members, Tim Cromartie. On behalf of Secretary of State Shirley, Weber. We are opposed to this measure. With all due respect to the authority, the position of the Secretary of State has been mischaracterized, to put it mildly. This measure presents a range of implementation issues, including technology and security solutions representing tremendous cost.

This is not the Appropriations Committee, but our estimate on the implementation of this Bill is upwards of $25 million. Our current system of certifying initiatives works.

This Bill would require significant staff, time and resources without ensuring meaningful improvement in that system or assuring its integrity among the security solutions, which have no ready solution at this time, simply because we do not have the technology. The technology exists, but we have yet to acquire it.

And that will be an expensive process having to do with uploading signatures to our website. Right now the public has no ability to upload anything to our website in part for security reasons. So that's among the significant objections we have to this measure. For those reasons, we must oppose this Bill.

Next witness. You have two minutes. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Members. Coby Pizzotti, on behalf of the California Association of Psychiatric Technicians, we are in respectful opposition to this Bill. You know, AB 459 proposes sweeping overhaul changes to California's direct democracy process. It allows for electronic signature collection for initiatives, referendums, recalls through a state run online platform.

Where the bill's intent may be to modernize civic engagement. It will significantly undermine long standing safeguards that ensure the integrity and transparency and authenticity of signature gathering. Moreover, the Bill lacks adequate protections against fraud and opens the door to court, corporate and special interest abuse.

It could significantly lower the cost barrier for qualifying initiatives, leading to an influx of well funded measures, many of which could be undermined by work which could undermine worker protections, public health systems, mental health services that psychiatric technicians work hard to uphold. Finally, AB 459 imposes unfunded mandates that are already hard to keep up with the state.

No offense. For those reasons we're in respectful opposition. And actually I may have to run to another Committee.

Well, thank you so much for being here. Appreciate it. Anybody else in the room who wants to register their opposition to the Bill, step up to the mic. State your name, organization and your position please.

Madam Chair, Member. Sarah Flocks, California Federation of Labor Unions in opposition.

Thank you. Anybody else in the room, seeing none. We'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions? Assembly Member Macedo.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have to say I'm a bit confused. I appreciate the Secretary of State because you have the same consistent testimony as the last time we heard a Bill about uploading signatures for voter registration. Correct. So I oppose that Bill for the reason that you said the technology didn't exist.

However, the Committee disagreed with me and that Bill proceeded on. So if we're going to be supporting it for voting registration, I'm gonna be supporting this Bill today, because this is along the same lines that I also am slightly confused in that I wish the gentleman would have stayed cause we've had a lot going on.

So I'll research this. But I'm pretty sure that same gentleman was the one that was here testifying or gave a me too in support for registering online.

So I just want to make sure that we're keeping the narrative the same when it comes to uploading signatures that I understand from the Secretary of State, we don't have this technology available, so I assume in another Committee that will be addressed.

So I didn't support the last Bill because of the technology issue, but if we're going to allow that Bill forward, I will be supporting your Bill as well today.

But hopefully we can get this figured out before we have more legislation regarding online signatures and due to the budget constraints, I wish you well in the Secretary of State's office. So thank you.

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

Thank you. Madam Chair. I have to again reiterate that this initiative will only bring California into what is widely practiced in all walks of life.

I think it would be a shame if we had to go to the voters and let them know that we're still using pen and paper and clipboards, having people stand in front of stores as people are trying to get their milk and their eggs and their butter, because politicians don't want to embrace technology.

The reason why is not that the technology doesn't exist. That's a falsehood. The technology does exist. And if Ms. Weber can't find it within her capacity to implement technology with less than $25 million, I think we might want to doge her office and maybe outsource it.

But we would have to tell our citizens that your government isn't concerned about the technology or the security. They are more concerned about you having access to the ballot. The concept that this is about well funded interests. No well funded interests, they pay $10 a signature. They've got the money. They put whatever they want on the ballot.

Usually they just come into this building and they lobby, to get things directly put on the ballot. We've seen it. That's what's the democracy, access to the ballot is purchased by those groups. They never will have a problem because they have all the money. What this is about is empowering citizen initiatives, grassroots initiatives.

People who don't have money for politics, but have important issues that they would like to see put on the ballot. I urge this Committee to join with the bipartisan commitment to direct democracy, the progressive era of reform.

Let's show that Governor Hiram Johnson's legacy is alive and well in California by improving access to the ballot, by allowing electronic signatures on initiatives. Thank you.

So we have a motion. Do I have a second for this Bill? Motion by Senator Macedo. A second by Assembly Member Lackey. And I agree with the opponents on this. This Bill raises significant concerns and questions about security fraud and implementation costs, without ensuring meaningful improvement of the initiative process or assuring its integrity.

For these reasons, I have an opposed recommendation. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

On Assembly Bill 459. The motion is do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations. Pellerin, no. Pellerin, no.

[Roll Call]

We'll go ahead and put that Bill on call. Thank you so much. And now we're looking for authors if you are an author. Unless I'm missing someone, they're not in the front row. Okay. Oh, we have Assembly Member Stefani, if you want to take up the Bill you're doing for. We could do both.

Yeah, yeah, I forgot about that. All right, so we will proceed now with. You want to start with your Bill. Okay. We will proceed now with item 3, AB699 by Assembly Member Stefani. You may begin when you're ready. Thank and welcome Assembly Member Berman. And yes, we have a guest. Isn't that great? I know. Yes. You missed our announcement. He's here in place of Tangipa. Yeah.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, I want to start by sharing that I will be accepting the Committee's amendments. And I also want to thank Chair Pellerin for her thoughtful feedback and engagement on this Bill. Thank you. It's been very helpful.

Today I'm presenting AB 699, which addresses a technical yet critical challenge local governments face when placing tiered tax or bond measures on the ballot. Current law requires that ballot labels for local tiered tax and bond measures include estimates of the tax rate, revenue and duration, all with a strict 75 board limit.

While intended to provide transparency, these requirements often lead to confusing, misleading or overly simplistic ballot summaries. And it really has real consequences. Polling shows support for measures can drop by 5 to 15 percentage points under these requirements. That's led to failed measures for affordable housing, education, public transit and even emergency services.

There was one in San Francisco, Prop A a while back that we really could have used had it passed. AB 699 provides a smart, transparent fix. It gives jurisdictions the option to refer voters to the voter guide for a clear, plain language explanation of the measures.

Financial details, such as how funds will be spent, what rates apply, and how long the tax lasts, while still keeping the ballot label concise. This Bill does not remove information, it enhances it by putting complex financial data where it can actually be understood in the voter guide.

This is a good government reform that supports transparency, equity and informed decision making at the ballot box, and I'm committed to continuing to work on the legislation to ensure that it finds the right balance between transparency and overly complicated ballot language that can be confusing.

With me today is J.T. Harechmak, Policy Director at the nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California.

Thank you. Good morning, J.T. Harechmak, on behalf of the nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California. Representing nonprofit and mission driven affordable housing developers across the nine counties that make up the Bay Area. First of all, I want to thank the Chair, the Members and the staff who have engaged on this Bill. Thank you so much.

You have two minutes. Thank you.

Local bonds are one of the most important sources of funding for the construction and preservation of affordable housing in our cities and our counties. According to Housing California's Roadmap Home report, we need to be building about 120,000 affordable units each year.

While the California Housing Partnership reports that we have more than doubled the amount of affordable housing production in the last five years, we're still producing about 12% of our need annually. The solution to unlocking more units is multifaceted, but a big part of that is funding.

State programs and federal tax credits help, but they are bolstered significantly by the presence of local funding. Local sources help make an application for other funding much more competitive and likely to succeed. Transparency is vital to sustain the ongoing commitment and support of voters as we do our work to build affordable housing.

Voters are confused by the relatively recent changes to the ballot label requirements which do not make sense for the financial structure of a bond. The tax rates fluctuate to pay principal and interest due to the changes in the economy, project schedules and more. We need to provide accurate information that voters can understand.

We believe the best place to do this is in the Voter Information Guide, which has space to explain how a voter may or may not be affected by the proposed bond. We do not believe it serves the ideal of transparency to provide information without the context that we know confuses voters.

Because of this clarity, AB 699 will deliver more equitable outcomes. Right now, the high threshold to pass a bond makes them rare and limited to only a few jurisdictions. We believe with clearer explanations of how a bond could work that this would be available to more jurisdictions, making them more competitive for state and federal funds.

Again, thank you to the staff and Chair for working to enhance transparency even more with the proposed amendments. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Anybody in the room who wants to register their support, step up to the mic. State your name, organization, if any, and your position, please.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Graciela Castillo-Krings, here on behalf of all home and enterprise community partners in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Justin Llata, California Housing Partnership and support.

James Kus, California Association of Clerks and election officials in support.

Madam Chair. Niccolo De Luca, on behalf of the City of Oakland. In support and thank you.

Madam Chair and Members. Ian Padilla, representing the Coalition for Adequate School Housing and the Community College Facilities Coalition in support.

Sierra Cook with the San Diego Unified School District in support.

Good morning. Michelle Gill, on behalf of California Association of School Business Officials in support.

Thank you very much. Are there any primary witnesses in opposition to the Bill? If so, step on up, and you want to come to the table here if you're the primary witness. It's up to you. And you got two minutes.

Hello again. Scott Kaufman, Howard Drivers Taxpayers Association. For many, the ballot label is the only thing a voter reads before making their decision, and having easy access to this critical information is imperative. We believe when faced with attacks that could last decades, that voters should have access to as much information as possible.

Relegating this information to a to the separately mailed voter guide will reduce transparency for local tax and bond measures. AB 809 and AB 195 were simple measures that added one sentence to the ballot label, specifically that the rate of a tax increase, its duration and the amount of revenue to be raised be included.

Voters need to be fully aware of the taxes that will potentially that they will potentially pay. If the 75 word ballot label restriction is the issue, then increase the word limit. SB 532 of 2023 was amended in Senate elections and constitutional amendments to do just that.

It exempted the financial disclosure requirements for local tiered tax and bond measures from the 75 word cap to allow better explanations. We dropped our opposition to that Bill and we're even considering supporting it, but the author dropped the Bill entirely. The reasoning seems clear. This Bill and the bills before it are about increasing passage rates for bonds.

And voters are more likely to pass bonds when their financial costs are hidden away in a separately mailed voter guide that many do not read. This is about raising taxes. It is not about transparency.

And if you do not believe me, then perhaps you believe the Governor, who in vetoing a similar measure in 2029 said he was, quote, concerned that this Bill as crafted will reduce transparency for local tax and bond measures, end quote. The Governor was right then and it is still true today.

I ask that you vote no on AB 699.

Good morning. Amy Garrett with California Association of Realtors in respectful opposition to the Bill.

Thank you very much. Anybody else in the room who would like to register their opposition to the Bill, please step up to the mic. State your name, organization and position, please.

Thank you very much. come on up.

Morning. Dora Rose, Deputy Director, League of Women Voters of California. We really don't want to confuse voters. We are very concerned about the transparency issues. But we also agree that having information on the ballot itself is best if possible. We really appreciate the Assembly Members, staff and the openness of the discussions that. We've been having to try to make it all work together. And so we will continue those discussions. As the Bill moves forward. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Members. Dorothy Johnson with the Association of California School Administrators. Apologies for being late. Was in their hearing strong support of this Bill as we have been of prior efforts to clarify and support right information going into the ballots for voters. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Any questions or comments from Committee Members? Seeing none. We have a motion. Assembly Member Stefani, you may go ahead and close.

Thank you, Chair. Voters should receive clear, accurate and understandable information about local tax and bond measures, full stop. And AB 699 helps make that possible. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. So I appreciate the concerns raised here in the room today. And I agree that the goal to help voters better understand the potential financial impacts of a proposed tax measure.

However, I would appreciate the author's commitment to refine the Bill so that it strikes an appropriate balance between transparency on the ballot and not having overly complicated ballot labels. So, and to find a path forward that responds to the governor's prior veto of a similar measure.

So I am recommending support with the commitment and the amendments outlined in the Committee analysis. You have my commitment. Okay, so we have a motion on the Bill by Assembly Member Berman. Do I have a second? I'll make a second. And seconded by Assembly Member Stefani. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

on AB 699, the motion is do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations. Pellerin, aye. Pellerin, aye. Macedo, no. Macedo, no. Bennett. Berman, aye. Berman, aye. Solache. Stefani, aye. stefani, aye. Lackey, no. Lackey, no.

Appreciate the apologies. I know. Thank you. We're going to keep that Bill on call for you. So great for our absent Members. And then you have another measure you're presenting on behalf of Assemblymember Ortega. It's item number nine, AB 1188. You may begin when you're ready.

Great. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, for the opportunity to present AB 1188 today on behalf of Assemblymember Ortega. I want to begin by thanking Assemblymember Ortega for her leadership on this important issue and for asking me to present AB 1188.

I'd like to also thank Committee staff for all their work and I accept the Committee amendments on behalf of the authority. The initiative and referendum process was created to give everyday Californians a direct voice in our democracy.

But today, the sheer volume of money spent around ballot measures can make it difficult for voters to know who's really behind them. California has made progress in recent years by increasing transparency, adding supporter and opponent names to the ballot, and requiring campaign disclosures in the voter guide. AB 1188 builds on this momentum.

This Bill ensures that the top three funders supporting and opposing a statewide initiative or referendum are listed directly on the ballot. These changes don't restrict anyone's ability to participate in the process. They simply make it easier for voters to access critical information at the moment it matters most.

By placing top funders clearly on the ballot, AB 1188 gives voters more tools to evaluate the proposals in front of them and make informed decisions. With this Bill, we're continuing the important work of strengthening trust, accountability and transparency in California's democratic process.

Joining me today are Trent Lange, President and Executive Director of the California Clean Money Campaign, and Sarah Flocks, representing the California Federation of Labor Unions.

Thank you so much. You each have two minutes. Thank you.

Madam Chair, Member. Sarah Flocks, California Federation of Labor Unions. Many thanks to the chair and the Committee for all their work on this Bill.

We are the proud co sponsors, sponsor of this Bill and going back to what was said, the initiative process in California was intended to rein in the influence of big money on the Legislature, specifically the railroads, and it put democracy back in the hands of the people. Century later, we've come full circle.

Now money is flowing into the initiative process, blocking out the grassroots, as the last author said. And it allows billionaires, corporations, well funded ideological interests to block, rewrite, change and undermine the laws that the Legislature passes. And it handcuffs them sometimes with a seventh, eighth vote from making adjustments and changes.

It takes the deliberative process out of what the Legislature does. And this is an existential threat that we are facing as money flows in and it then is amplified by social media and online tools and the grassroots gets lost in all of this. It's not a partisan issue. Wealthy interests can back Ideological measures of all sorts.

And as we face this threat, transparency is is the best way to educate voters. We can't out educate voters when TikTok and social media is being flooded with paid ads from the backers of these measures.

So this very simply puts the top funders of measures where the real estate is the most precious as we've been told on the ballot label. So they will be able to see that have a tool check who is funding measures so they can really know who are behind all of these propositions that they vote on every year.

For these reasons we urge your aye vote and we will continue to work on this measure.

Thank you. Next witness. You have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair Members, I'm Trent Lange, President of the California Clean Money Campaign, speaking in strong support of AB 1188 as to be amended by the Committee. I salute the Committee and your staff for your excellent work on these crucial amendments.

The California Clean Money Campaign has long championed increased transparent disclosure of top funders behind political campaigns, ensuring voters know who is financing political ads, initiatives and referendums. Nothing is more important to the voters.

We proudly sponsor the California DISCLOSE Act bills to require clear disclosure of the top three funders on ballot measures and IE ads, as well as the petition DISCLOSE Act mandating circulators show voters official top funders paying for initial initiative circulation.

The next crucial step in transparency is adding top funders directly on the ballot, as AB 1188 will do. Until now, we unfortunately could not support previous efforts due to concerns similar to those raised in the Committee analysis, especially about voters mistakenly believing funders listed were the most recent contributors.

That's why our support was contingent on the addition of an as of date to ensure clarity. Now that this amendment is included in the excellent Committee amendments along with a link to the latest funders, we enthusiastically support the Bill.

The combination of listing top three funders as of the time they were submitted to the ballot label, a snapshot in time, and providing a link to the latest funders will provide every voter with this crucial information at the time that they need it the most.

Several remaining issues remain to be addressed, especially minimizing the extra amount of ballot space required. But I look forward to working with the author, the sponsors, the opposition and this Committee to resolve those issues so that the top funders are presented as concisely and effectively as possible.

With the Committee amendments being accepted, I respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you. Anybody else in the room who'd like to register their support, please step up to the mic. State your Name, organization and position, please.

Cassie Mancini, on behalf of the California School Employees Association in support.

Mitch Steiger with CFT, a Union of Educators and Classified Professionals. Also in support.

Morning, Madam Chair, Members. Martha Lopez with the California Nurses Association in support.

Thank you very much. We'll now move on to primary witnesses in opposition. Please step up to the table here and you have two minutes. Welcome, Registrar Kus.

Good morning, Chairperson Pellerin and Assembly, Committee Members. I'm James Kus, Fresno County Clerk, Registrar of Voters, and I'm here on behalf of California Association of Clerks and Election Officials. CACEO respectfully opposes AB 1188 due to the impacts on the petition review process and the unfunded mandates upon county election offices it creates.

During the 23-24 legislative session, CACEO sponsored two chapter bills, AB 2582 and AB 3197, that standardized the formatting and processing of state and local petitions. AB 1188 would disrupt that standardization, creating a unique petition process for state initiatives and referenda that would increase processing times and is not supported by current registration data.

The state petition format will require more staff for more work with no change in processing deadlines. AB 1188 requires a review of assigners initials with no comparison data that has been previously collected, meaning no material comparison is even possible, should a petition make it through the amended petition processing.

AB 1188 adds a minimum of three lines of additional text to the ballot question of every statewide initiative and referendum measure and can be reasonably expected to add seven or more lines of text to every proposition. The Bill explicitly contains no character or line limit to this edition at this time.

Space on the ballot is at a premium. The additions required by AB 1188 will add ballot cards to counties large and small, significantly increasing election costs without equivalent funding support.

The longer ballot question is likely to result in the opposite of any intention to educate the voter, as research for the Center of Civic Design has found that voters have issues understanding longer ballot questions and are more likely to skip that question.

It is for these reasons that we respectfully request that the Assembly Elections Committee vote no on AB 1188.

Thank you very much. Anybody in the room who would like to register your opposition, please step to the mic. State your name, organization, if any, and position, please.

Kelly LaRue with Resilient Advocacy, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce for many of the reasons outlined in the analysis. Thank you. We're opposed.

Scott Kaufman, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association in opposition.

Thank you very much. We'll bring it back to the Committee. Any Comments? Questions? Assemblymember Berman.

Just quick, quick comment. So I totally support and agree with the motivation behind the Bill in terms of increasing transparency. I think that's incredibly important.

I'm sympathetic to the concerns that have been raised by CACEO, so just want to ask the author and the author's replacement and the supporters and sponsors to continue working with CACEO, see what we can do to help address their concerns. But with that, happy to make a motion for the Bill.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any comments and questions from Committee Members? Assemblymember Stefani, you may go ahead and close.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much.

So while I do have some serious reservations with the provisions of this Bill, given its likely impact on the ballot length and complexity, and the potential that changes proposed will increase voter confusion and voter fatigue and ballot fatigue. In particular, I share the concerns of the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials that this Bill will significantly increase the ballot printing and mailing costs and will add even more complexity to the process of designing ballots and administering elections.

I do want to thank the author and the and the stand in here for today for accepting the Committee's proposed amendments which address many of those concerns that I had with the Bill. But I continue to have some concerns with the provisions as outlined as well by Assemblymember Berman.

So while I'm going to go ahead and support the Bill today, I encourage the author to continue to refine the Bill to address the very legitimate issues that have been raised by our county elections officials. And with that we had a motion by Assemblymember Berman seconded by Assemblymember Stefani.

Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

On AB 1188, the motion is do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

We'll keep that Bill on call for our absent Members. And so now we're at a point in the hearing where we have absent Members and absent authors. Oh, we have Berman. That's what I always forget about. Assemblymember Berman, thank you for being here. You may proceed with presenting item 4, AB 827. And you may begin when you're ready.

Thank you Chair Pellerin. And I'll keep this as short as possible. In our last General election in November 2024, nearly 69% of rejected vote by mail ballots were for either a missing or non matching signature, which was nearly 85,000 ballots. AB 827 would provide greater would provide a greater opportunity for voters to cure signature deficiencies and have their vote counted right now.

If there is a missing or non matching signature on the vote by mail ballot envelope, elections officials notify the voter of the problem how to correct it and provide the voter until 5pm two days before, two days prior to the certification of the election to complete the necessary form.

Unfortunately, a voter may not know when a county is going to certify the election and they may complete a cure form only to find out later that it was too late and their ballot wasn't counted.

In order to ensure that everyone is operating on a level playing field, AB827 would provide a date certain the 22nd day after the elections as the deadline by which an elections official must accept ballot cures. The Bill correspondingly moves the deadline to notify voters of signature issues in order to ensure sufficient time to fix deficiencies.

The Bill would also make several other improvements, including this past election there were reports from voters that needed to cure a signature problem that they were hounded by campaigns even after completing the cure forms.

So AB 827 would make available information on who has completed a cure form so that voters will not be bothered once they've done that. We also have a very popular ballot tracking notification system. AB 827 would propose additional functionality by providing an Internet link to the CURE form in the automated text or email notification.

So when you get that notification, there's a link in there that you can click to cure to get to the form to cure your ballot as conveniently as possible. Voters are accustomed to ballot dropboxes, so AB827 would authorize an elections official to place one Dropbox at their office to receive cure forms after the election.

And finally, the Bill would ensure that cure forms are promptly processed and not set aside for later consideration. Ultimately, AB 827 would provide greater certainty and consistency to ballot curing as well as make the process more accessible for voters. Respectfully ask for an aye vote and I don't know why we saved this for the close.

I would also like to thank the consultant for the thorough analysis and look forward to working with the Committee to further refine the Bill and address the timing of certain special elections in the functionality of ballot tracks.

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

Okay, just me.

Just you. But that's. That's enough. And anybody in the room who would like to register their support for the Bill see none. We'll move on to Primary witnesses in opposition, see none. Anybody just wants to register opposition, see none.

It's a Berman special.

That is lovely. Anybody? Any Committee Members questions or comments? We have a motion by some Member. Stephanie. Seconded by some Member Berman. Any comments or questions over here?

Okay. So I share the author's desire. You may go ahead and close.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much. Thank you to the Committee and the chair for working with me on this.

Thank you. And I share the author's desire to minimize the number of ballots that are rejected due to signature issues and to make it easier for voters to promptly address any such issues that otherwise would prevent their ballots from being counted.

As the Committee analysis discusses, there are some issues that still need to be ironed out in this Bill. And in particular, it will be important to figure out an appropriate deadline for signature curing in special elections and to evaluate whether the bill's proposed changes to the state's ballot tracking system are indeed workable.

So with the author's commitment to continue to work on those issues moving forward, which I do have by your shaking of the hand, I will be supporting this Bill. And Madam Secretary, please call the roll on Assembly Bill 827.

[Roll Call]

We'll place that Bill on call for our absent Members. Thank you so much. Thank you. And now we have no authors. Right? Okay. Yes. You could have spoke. Much slowly. And we have an author. Yay. Assembly Member McKinnor. Good to see you. Assembly Member McKinnor. You may proceed whenever you're ready.

Good morning.

I think I lost my water bottle. Good morning. I'm sorry I look like a little bit... What a week. What a week.

Okay. And you may begin when you're ready. Thank you. We're taking up item number one, AB 351.

Yes. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. AB 2911 would discourage the use of dark money in local elections and ease significant administrative financial burdens on local governments by revising the Levine Act's contribution limit from local candidates to $1,500. Current law severely limits a local candidate's ability to run an independent, competitive campaign or communicate directly with voters.

These arbitrarily low campaign donation limits have resulted in an increased presence of wealthy self funded campaigns and the use of non-candidate control independent expenditure financed with dark money. Additionally, in just the past two years, compliance with the Levine Act has caused local governments millions of dollars.

Resources that would be better spent supporting local public safety programs, infrastructure, or efforts to address California's housing and homelessness crisis. Members, the opposition claims regarding pay to play are a red herring. Be clear. Pay to play is a felony today.

If someone is committing a felony, tell me and I will report it to the law enforcement and to the FPPC and the FEC. The only people that benefit from artificially low campaign finance limits are dark money interests that use low candidate campaign finance limits to restrict candidate speech and promote speech favored by millionaire and billionaire class.

It is time to empower candidates to speak directly to voters with resources they need and reduce the influence of dark money in our local elections. Today I have with me Kellie Johnson, Assistant Executive Officer, Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. Thank you.

And just for the record, this is AB 351 this year. Very good. And you have two minutes. Thank you.

Wait a minute. Did I do the wrong bill? Oh, AB 351. It is. Sorry, I said 2911. Sorry. Thank you. Long week. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair and Members of the Assembly Elections Committee. Good morning. I am Kellie Johnson, Assistant Executive Officer for Ethics and Compliance, serving the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and a proud resident of Los Angeles County.

I'm here today to express my strong support for AB 351, a bill that represents a smart and necessary step forward in modernizing the Levine Act. This legislation offers a practical solution by raising the campaign contribution threshold to $1,500 and and introducing a regular CPI adjustment.

From my perspective overseeing the county's Levine Act unit, I see a clear opportunity to enhance efficiency and focus on resources more effectively. Currently, we spend valuable time processing disclosures for very small contributions. By raising the threshold, we can streamline the process, allowing us to dedicate our attention to contributions that truly reflect potential influence.

This isn't about loosening regulations, it's about making them more effective. A $1,500 threshold better reflects the realities of modern campaign finance, enabling us to concentrate on substantial contributions that warrant careful consideration. The inclusion of a CPI adjustment is equally important.

It ensures the Levine Act remains relevant and robust over time, protecting against the erosion of its effectiveness due to inflation. This proactive measure demonstrates a commitment to maintaining the integrity of our electoral process. AB 351 is a positive step towards responsible governance. It's about creating a system that is both efficient and transparent, ultimately fostering greater public trust.

By supporting this bill, you'll be empowering us to focus on the core mission of the Levine Act, which is ensuring fairness and accountability in our elections. I'm confident that these changes will lead to a more effective and well functioning system for us all. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Are there any witnesses in the room that would like to register their support? You can step up to the mic and state your name, organization, and position, please.

Morning, Madam Chair. Mike Monagan on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades in support.

Madam Chair and Members, Paul Yoder on behalf of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors in strong support.

Madam Chair, Kirk Kimmelshue on behalf of the California Building Industry Association in support.

We'll now move on to primary witnesses in opposition. Go ahead and come on up. Got room for two, if there's two. There we go. And each of you have two minutes. You may begin when you're ready.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Trent Lange, President of the California Clean Money Campaign and also a proud resident of Los Angeles County, speaking in strong opposition to AB 351. The Legislature just overhauled the Levine Act last year through SB 1243 and SB 1181 after months of extensive negotiation involving county councils, city attorneys, unions, business associations, good government groups, the Senate Elections Committee, and this Committee.

Through this collective effort, the contribution threshold was doubled from 250 to $500 and several important reforms were adopted. A carefully calibrated compromise balancing compliance ease and anti-corruption protections. For our side, $500 was a fair and deliberate increase that allowed us to support the bills. We had data for this. In a poll of 837 likely California voters last year, $500 was the only increased limit we tested for which voters said they wouldn't be concerned than for those who said they would be very concerned.

In contrast, 81% of voters said they'd be concerned if the limit that parties, participants, and their agents can give to local elected officials such as developers while they're considering their proposals was raised to $1,500 with 50% very concerned.

That's why we very strongly oppose last year's bill to raise the Levine Act limit to $1,500 and would never have supported anything beyond the $500 threshold in SB 1243 and SB 1181 that we did. This new law is barely four months old. Its carefully negotiated provisions have yet to be tested in regular elections. Given the extensive work that this Committee has done and others undertook to balance compliance and the public interest just last year, we respectfully request that you maintain that integrity by not voting for AB 351. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair. Morning, Chair and Members. Dora Rose, Deputy Director, League of Women Voters of California, in very respectful opposition to AB 351 because I'm sympathetic with the goals that the Member has expressed. Tripling the Levine Act's contribution threshold and gutting one of California's strongest protections against pay to play corruption in local government would really be moving us in the wrong direction. The Levine Act was created to prevent public officials from voting on matters involving major campaign donors, right?

As Trent noted, it was increased just last year after extensive negotiations with local governments, with unions, with business groups, and with reform advocates. The bipartisan agreement that we came to raised the cap to 500 while preserving the law's integrity and improving clarity and compliance. AB 351 would unfortunately unravel that progress from our perspective.

Public trust in government is already dangerously low. This is something that the League of Women Voters works on all of the time to bolster. Right. Californians want us to move toward transparency and fairness, not backwards. Supporters claim that this bill helps grassroots candidates, but the data actually says otherwise.

Incumbents, not challengers, receive most large contributions from special interests. And research shows that lower limits increase competition and diversity in local elections. And that diversity is also something that the League is constantly working to improve. We're also concerned about tying this threshold to inflation. The Levine Act is a targeted anti-corruption law, right?

It's not a general campaign finance rule. It's meant to prevent real time conflicts of interest and adjusting this cap year after year would only create confusion and weaken enforcement. Unfortunately, we believe that AB 351 opens the door to more undue influence in public decision making. We urge you to to protect the integrity of California's local governments and vote no on this bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anybody in the room who'd like to register opposition to the bill, please step up to the mic. State your name, organization, and position, please.

Thank you. Good morning. Jala Abner on behalf of California Common Cause in opposition.

Thank you very much. We'll now bring it back to the Committee. Do you have any questions or comments? Assembly Member Berman.

I want to thank the author for a lot of the conversations that we had about this last year. Yeah. What I would have loved to have seen, and I wasn't a part of negotiations, but would have been updating the original 250 from the Levine Act for inflation from when it was originally put in place, which would have got us to around $750-800. I'd mentioned to you last year that I can't get on board with 1500, and that hasn't changed. But appreciate that I'm sure we'll have more conversations about this issue in the future, but unfortunately can't support the bill today.

Absolutely. And the 1500 just got lowered. It was 1500. I think it was two years ago or three years ago. It was originally 1500. It just got lowered. I don't know. I wasn't here and I don't know the reason why it went from 1,500 to 250, but it was not. LA County Board of Supervisors were able to do 1,500. And I would have to say we get $5,900 in contributions, and 5,900 couldn't buy me to get a felony for anything. So we get $5,900 in contribution as legislators. And 5,900 couldn't I, nobody could buy me with 5,900. I wanted to have a... Do I have a time, time to address the people or need to wait til you...

Well, let me just check, see if anyone has any other questions or comments.

We can. We can, we can do that too if you'd like to carry that bill.

Okay. We're gonna go to Assembly Member Lackey and then Assembly Member Solache. Assembly Member Lackey, you have a question or comment?

No, mine's just a comment. I think that the author's making a very good point that we limited these people to 10% of what we had. And I think that's outrageous. I don't think. Having been a person who campaigned for local office, fundraising is tough. Right. And our communication still has the same level.

Well, if you're from a bigger city, similar levels of cost. And so why are we, we're saying that you could be bought it at the local government but we can't here? I don't think either one of them are a threat to what the concerns are that are outlined. Having been in office, I know there are some people that are going to be corrupt no matter what level that you have. And I think that those that you can trust, which I hope are most, these limits are arbitrary. And so I'm clearly in support of a more reasonable 1500 limit.

Thank you. And just to be clear, this is limiting what would trigger you from having to recuse yourself from taking a vote on a matter. Okay. Just. Okay. And Assembly Member Solache.

I apologize I missed part of the conversation as I was in Appropriations. But as a former elected official, you know, when the 250 law came into place it was unfair to local elected officials. Especially when Sacramento is $5900. I mean so we're going to make it 250 for elected officials here in Sacramento too? I doubt it. So I just want to applaud the the the author and I plan to support this bill. Thank you.

Okay. Oh, Assembly Member Macedo.

I recognize the rest of the Committee's hang up is the dollar amount. For me it's not so much the dollar amount as rap. It's more the how quickly we did this of what is the message saying that we're just going to continue to up this amount. So I'm not going to vote today because I definitely would like to kind of investigate this a little bit more. My thing is is I understand when we're talking about dollar amounts. Additionally, we represent 500,000 people. So it's going to be different than some local elections. So comparing the 5900 to 1500 is a little different.

But regardless, one dollar is a dollar in my opinion and nobody should be accepting money with quid pro quo in mind. With that being said, it's more what is the message that we're sending to the general public by doing this as quickly as we did it. So for those reasons I will not be voting today. But I'd love to engage with you and maybe be able to support this on the floor.

Thank you so much. Again, this was lowered maybe three years ago. Three or four years ago. No, that... It's a Senator. Yes, Senator Glazer. It was a Glazer bill that lowered. We're not trying to get rid of the Levine Act. I am a treasurer by trade and so when we talk about transparency, again, I'm a treasurer.

I've been a treasurer for 25 years. I have a treasury firm, it's called the McKinnor Group. I know about disclosure. And that the Levine Act, Glazier did lower the amount because the amount was 1500 in LA County. And when we talk about cities, I'm from a city that has, we represent 500,000 people.

I'm from a City of Los Angeles that has millions of people. The LA County members also have millions of people that they represent. And so it's way more than us. So it's no way they're going to be able to raise the money to get out their message to their communities.

And I believe the bill you're referring to, the Glazer bill, had applied the same Levine Act to County Supervisors, and that's what happened a few years ago. Okay. Any other questions or comments from Committee Members? Okay. Seeing none. Assembly Member McKinnor, you may close.

Yes, I just want to ask the witness about the provision because I am a treasurer by trade. And you said that we're not undoing any provisions because everybody has to report anything over $99.99. That doesn't go away under this bill, and so we're not trying to undo any, any, any disclosure. So you were like, you talked about provisions. We're really dealing with the dollar amount, and you're talking about what provisions are we trying to.

The bill last year that passed through by Senator Dodd and Senator Glazer, SB 1243 and SB 1181, had a number of provisions to narrow the scope of the Levine Act to exclude certain development contracts and competitively bid contracts that really don't bring up any possible pay to play worry with the public.

And we're not worried that politicians are actually being bought by these by $500 or even $1,500 or $5,900. But there is a public perception issue, especially in the case, in our view, when it's local elected officials that's going to be voting on a development agreement right after they got a big check from some developer. Right.

But don't they have to recuse themselves? Right? Don't they?

They have to... Well, that, and that's. They would have to recuse themselves if they gave received over the Levine Act threshold. And that's why we think it's important to not raise that threshold for recusal above $500. If you bring it up to $1,500, and so a local elected official could accept $1,499 from a developer two days ago, right before they're voting on the local developer, that's gonna look bad.

We're just saying that we know that our local elected officials aren't like being paid to play. But I'm going to stop there. We know that they're not paid to play. We get $5,900. That's a lot more money. And we're definitely not being paid. We don't pay to play. And so I'll just leave it there.

I think that this is a fair bill for competition. We know that millionaires and billionaires are coming back into California and they want it back. And they're funding independent expenditures and they're funding themselves. And our people will not be able to compete with that. So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. So last year, the Legislature considered multiple bills that proposed amendments to the Levine Act. And stakeholders engaged in negotiations over those bills for months, and the process ultimately led to the unanimous passage of the two bills that made significant adjustments to the act. Those bills have been in effect for just four months now, and we need to allow time to see the impact of those changes before we contemplate significant further adjustments to the law.

At the very least, we should have data from an election cycle conducted under these new rules to help us determine whether further changes to the law are warranted. So while I have great admiration for the author, respect for the author, and appreciate your advocacy for your district, I am unable to support the bill today. So Madam... Oh, do we have a motion? We have a motion by Assembly Member Lackey. Do we have a second? We have a second by Assembly Member Solache. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

On Assembly Bill 351, the motion is do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

We'll go ahead and place that bill on call.

Thank you so much.

Thank you so much. Alright, welcome. We have Assemblymember Avila Farias here. Come on down. You'll be presenting item 8, AB 1079, and you may begin when you're ready. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Members, I'm pleased to present AB 1079. I would first like to start by accepting the committee's amendments and thank the staff for their hard work on this. I also look forward to continuing to work with the bill stakeholders on the separate concerns as well.

AB 1079 would eliminate the appellate stay of judgment in cases related to the California Voting Rights Act and Fair my- Fair Maps Act. Nearly 25 years ago, the state legislature took significant steps in elevating the voices of historically disadvantaged communities throughout the State of California on the Voting Rights Act.

Not to be confused with the federal- federal counterpart. The California Voting Rights Act prohibits at large elections systems from impairing the ability of protected classes to elect candidates of their choice. In short, this landmark legis- legislation looks to ensure that all minority communities enjoy the voice at the table.

However, in cases related to the voting rights law, court judgments are and stay while an appeal is pending. As you may know, appeals routinely take years to resolve. Even after the court has determined an at large election system is unlawful and racially discriminatory, the local body can hold even more elections by simply filing a notice of appeal.

During this time, justice for communities of colors is delayed and voters are disenfranchised. AB 10- 1079 will fix the problem while maintaining the safeguards that ensure the orderly administration of elections. AB 1079 will make sure that the justices and not indefinitely delayed and that people of color are fully represented in the electoral process.

Testifying with me in support of AB 1079 is Palmdale City Council Member Andrea Alacron.

And you have two minutes. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Thank you, Assemblymember Farias and honorable Members of the committee. My name is Andrea Alarcon and I come before you in support of AB 1079 in two capacities. First, as an attorney who has sat as counsel in the California Voting Rights Act trials, and second, as an elected official.

A product of the California Voting Rights Act, the CVRA has been incredibly effective in protecting fundamental voting rights of all voters, particularly those in communities of color. Since the CVRA's enactment, over 600 jurisdictions have transitioned to their- their election systems to comply with the CVRA.

As a result, countless candidates have emerged from historically disenfranchised communities, many of whom have been elected as historic firsts. In my case, the City of Palmdale has a population of approximately 170,000 people, 65% of whom are Latino.

My City Council district was created in the aftermath of the CVR litigation and enabled me to become the first Latina ever elected in the City of Palmdale. That has been the case in many jurisdictions throughout the state, and we now have a diversity of representation.

And while most jurisdictions have voluntarily transitioned their election systems to comply with the CVRA, there have been a select few that have challenged such a transition. And through those trials, we have identified ways to refine the CVRA to effectuate its original intent.

I believe there have been a total of five CVRA cases that have been taken to trial. All five have resulted in an initial judgment finding a violation of the CVRA. Four of those five cases appealed, one is still pending. The three remaining cases, all appeals were unsuccessful and the original judgments were upheld and affirmed.

And in those cases, during the years, the many years in between when judgments were entered and then affirmed because of the automatic stay, these jurisdictions were allowed to continue to hold unlawful elections that violated the CVRA, elections that disenfranchised voters, particularly in communities of color.

AB 1079 solves that problem, closes that loophole, and further advances the original legislative intent behind the California Voting Rights Act to eliminate procedural challenges and advance voters rights. With that, I respectfully request your aye vote on AB 1079 as amended.

Thank you. Thank you.

And I just want to clarify for the committee that the amendments that the member is taking today are outlined in comments 5 and 6 of the committee analysis and they are to reimburse the county for any actual costs incurred by county elections officials in administering elections and to expressly provide that the bill does not limit the power of a reviewing court to issue a stay.

So I just want to make that clear and we'll now move on to anybody in support of the bill that wants to just step up to the mic. State your name, organization and position. Seeing none, we'll now move on to any primary witnesses in opposition. Come on down. And you have two minutes.

Madam Chair and Member Sylvia Solis Shaw here on behalf of the City of Santa Monica. We- It's our understanding that the author has accepted the amendments. We that those will be taken in another committee. However, we just wanted to clarify that we are opposed, remain opposed to the bill as it is in print.

The city has we believe that this bill will intervene in the city's ongoing litigation relating to the CVRA and would force the city to implement the trial court's order before the case is fully resolved through appeal, which could lead to unnecessary and potentially chaotic results in our local elections.

The city has demonstrated that its election system is working well for Latino voters and implementing district elections would leave these voters with less ability to elect candidates of their choice. For example, there have been at least one Latino member of the City Council since 2010 through today and as multiple times during the last 18 sorry, 15 years.

I'm not sure put my glasses on. The city has had multiple Latino Council Members serving at the same time. This is in a city where the Latino voting population is roughly 1/7 of all voters. So vastly- vastly different from the example that was mentioned by the witness in terms of Palmdale.

So, had AB 1079 been in effect when the trial court made this decision, the city would have had to make radical changes to its electoral system.

Among other things, the trial court ordered the city to scrap its 73 year old at large system, to adopt a new seven district system, adopt a district mat drawn by plaintiffs expert with no participation or input from voters and hold a special election in July 2019 and to throw the current members off the council by August 2019.

So we would have had to amend our charter, undertake a voter education campaign to explain the new district system. All of this to have, if you know, have it overturned based on the ruling by the Court of Appeals.

So we ask that again just want to reiterate that we are opposed to the current version of the bill in print. However, we have had discussions with the author and we hope that we will see amendments.

We- I think we are very close to agreement on amendments and that those amendments will be taken at the next available opportunity.

Thank you very much. I'm now going to take another pause here to just welcome participants from the Ledges School. We're glad to have you here today. I hear you're studying elections and thank you for being in the capitol today and to this hearing. Is there anybody in the room who would like to register opposition to the bill?

Just step up to the mic. State your name, organization, position. Seeing no movement. We'll move it back to the committee. Any comments or questions? We have a question. Assemblymember Stefani.

Thank you Madam Chair. This was heard in Judiciary and I voted aye. And with the understanding you were continuing to work with the City of Santa Monica and Assemblymember Zbur. And I just want to make sure that those conversations are continuing. You know, I will support it today. Knowing that that's happening.

I just wanted to hear from the author in terms of the negotiations or conversations with the Assemblymember from Santa Monica.

Yes. Well, I'm not an attorney so obviously my- my version is always going to be a lot more positive than a version. But we have been working post, we met with the chair, we have met with our colleague Assemblymember Zbur and we have been actively working since you all last saw us.

And I do feel we have reached an agreement. But that was not stated. I know, because it's not in print. So it's not official until it's in print. So that's the discrepancy is that it is not in the printed version. But we have accepted those amendments.

And so if it were in print today, I think we were in agreement and we've been working. And I want to thank the chair for facilitating dialogue.

Absolutely. Any other comments or questions from committee members? Seeing- whoops- seeing none. Assemblymember Avila Farias, you may go ahead and close.

I want to thank the chair and the committee. There has been a lot of work and the staff into this. This is very complex. As my witness indicated and myself. I'll- I'll share that, you know, the California Voting Rights Act, while it was adopted 25 years ago, it was.

We didn't let the perfect get in the way of the imperfect. And so we all have an obligation to make sure that we continue to tweak laws that we all create to reach that perfect. And this is an example of us trying to tweak a law that's on the books.

Many of us have been beneficiaries of the California Voting Rights Act. I would not be the first Latina in the City of Martinez, in the County of Contra Costa, and even at the state legislature.

So it does make a difference when we feel the importance to make sure that we have equitable representation reflective of the demographics of our community. So I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. So for the purpose of this committee's consideration of this bill, I'm focused on the impact on county elections officials, particularly if they need to adjust district and precinct boundaries multiple times during a court decision that is overturned on appeal.

So the committee's amendments to ensure the county elections officials are reimbursed for the cost that they incur address that concern for me. My office received many calls with concerns about the other part of the bill, specifically whether the bill applies to ongoing litigation. And that question falls in the Judiciary Committee's jurisdiction.

So while this committee always tries to work with an author so that a Bill can be heard in the form that the author prefers, that issue was not resolved in time for today's hearing. And I am not inclined to debate policy questions that are in another committee's jurisdiction. So thank you for accommodating me there.

So I am prepared to support the bill with the amendments in the comments in number 5 and 6, as I spoke about earlier, and leave it to the author in conjunction with the Judiciary Committee and relevant stakeholders, to decide whether to make those further amendments to the bill on the floor or to address its applicability to ongoing litigation.

And with that, I have an aye recommendation. Do we have a motion? We have a motion by Assemblymember Solache, a second by Assemblymember Stefani. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

On AB 1079, the motion is do pass as amended. [ROLL CALL]

So that Bill is out 4 to 1, and thank you so much. That concludes all the bills we had up. We're now going to go ahead and lift the calls on pending bills for any absent Members of this Committee. Please come to room 444 so we can get you recorded. Okay, we'll go ahead and. Where's the list?

We're going to go ahead and lift the call on item number five, AB930 by Ward. The current vote is three to two. My recommendation is aye. If you can please take your conversations outside so we can conclude with our votes, please. Thank you. .

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out five to two. We now move on to item number two, AB459. DeMaio. The vote is currently two to two. Chair recommendation is no.

[Roll Call]

We have a motion for reconsideration, and that Bill fails 2 to 4. And we'll go ahead and take a vote on that reconsideration. We need a Second. We have a Sec. We have a Second by Senator Member Lackey. Madam Secretary, please call the vote.

[Roll Call]

Oh, sorry. We'll go ahead and allow reconsideration without a. Yeah, I'm sorry, I was confused. Yes. I vote aye on reconsideration for the Bill. No on the Bill.

[Roll Call]

Consent is out. I'm going to keep the roll open to see if Bennett's going to be able to come back from his Committee, so bear with me for a minute. Assembly Member Lackey, one second. Since the McKinnor Bill has failed, I'd like to grant reconsideration. Without objection. Let's take a. Let's take a quick roll call. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. A motion moved by Berman, seconded by Solace. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. Mr. Assembly Member Bennett is in Committee and unable to return. So with that, we are adjourned.