Assembly Standing Committee on Elections

Good morning. I'd like to call the July 22025 hearing of the Assembly Elections Committee to order. Looks like we have a quorum present. Thank you, Vice Chair. Before we proceed, let's call the roll and establish a quorum.

[Roll call]

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

That portal can be accessed through the Committee's website at aelc.assembly.ca.gov the Committee has eight bills on its agenda. There are four 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 to providing their name, the organization they represent, if any, and their position on the Bill. Additional comments will be ruled out of order.

We seek to protect the rights of all who participate in the legislative process so that we can have effective deliberation and 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 be subject subject you to removal or other enforcement actions. I'm sure you'll all be on your best behavior. With those announcements out of the way, we will now move on to the Committee's agenda. Before we get to the rest of the agenda, let's take up the Committee's consent calendar again.

There are four bills on the consent calendar. The Committee secretary, will you please read the items on consent?

The first one is File item number three, SB280 by Cervantes. The motion is do pass and be re referred to the Committee on appropriations with recommendation to consent calendar. File item number six, SB651 by Grove. The motion is do pass and be re referred to the Committee on Military and veterans affairs with recommendation to consent calendar.

File Item number 7, SB851 by Elections and constitutional amendments. The motion is do pass to consent calendar. And the last one is File item number eight, SB852, by elections and constitutional Amendments and the motion is do pass and be re referred to the Committee on appropriations with recommendation to consent calendar.

And I think SB621, not 651. I think you missed it.

Oh, on file, item number six. It's SB651 by Grove.

621. 600 what?

Oh, I'm sorry. 621. I'm sorry.

No problem. That's why we have Ethan here. Does any Member wish to remove an item from the consent calendar? Seen and hearing, None. Do we have a motion on consent? We have a motion by Vice Chair Macedo. A second by Stephanie. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Consent is out 4 to 0. And we'll keep the roll open for our absent Members. And we have an author present. Thank you, Senator, for being here on time. And you would like to begin with your item that's on number two here, SB249. Thank you. May begin when you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It's déjà vu all over again. Seems like just yesterday I was sitting in your seat with Ms. Barber and Mr. Jones sitting next to me. We must have been in high school because it was 21 years ago, so. Yes, yes, yes. Congratulations on your good judgment in terms of staffing.

So I'm here to present SB 249. I want to thank Nichole Becker for her help in improving this bill. This would require any election for a County Board of Education be consolidated with the statewide general election. The reason for this is that, we're all experts on elections. And we know that the general election turnout is significantly, sometimes by a factor of three, higher than the primary turnout.

The County Board of Education on the counties that do elect their board is incredibly important. And so in order to enfranchise and to include as many people as is practical, this bill moves that election from the primary to the general. One of the unique features of the election for County Board of Education is it basically is a plurality election.

So if you get plurality in the primary, you could be elected with a very small number of votes and have a very significant job. So that's the purpose of the, of the bill. With me here to testify is Savannah Jorgensen from the California League of Women Voters.

Thank you. And you have two minutes.

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 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 contest with the general election, SB 249 ensures that more Californians, especially those from underrepresented 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 this important bill. We urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Are there any additional witnesses who'd like to add their name, organization, and position in support of the bill? You may come to the mic and state your name or organization, if any.

Sean McMorris with California Common Cause. We support this bill.

Lan Le on behalf of Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California in strong support.

Okay, we'll now allow our witnesses... Oh, wait, one... I'm sorry. Hello. Come on in.

Jeff Tartagia, an advocate in support.

Thank you so much for being here. Any other witnesses in support to add on? Seeing none. We will now move on to our witnesses in opposition. We allow two primary witnesses, and you each are allowed two minutes, and you may begin when you're ready.

Good morning. My name is Tim Shaw. I serve as a trustee on the Orange County Board of Education. This is the third time in the last four years we've been discussing legislation that would move the elections for our board. Only this time, we'll change the elections for five county boards of education.

Governor Newsom previously vetoed this idea last year in the form of SB 907, signing costs and the need to respect local control. And that was when it was only affecting the Orange County Board of Education. SB 249 will obviously have higher costs and more blatantly strip away local control.

Our board voted unanimously to oppose this bill because it is unnecessary. Respectfully, we do not believe Senators and Assembly Members from around the state need to decide when we hold our elections. This is certainly a matter that can be left for local government to decide. A valid argument exists for both the general election or the primary election.

Turnout does tend to be higher in November, so it can be argued that results are more representative of the district. It is also true that the November ballot tends to be much longer, giving the voters many more contests to wade through. The problem of ballot fatigue is well documented.

In our county, we hold the election in the primary, allowing the voters to make the contest for County Board of Education a contest of high importance, not a contest buried beneath pages of other races. We believe that elevates the importance of these offices. Our neighboring county to the north, you may have heard of Los Angeles, does not hold elections whatsoever for their County Board of Educations.

If the Members of the Legislature are interested in bringing a better democratic representation to a County Board of Education, obviously Los Angeles County would be the place to start, where they are appointed and not elected at all. So we ask that the Legislature respect local decision making and reject SB 249.

Thank you. And you have two minutes as well.

Good morning. Mari Barke, Vice President of the Orange County Board of Education. I'm also here to express my concern regarding the continued efforts by our State Legislature to reallocate taxpayer funds towards shifting our elections from the primary to the general election.

Giving the pressing issues our state currently faces, such as rising crime rates, homelessness, ongoing fire recovery efforts, escalating gas prices, it is disheartening to witness this matter repeatedly prioritized. This is also my third time going through this. Moving our elections to the general election creates confusion as well as voter fatigue.

The primary election provides an important opportunity for us as board members or candidates to distinguish the role of the County Board of Education from the local school boards in the cities we represent. We all represent several cities, and in each of those cities, they have as many as two to four board members running.

And so by lumping us in, it's created quite a bit of confusion for them. This distinction is vital, especially since each of those cities already has so many other candidates on their ballot in November. Considering the state's current budget concerns, I do not believe that... that Assembly Bill 249 should be a legislative priority.

Furthermore, I'm puzzled as to why this bill is being reconsidered, especially after the Governor vetoed it last year citing the importance of local control, among other issues. Thank you for your time this morning and consideration of this important matter.

Thank you so much. We'll now move on to any other additional witnesses in the room to come up to the mic, state your name, organization, and your position.

Good morning. My name's Greg Rolen. I'm general counsel of the Orange County Department of Education, and we're in opposition. Thank you.

Hi. David Bolog on behalf of school board members across the state that are too numerous to mention, and also on behalf of voters who know elections are open to all those, not just those that have more pigment in their skin. We are in opposition. Thank you.

Any other witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, we'll now move it to the Committee. Any questions or comments from Committee Members? Assembly Member Bennett.

I appreciate the respectfulness of the disagreement that we have here, but I will move the bill.

Do we have a motion? Do we have a... And we have a second. Any other questions or comments from Committee Members? Seeing none. Senator, you may close.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, there's a respectful disagreement. I do think this is a matter of statewide interest, not just Orange County interests, that we enlarge the electorate that chooses this very important, these very important positions. And with that, I urge an aye vote.

And we have a telephone call. Okay. Okay. So you know, elections for County Boards of Education generally are single round elections with no chance of a runoff election. This bill will ensure these elections are held at a statewide general election where voter turnout is higher and more representative of the jurisdictions electorate. While I appreciate the concerns about the potential for increasing voter fatigue by adding to the length of the November ballot, this contest, being a school contest, actually appears directly after the state contest.

So it's pretty much right in the middle of the ballot. And furthermore, given that school contests are right there, it seems like the voter fatigue issue would have a very limited effect, if any, on the County Board elections. So I am recommending support of the bill. We have a motion and a second. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

On SB 249 by Umberg, the motion is do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on Education. [Roll Call]

We'll put that bill on call. It's got three votes, three to one. So we'll put that bill on call. And you now have a second bill you're going to present. It's item four, SB 398.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. SB398 addresses an issue that has become quite prominent in United States elections and that is crafting a mechanism to, in my view, increase either turnout or registration by in essence, paying voters, which is and should be illegal.

What this Bill does, SB398, it closes a potential loophole in the law by making it a crime for a person to knowingly or willfully pay, or offer to pay money or other valuable consideration to another person with the intent to induce the person to vote or register to vote, where the payment is contingent upon whether the person voted or registered to vote.

Once again, I thank Nicole Becker for your assistance in crafting this bill, making this bill a better product. And to the extent there have been amendments offered, we accept them. With me to Testify here is Mr. Trent Lange. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Wonderful. You have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and members. I'm Trent Lange, President of the California Clean Money Campaign. We're proud to support SB398 and are grateful to the leadership of Senator Umberg for authoring this important bill and for the work of this committee to improve it.

One of the cornerstones of our democracy is that principle that no one should be allowed to buy votes. That's why federal law prohibits offering payments in exchange for registering to vote or to vote. However, it does not explicitly ban the use of lotteries, nor does it explicitly ban giving incentives to people who are already registered to vote.

This loophole has recently been exploited, as Senator Umberg described in last year's presidential election, Elon Musk's America PAC conducted $1.0 million lottery to registered voters in and only registered voters in swing states who signed a petition.

Then America PAC offered Wisconsin voters and registered voters and only registered voters entry into $1.0 million lottery and $100 payments for signing onto another petition. These were transparent attempts to encourage people to register who weren't already registered, even if it wasn't actually stated on the petition. You're going to want to register if you're not already.

So you get that $100 in the entry into the lottery. That's why it's so important that SB 398, as Senator Umberg describes, makes it a prime to give money or other valuable consideration, including lotteries, where the payment is contingent upon whether the person voted or registered to vote.

The committee has made very appropriate recommendations for exclusions for things such as transportation payments by government and paid time off for employees with these, with these amendments SB398 will still do what it must. It will close this loophole and make sure this doesn't happen in California. So we respectfully request your aye vote. Thanks again.

Thank you so much. Do we have anybody in the room who'd like to just state their name and organization and position? If so, come up to the mic.

Again. Jeff Tartagia, an advocate locally here in Sacramento. Support.

Nancy Neff, representing all of the clean money activists here in the room, raise your hands. And many more in the hall outside in support of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, any other witnesses who want to state their name in support? Seeing none. We'll move on to the primary witnesses in opposition. Are there any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Anyone just want to state their name and position?

David Bollog, in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, we'll bring it back to the committee. Assembly member Solachi, Madam Chair, I'll move the item. You have a motion in a second. Any other questions or comments about the bill?

Make a comment. Okay. I'm not surprised that we had no opposition witnesses show up in terms of primary witnesses, et cetera. It's just hard to imagine that people would think this is acceptable. Thank you.

Just thank you to the author and of course, all the folks here today and being advocates for this, I just want to thank them publicly because it takes, you know, time to come to the capitol and be here on a, on a Wednesday, on a Wednesday morning. So thank you.

Yes, very grateful. See no other questions or comments from committee members, senator, you may close.

Well, thank you very much. Buying of votes has historic precedent and it's a very powerful incentive to vote or to register to vote.

It's my view, and I think the view of clean money and common cause, et cetera, that, you know, one should register to vote not because they're paid to register to vote, one should vote not because they're paid to vote, but because it's their patriotic responsibility. But nevertheless, that is a powerful incentive.

And one quick little anecdote, this is from over 30 years ago when I was walking precincts, first election ever walked precincts with my 4 year old daughter at the time. And we were handing out small little plants and they had a little vote for X for mayor on the plant.

And my daughter said, why, you know, why are we handing out these plants? And I said, it's a symbol. It's a symbol of the candidate. People keep it. They'll be reminded this candidate is environmentalist and they want to basically provide for open space and those kinds of things.

And it's got that person's name on it, so they'll keep it and we hope till election. And she said, well, why don't we just give them money? Which I thought, yeah, that illustrates my point is even a four year old recognizes the incentive to vote when one gets money. So with that I urge an aye vote.

Great story. Yes. And I remember the potholders too. Those were great. So I agree with the author and supporters that the tactics used in swing states states during the November 2024 election and subsequently in Wisconsin were very troubling. And I appreciate the author's goal to try and prevent these sorts of activities from occurring in California.

I do however, believe that the broad nature of the prohibition, this bill could have those unintended consequences. So I appreciate the author's willingness to accept the amendments outlined in the committee's analysis. And with those amendments I'm recommending support. We have a motion by Solache, a second by Bennett, I believe. Was it backwards? I'm sorry. Okay.

And you may call the roll on.

SB 398 by Umberg. The motion is do pass as amended and be re-referred to the committee on Public Safety. Pellerin, aye. Pelerin, aye. Macedo. Macedo, aye. Bennett. Bennett, aye. Berman. Aye. Berman, aye. Solache. Aye. Solace, aye. Stephanie Tongipa.

That Bill is out 50. We'll keep the roll open for our absent Member. And you have your third met. You're doing a hat trick today. We got a third measure. Item one, SB 42.

Thank you. Yeah, right. I have hit my quota. Well, I appreciate you expanding the opportunity here for the Umberg show today. So SB 42 is an incredibly important bill. And what this bill does is it removes the ban on public financing for General law cities and counties.

Currently we have this dichotomy in California where if you're a charter city and or county, you can provide for some form of public financing. There's no dictated form, there's no mandatory form of public financing. There are many different modalities all around the country, even all around California. But currently cities and counties are banned.

If they're general law cities and counties, this simply removes the ban. It allows folks to experiment. Now this just puts it on the ballot. So to be clear, this is a multi step process before there is any modality of public financing.

So first it has to get through the Legislature, then second has to go on the ballot and then the voters by majority vote have to approve it.

And then, for example, a city that wishes to enact some public financing mechanism either has to take it to the people or if the city permits it, the City Council can can effect it. This to me, it makes sense. Again, there's misinformation as to what may be required. There is nothing required in this bill, absolutely nothing.

It simply removes the ban that currently exists today and allows general law cities and counties to enact their own legislation. And with that, I have two witnesses. I have again, Mr. Trent Lang, thank you very much from Clean Money California and David Shore from California Common Cause. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Wonderful. You each have two minutes. Great.

Thank you again. Good morning again, Madam Chair Members. Trent Lange, again President of the California Clean Money Campaign.

We're very proud to sponsor SB 42 along with our co sponsors, California Common Cause and the League Women Voters of California, and are very grateful to the leadership of Senator Umberg, Allen and Cervantes and Assembly Member Lee for authoring it and for the work of this Committee.

Again, it's patently unfair that California jurisdictions other than charter cities aren't allowed the same option to have public finance campaigns that charter cities have. I do want to address concerns that have been raised in some places that governments might arbitrarily be able to arbitrarily prohibit certain candidates from accessing public financing.

The Bill actually explicitly protects against this by saying public funding statutes, charters, ordinances and resolutions shall not discriminate based on party or according to whether a candidate is a challenger or an incumbent. So it has that basic protection in there. Concerns have also been raised about pressure on jurisdictions, budgets.

Public finance campaigns generally have actually very low price tags in the charter cities that we've seen. Typically it's between 0.002% and 0.07% of the budget. Is the overall cost for it a very small price to pay to ensure that voters have less perception of influence by special interests.

Whether or not there is influence or not, we want to reduce the perception of that. And as Senator Umberg pointed out, SB 42 does not actually implement any system at all.

It just gives jurisdictions their own control to implement public financing if they want to, how much they if they want to at all, how much they want to provide, what sort of system they want to use, et cetera.

And lastly, the measure SB 42 put on the ballot does provide basic protections by requiring that voluntarily participating candidates must abide by expenditure limits and meet strict criteria to qualify, with some very basic outlines of that. We therefore respectfully request your aye vote to give voters the option to decide. Thank you.

Thank you. You have two minutes.

Hello Members of the Committee. Thank you for having me. My name is David Shore. Can you all hear me? Yes. And I am here on behalf of Common Cause and a broad coalition of democracy, community and grassroots organizations supporting SB 42. Common Cause is proud to co sponsor SB 42 because we believe in a more inclusive democracy.

We where everyday people, not just the wealthy, have a real voice in elections. Common Cause has long supported this type of reform and our coalition has too. Our co sponsor, the League of Women Voters, has been working on making a democracy that works for all of us for over a century. But today that principle is under attack.

SB 42 would place a ballot measure on the 2026 ballot to end the state ban on public financing and help build a political system that works for all Californians. It took California's voters of today or it allows California's voters of today to decide how we want the California of tomorrow to look.

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

In Oakland, half of campaign contributions come from outside of the city. In San Jose, 81% of local candidate funding comes from donors g $500 or more, far beyond what most Californians can afford. Small dollar public public financing is a proven solution. It broadens the donor base, strengthens representation and makes it possible for more diverse candidates to run.

We are working to establish these programs in charter cities across the state. But this reform must be an option for all California communities. SB 42 will take a vital step forward in making that possible. We thank the Committee bill authors, Senators Umberg and Allen and our coalition partners. We request an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Any witnesses in the room that just want to come to the mic, State your name, organization and position.

Morning Chair Members Dora Rose, Deputy Director with League of Women Voters of California co sponsor and in strong support. I also have the proxy of ACLU California Action, which is also in strong support. Thank you.

Well, Jeff Tardea, an advocate, but also. Kara Al Sack, True Healthcare and a number of other subjects and recommended support of this.

Thank you.

Good morning Madam Chair and Members. Tasia Stevens with Catalyst California and strong support.

Cynthia Shallet with California State Strong with indivisible chapters. Over 70 indivisible chapters up and down the State in strong support.

Jackie Wheeler, Dean Democratic Club, in strong support.

Sue Correll, drove all the way from Santa Rosa with the Oakmont Democratic Alliance. And we're in strong support.

Ruth Levy, who also drove all the way from Santa Rosa and part of the Santa Rosa Democratic Club. So thank you. I hope you carpooled.

Okay.

Sadly, I walked three blocks, but Marquis, King Mason, California voters, strong support. Thanks so much.

Grateful you're here.

Sean McMorris with California Common Cause, speaking on behalf of Courage California Hmong Innovating Politics, La Defensa, starting over. Strong asking for your support of this bill.

Ruth Holton Hutton, representing California Third act. And strong support of the bill. Thank you.

Ashley Coats, I live in Moraga. Strongly support.

Good morning, Madam Chair Members. Marty Lopez with the California Nurses Association, in support.

Yvonne Fernandez, California Labor Fed, in support.

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

Good morning. Pamela Brigham with Indivisible Tri Valley, in support.

Hi. Terry Bryan from Santa Rosa, strong support.

Susan Satter, home, San Francisco, California, Clean Money Campaign. Strong support.

Jacqueline Doerr, public health advocate, in strong support of Letting the People Decide.

Anne West from San Bruno, California and the California Clean Money Group. Thank you. It's strong support.

Carol Osorio from San Francisco, California, representing the 300 Members of the Wash Club. And we are in strong support.

Gail Brugler, Palo Alto, strong support.

Anne Harvey with 350 Bay Area Action and strong support.

Mary Gill, Stanford, with the San Mateo county DFA. Strong support.

Nancy Raby from Belmont, California, with San. Mateo County Democracy for America Communications Task. Force, in strong support.

Carol Kinser, Elk Grove, California, California. I'm supporting. I mean, I'm representing California chapter, Laudato SI Movement. Thank you.

Elizabeth Carpenter from Berkeley in strong support.

Sanjay Muralitharan with the College Democrats of America, which is the largest youth democratic. Organization in the country, with strong support.

Paula Randall, Santa Rosa, California. And the U.S. needs this bill now more than ever.

Tom Whitehead from San Francisco, in strong support.

Chris Hamilton from Berkeley, please pass the bill.

Ginny Madsen, first Wednesdays and big tent, San Leandro, a charter city, very much in support.

Hi. Kent Miller, Sacramento. Strong support.

Good morning. Carol Keasley, Sacramento. Support. Indivisible Sacramento.

Malini Kumar from Fremont, strongly support SB 42.

Don Curry, Menlo Park, strong support.

Shannon Guice, San Francisco. Strong support.

Bev Lear, San Francisco. Strong support.

Deirdre Booker from San Francisco. And I am in strong support of SB 42.

Very, very strong support. Terry Moravitz, Mill Valley.

Amy Huey, Indivisible Resisters Contra Costa, in strong support.

Ida Egli, instructor, retired Santa Rosa Junior College. Also with the Democratic Alliance of Oakmont. In strong support.

Gus Pimanolis, retired professor at Santa Rosa Junior College. In strong support of this bill.

Gary Appell, Mill Valley. Strong support for this bill.

[Unintelligible] Oakland Montclair Presbyterian Church, Democracy Study Group. Strong support.

Carol Badger from San Francisco and California Clean Money in strong support.

Lawrence Abbott, Lathrop, California. Strong support.

Carla Kincid, Yoshikawa, San Francisco. This bill addresses one of the underlying causes of many things it will.

Let's just stick to your name and organization. Position, please. Thank you.

David Schmidt from Santa Rosa, strong support.

Alan Kilgore, resident of Sacramento County. Strong support.

Elizabeth Schmidt, a native born Californian. Strong support.

Shelnisa Bayless, nicknamed Sandy, retired federal employee in Santa Rosa. Strong support of SB42.

Hi. Karen Beck, representing the San Ral Valley Dem Club and the Tri Valley Dem Club in strong support. Thank you.

Linda DiMakel from Los Altos. Strong support.

Jim Davidson from Los Altos in support.

Bram Hewe from Water Creek representing the Democratic Valley, the Alba Valley Democratic Club. Thank you. And strong support.

Nancy Neff, representing the Unitarian Universalist Church of Palo Alto, which endorsed the bill. Thank you.

Elaine Elbisri, Palo Alto. Strong support.

Carol Cross, Redwood City. Strong support.

John Fioretta, on behalf of Santa Clara County, move to amend. Strong support.

Joe Ailey, Marsh Creek Democratic Club has endorsed. Strong support.

Catherine Lewis, San Francisco. Strong support.

Craig Dunkerley, Sunnyvale, California. Me too.

Jessica Eisenberg from Kensington. I'm a California clean money volunteer in support.

PJ Santos, Eisenberg in strong support.

Berkeley, California. Any other witnesses in the room want to add on as a. Me too. And support? Seeing none. We'll go ahead and move on to any primary witnesses in opposition. And you have two minutes.

Thank you. My name is David Bollock. Some of the things that were mentioned, but not really mentioned is about what adds on to this bill. I know it said that it's just to put it on the ballot, but what it does do, it does not allow any loan repayment from matching funds.

Now, we all know California is a blue state. We have a super majority in this Legislator, 75% of you are Democrats. I cannot see how this bill is not an attack on the opposition because many of the, many of the candidates that run.

I know especially in my district in the 40th Assembly District in the 27th Assembly District that the campaigns that Ran against the incumbents still sitting right now. They got their election started with loans to themselves.

Now forgive me for not knowing the election code that well because I do work a 72 hour job and everything I do appear is voluntarily on my own time.

So I don't know if this applies to actually Assembly and Senate races, but it also limits the amount of matching funds to 10 if I'm understanding it right because it was written in a way to me that was obfuscating. So forgive me if I'm wrong, but it looks like a, it only allows matching funds up to $10.

So each person has to give $10 and it may also allow the locality to say, well if you gave $100 we'll give you a $10 towards that, towards matching funds. There is so much political power in this room, in this state. The backers of this bill are big powerhouses.

The Afl, Cio, the nurse, all these witnesses that are Democrats from Democratic, different Democratic clubs. Looks like democratically funded. Yeah, I can't see this the attack of that. And also another thing that it does, it increases the fine. If there's money that was given that was not allowed. It's now it's $1 to $1 up to three times.

So with that I said my piece. I would ask for no vote, but I only know two of you are going to vote no. So thank you for listening.

Thank you so much. Is there anyone else in the room who would like to add on as a MeToo in opposition to this bill, seeing none. I'll bring it back to the Committee. Assemblymember Berman.

Thank you Chair Pellerin. I want to thank Senator Umberg for bringing this before every so often. This is my ninth year in the Assembly and you know, every couple of years a bill get gets introduced and I think dang, I wish I introduced that bill myself. And this is is absolutely one of those.

And I appreciate you adding me on as a principal co author to, you know, show my strong support for this effort. I know there are a bunch of folks from Palo Alto who are here today. I got my start in public service in Palo Alto back in 2012 running for the City Council.

And back then we had sort of informal agreement that you wouldn't raise money in more than $500 contributions and you wouldn't spend more than $35,000 total on your campaign. That was informal, it wasn't a rule. But pretty much everybody stuck by it.

And then four years later when I was running for the State Assembly, six very wealthy families in Palo Alto each spent $20,000 per family to try to influence the City Council elections in Palo Alto.

I mean, there's just been such an explosion in money in campaigns at the very local level, all the way up to the state and the federal level. And this won't restrict anybody's ability to do that.

But it gives cities the chance to decide whether or not they want to create a system to allow for an opportunity for more grassroots candidates to really kind of catch fire and get the support that they need to run credible campaigns. And I think that that's a really interesting kind of policy space. I know this isn't prescriptive.

It doesn't say exactly what the programs have to look like. It leaves it up to the local governments to decide what they want to do. But I think this is an area that we all should focus more on to research what other jurisdictions are doing in other parts of the country and adopt best practices in California.

Because I think the explosion of money in politics has really made it harder for candidates who aren't necessarily a part of the establishment or candidates who don't have a lot of personal wealth to run credible, competitive campaigns and be successful.

And this levels that playing field a little bit or gives the potential to level that playing field a little bit. And it is true, it was mentioned by opposition witness that, you know, we have a 3/4 majority of Democrats in the California Legislature.

It's important to note that we have that based on one of the fairest election systems in the country. Right. Unlike states like Texas and Florida that have rampant gerrymandering where, you know, the winner and loser of the race before the election ever happens.

In California we have an independent redistricting Commission where Republicans have as much say as Democrats do.

And we have a top two primary system that leads to some of the most competitive races in the country and gives the opportunity for any candidate, Republican or Democrat, the chance to have a real say as opposed to the politicians picking and choosing the winners by drawing the districts and the boundaries that they want.

So, you know, there's an opportunity for my colleagues in the other party to win races. I'd argue that you gotta get voters to vote for you. And Democrats have gotten 3/4 of districts in the Assembly and 3/4 of districts in the Senate to vote for Democrats. But it's a fair system. Everybody's got a chance.

And I think this Bill will make it an even more fair system. So happy to support the bill today.

Thanks, Assembly Member Tangipal.

Yes, thank you. I just have a very. Just simple plain English question. So this bill allows, gives the option to the voter to allow taxpayer funded dollars to fund campaigns.

So what this bill does is it puts it on the ballot.

And if the majority of Californians believe that cities should be able to establish their own form of public financing, they can do so whether it's taxpayer dollars, whether it's donations that are matched by other donations, there's a whole bunch of different modalities to how you might have different financing options.

So 1988 it was on the ballot. In 2010 it was on the ballot. And now in this time where I think a lot of people feel that there's fiscal irregularities, you know, the LAL reports that we're going to have deficits all the way up until 2028.

They've answered questions that we couldn't even vote on the same budget that we recently voted this week in three years simply because we won't have the rainy day fund available to us with the top 10 cities being in massive deficits.

Do you think this is something that in this time right now, voters are going to say that we would like taxpayer funded dollars to go towards campaigns?

Well, we're going to find out. I think we're going to find out should we be successful in putting on the ballot that we're going to find out where the majority of Californians, one, support it and then two, we're going to return local control to financing campaigns.

So if the city councils within your district, Assembly Member, they don't like it, or if the voters within those cities don't like it, they don't have to enact it. It's simply local control. With the over 400 charter cities in California, how come only five do it?

Well, I'm not an expert on those five cities or the other 300 some odd cities. That's illustrative of local control. If a city doesn't want to enact anything, they don't have to enact anything.

Okay, thank you, Assemblymember Bennett.

Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, occasionally. Another supporter called again.

That's, that's presumptive. So.

Occasionally big money in politics actually buys legislation. But far more often, big money in politics is blocking legislation. And we see that over and over again. And that's why I've been a strong supporter of this. And Mr. Lang came down and visited Ventura County as we tried to do public financing in Ventura County 20 years ago.

So I applaud the efforts of the Senator for continuing this effort to try to enable more places to have public financing.

But one of the things I think is important for us to point out is that in the places that have engaged in public financing, they have had significant breakthroughs in legislation that was being blocked by big money that was always making sure that the big money candidate was winning.

And when public financing came in, suddenly you had candidates that were able to be competitive enough to be to break that Logjam. And so we can't measure how much damage is being done in America by the blocking of good legislation from, from big money. So I strongly support this and I'd. Respectfully ask to be a co author.

Of this legislation as it moves forward. And I'd like to move the bill.

Thank you. We have a motion. And do we have a second? What's that? Second by Senator Stephanie and any other comments from the dais questions? Assemblymember Macedo.

Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, reading through this, I read it through multiple times just so I would understand it. And I have some very serious concerns. There are parts of it that I actually agree with when it comes to money from foreign nations and things like that.

But I can tell you as a candidate, I received a $12.50 contribution and, and I could tell you the name of that person. I can tell you I still talk to that person when they feel a certain type of way about things that are going to impact our district.

The same way I talked to somebody who wrote me a Max out check. Why is that? Because I know that $12.50 to that person meant more probably than the person who wrote me a $5,000 check without thinking twice.

And when I talked to that person of why they gave me $12.50, it was that they didn't have a lot of money, but they wanted me to know and the public to know in my reporting that they supported my campaign and my foundation and what I valued. They supported my values.

I also come from an area of California that is very it's interesting because I actually come from a relatively neutral district equal to Republicans and Democrats. So it'd be interesting to see how things like this would be funded.

But my main question is what would be the total cost of implementing a public financing or public campaign financing across California first? And then secondly, what would be the average cost at the local level of implementing something like this?

So because there is no specific modality and in fact, if there's no city that decides to enact it, then the cost is zero. So it depends on how many cities, if any decide that they want to have public financing.

But to your point, Assemblymember Macedo, that person who donated $12.50 to your campaign, who you remember, this empowers them. This actually increases their voice. So to the extent that you're responsive, and I'm glad you are responsive to that very small donor, this basically increases their power exponentially.

And so that's the whole purpose of allowing cities to decide whether they want to increase the power of those $12.50 voters or not.

So that actually takes me to my final question, and then I'm going to jump back up. If I were to ask that person if their money was going to a candidate or to a cause that had a very, very different platform than I did, they actually wanted to raise taxes.

This other candidate, that's what their money was going to. Their taxpayer dollars is going to a candidate that wants to raise taxes. And they disagree with that. How is that fundamentally fair to that person?

Right. So this doesn't require the taxpayer dollars necessarily go to any particular person. It doesn't necessarily require that there be a match is up to the local city to decide how they want to implement it and if they want to implement it.

So to that $12.50 voter, to the extent that their city says no, there's no concern to the extent that they support, for example, having some sort of a match, then they have a voice through their City Council to either exercise that voice and adopt it or to. Or to reject it.

Okay, it's perfect. You're leading my third and final question, which is then what oversight mechanisms are going to be in place to prevent. Because listen, I would love to believe that every City Council Member in every city in California is doing the right thing. I really would love to believe that.

But let's just say everybody has a bad day. What mechanisms are in place to make sure that if this is being spent on frivolous campaigns or candidates who maybe aren't as serious, what mechanism is there then for us who are voting on this and empowering them?

Granted, we are giving local control, but we're empowering them to do this, to make sure that this isn't going to happen.

So again, that's up to local entity to decide that. And of course there is oversight. I was a federal prosecutor back in the day and actually prosecuted corruption cases. So to the extent that there's a federal Department of Justice that cares about political corruption, that provides some sort of oversight.

Same thing with the California Attorney General, same thing with the District Attorney, same thing with city attorneys. So any city who enacts any sort of public financing or any financing mechanism, it's up to that city to go ahead and provide some sort of oversight.

If they don't, then the oversight of the District Attorney, the Attorney General, and to the extent the Department of Justice still cares about public corruption, they provide oversight.

I think that's just far too broad, if I'm being honest. There's not enough guardrails in place that if this does proceed forward, I really hope that if we're going to hand over this unbridled power, that it comes with some guardrails.

Because one thing that we see happen is we pass legislation out of Sacramento, we kind of see its way out of the door and then we're not checking back up on it. I would really urge more guardrails in place for something like this. I don't support this.

I'd love to sit down and talk with you, so maybe I can understand this better, but I just don't agree with taxpayer dollars going to campaign. So I'm sorry, I'm not gonna support today, but look forward to chatting with you about it.

And so if I might respond, Madam Chair, is that we're open. If there's some sort of guardrail that you might propose. We're open to that. We're open to making sure that whatever mechanism is adopted is done so with public's interest in mind to make sure that there are no aberrations that might, for example, skew the process.

Just as a side note, to the extent that folks believe that this is a partisan issue, Arizona had the most progressive public financing mechanism in the country. And in the Arizona model, I believe that majority of Republicans were elected certainly the statewide office. There were Republicans elected statewide office.

Unfortunately, the United States Supreme Court basically said that their public financing modality, which actually matched independent expenditures, was unconstitutional. And so thus it doesn't exist anymore.

But to the extent that whatever mechanism is in place benefits one party, that is to be determined by the voters themselves as to whether or not there's a benefit to one party or one candidate.

Thank you, Assembly Member Stephanie. Okay, I saw two hands over there. Now I'm not sure. Assembly Member Solache.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the author for bringing this. Actually, this is an interesting discussion. Just for a fun fact, I started elected office at the year at the age of 23 years old. I'm 44 now, so 22 years ago I was running for office at the age of 22 in 2003.

And it was like that at 23. And I think the most I raised that year total was $10,000. As a young school board Member candidate, obviously you know, not having a big war chest or a big network of friends, but those professors and friends that knew me and high school teachers to my local school board.

It was an interesting time. Obviously things have progressed and I've been able to enhance my network and folks that I know and being this is my seventh time being elected to office. I then ran for City Council and you know the state had the $5,500 at the time Max per contribution.

We the City of Lynwood, we actually changed it to $3,000 because we thought 3,000 was a little better than $5,500. Right. Someone can argue that's still too much, but that's better than $5,500 because you know, as one of your witnesses and I will have further discussions on other bills and other ideas that we have.

You know, we were so great at legislators, at passing laws, but we don't do it for ourselves. We do it for our local governments, but we don't want to do it for ourselves. But that's to be continued conversation.

I will be supporting of course this today, but it's just I want to add that fun fact of like when I started to now and then again the fact that I was able to vote on casting a lower amount of local government at local City Council. We are General all city, we're not a charter city Linwood.

But we were able to change that to change the dynamic and give other folks opportunity to do a Max per year contribution. And I say that because you know, as a young elected official was part of a network called the yo Young Elected official Network. And that's one of the things we all struggled with.

How do we folks are younger have a voice, right? Because you know, we can't compete with that retired person that has a different network. And for us of us, I have to have still work and then still serve in local public office as a part time job because it's not a full time job.

How do we balance that? So I think this discussion, I've heard it for many years and it's just now being a new Legislator. It's interesting to see that it could be a possibility and give give the California voters especially in a time where democracy is at stake.

And I think, I think that's the voices that I heard today with people here today. And so I think let the public decide and hopefully I would hope that local government would do the right thing. I am really intrigued by the Member from Tulare to see what those things that she's interested in learning.

I'm interested to discuss that because I also believe there's no cookie cutter approach to anything. Right. And that every city, every government, every county is different. So I am intrigued by her question and I'm looking forward to that discussion as well. But for today, I look forward to moving this forward.

And I was also to be a co author. Thank you.

Thank you. And I do want to take a moment to point out your number one fan in the room who's here today, and that is your father who's here with us. So we just want to welcome you. And now, Assembly Member Stefani.

Thank you, Chair Pellerin, and thank you to Senator Umberg for bringing this forward. I wasn't going to speak, but I am. I've benefited from public financing. I was on the Board of Supervisors in San Francisco. And in 2018 when I ran, I ran against a very well funded opponent who spent $1.2 million of his own money.

I raised 484,000. I was still able to win because I was known in a, in the neighborhood and I was someone who worked in the community for a long time. But that public financing, it wasn't easy. It wasn't just I was given money and I was just talking to my Chief of Staff.

It was definitely in the way that it happens in San Francisco is proportional to donations with a cap. And we had to prove, submit proof of each individual donor, prove that they live in sf. It was then audited and my campaign did not get a check until those guardrails and those measures were, were accomplished.

And, you know, there were times when there was just no way to make certain we would even have that money because we didn't know whether or not, you know, we didn't know how much we would get based on whether or not we were able to prove someone lived at the moment in time.

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that there are guardrails. So I see what you're saying. Assemblymember from Tulare. But with San Francisco and the way that we had to prove every single donation, there are guardrails in place. It's not just like they give money and it's not just like they give money to any campaign.

And also this idea that it's going to determine the makeup of a board, whether or not it's progressive or conservative or moderate in San Francisco, I don't think public financing really, it helps those who are being outfunded by people who have their own money or people that are going to donate in large amounts.

And it really helps the individual that has done the work, who's been in the community, who deserves a position on that Board of Supervisors. And, you know, when I ran in 2022, no one ran against me, so I didn't need public financing.

But it's something that I see is so valuable to those that are doing the work that deserve to be in places where they have influence and they might not have it if people can just write their own tickets to. And I'm very grateful for it.

So I felt compelled to speak up because in San Francisco, they make it very hard to get it is my whole point. And I think that's important to know because I see your concerns. You just don't want public tax dollars going to anyone for any cause. But you really have to.

And the way that we do it is you have to. There are guardrails in place to make sure they're just not giving money away. So anyway, thank you for bringing this forward. I will be supporting it.

And we're going back to Assembly Member Tangipa.

Just one more question, and I didn't know if you answered this prior to me getting so it sounds like a lot. And especially at the city levels, those are majority nonpartisan seats. Would this on the ballot measure open it up towards partisan seats too, including the Assembly and the Senate?

Well, it doesn't apply to legislative races, first of all. And secondly, it's really up to the local city. If they want to put a D or an R behind someone's name, I believe they can do so. I can ask the experts here, but that's. That's up to local city.

Yeah, that was. I was just trying to provide clarity on that. I just didn't know because majority of our local electeds are nonpartisan seats. They don't have a registration on their ballot on that one. I just didn't know if this truly would expand it towards this doesn't expand.

It nor contract it. 30 seconds. Okay, thank you.

Okay.

And we're back now to assign Member Bennett.

I just hope, hopefully in terms of the close, but, you know, we oftentimes have people saying we want to have local control. Local control. Local control. Except when they don't want to have locals do something that they don't want to do. This, this bill only does one thing. It gives the locals the option to do something.

Five charter cities have made this decision to do this because the law allowed them to do this. That's local Control. And we don't know whether there are five General Fund cities that are willing to do this because right now we have blocked them at the legislative level at the state.

We've blocked the local government from saying we think we can do it, we think we can do it right and we think our citizens support it. It. Let's see if that can happen. Seems hard to see why someone would argue against giving somebody, the locals, the control to make that decision about how they handle this particular issue.

Thank you.

Any other comments from Members or questions from the dais? Seeing none. Senator, you may close.

Well, thank you very much Madam Chair and Members. I appreciate the robust discussion. I'm particularly inspired by the army of folks that have come to see your government in action.

I don't know if there's anybody left to in Santa Rosa right now, but I'm going to let Senator Mcguire know that 50% of his district is actually here in the Capitol. The concerns that are raised are legitimate concerns.

Again to some Member of Bennett's Point and the other points that are made that this is simply allowing localities to make their own decision.

This is self determination to the extent that there are abuses, you know we, we are open to any sort of guardrail in the initiative which again has to be approved by the voters and then again approved by the locality should they decide to implement some alternative form of financing campaigns. And with that I urge an aye vote.

Thank you. Public financing programs are a promising tool for empowering voters in California. However, public financing programs are banned in all jurisdictions except for those charter cities due to that 37 year old ballot measure that was largely invalidated by the court.

So this bill simply gives voters the ability to decide whether they want to allow public campaign financing programs and sets important conditions for any such programs that are created. So I will be recommending support of this bill and I'd be honored to be added as a principal co author with that Secretary.

[Roll call]

No. That Bill is out five to two. Thank you so much. And before we move on to our final measure, let's open up the the call on our consent calendar and other measures so we can get those done before. So I'm going to lift the call on what do I do to the consent first? Yeah. Okay. I'm going to lift the call on item 2, SB249 by Senator Umberg. The current vote is 3 to 1, with the chair voting aye. Secretary, please call the absent Members.

[Roll Call]

That bill's up 5 to 2, and we now have the consent calendar. We're gonna open up the roll on that.

[Roll Call]

All right, so the consent calendar is out, and we will now move on to our final measure. Thank you. Yes, yes. Vice Chair Macedo.

Senator, if I may just really quickly. Since we last convened, a very special day happened. So I just want to make sure that we all join in. Wishing you a very happy late birthday.

Senator Laird. You hear that? One more. Happy birthday. Thank you so much.

It's the longest birthday celebration in Sacramento.

It truly is. I am. I am very blessed. Thank you so much. And thank you for your patience. Senator, you have item number five, SB408. You may begin when you're ready.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Committee Members have been running around among three different committees at the same time, but I managed to get here on time. Before you close, Sorry.

I'm here to present SB 408, which requires county election officials or the Secretary of State to contract with the Postal Service or its licenses to obtain the use of U.S. postal Service change of address data to ensure residency, confirmation and vote file maintenance. I was not expecting that this will be.

Presented to your Committee because I was very fortunate. This bill passed through the Senate Election Committee and the floor consent calendar. But I'm happy to present this to you today. For far too long, confidence in our electoral process has been declining.

One of the main concerns expressed by skeptics is whether or not the mail ballot system can truly trust it. Regardless of whether this lack of confidence is justified, we can all agree that it is not good for democracy when significant amounts of voters do not have trust in our election processes.

Currently, our voter rolls have large number of outdated registrations, including individuals who have moved out of state or region or passed away. This results in ballots being sent to unidentified or non existent recipients. I have received numerous calls from during the last 2024 election. What do I do with this palace?

I kept on reporting it, but I still receive. That is the reality right now. By requiring the use of U.S. postal Service change of address data, we can help mitigate these issues and ensure that we have cleaner voter rolls. According to the Senate Appropriations analysts, the fiscal impacts are minor and observable.

There is no opposition to SB 408 and it now passed, as I stated, unanimously through the Senate and through the consent calendar. Testifying in support of this bill is representative of the Elections Integrity Project. I appreciate for being here.

Thank you. We have a motion, but you have. We have a motion and a second, but you have two minutes. Okay, thank you.

My name is Colleen Britton. I'm with the Election Integrity Project California. One of the major reasons that faith and trust in our current election system is at an all time low nationwide is the indisputable evidence that voter rolls nationwide are notoriously poorly maintained.

It is especially critical in California which mails a ballot to everyone on the active voter rolls. Those rolls must be reliable and year after year our research has shown that they are not even close to being accurate.

In 2017, the election integrity Project California retained Judicial Watch to successfully sue the California Secretary of State, the larov, for violation of federal voter roll maintenance laws resulting in the cancellation of millions of ineligible registrations statewide from 2019 to the present.

In January 2021, Election Integrity Project California reported that more than 60,000 people were currently registered to vote in both California and Nevada. Thousands were mailed both ballots in both states for the November 2020 election and more than 3,500 appear to have voted unlawfully in that election.

According to our President Linda Payne, massive numbers of cross state registrations underscore the chronic voter list maintenance problems plaguing our country and the need to share this data across states. In June 2021, Election Integrity Project California issued a findings report that showed 1.8 million ineligible registrants still remained on the statewide voter rolls.

California rolls likely include deceased voters, those who have moved, some who are double registered and others ineligible to vote. It's no wonder that the faith and trust in our election process continues to be at an all time low.

SB408 mandates that the Secretary of State and or other election officials take the additional steps of utilizing the United States Postal Service National Change of Address List to reconcile their voter registration list, mail additional cards and remove those who are ineligible to vote when currently registered. We're currently registered.

SB 408 is a positive step in the right direction and we urge your aye vote on SB 408. Thank you very much.

Thank you so much. Anybody else in the room want to add their name and organization and your support for this measure?

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

Thank you. David Bollock. On behalf of informed Alhambra and taxpayer oversights for parents and students, we are in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support of SB 408? Seeing none. We'll now move on to any witnesses in opposition. Are there any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Anybody in the room who would just like to come to the MIC and state your name, organization and opposition to the bill?

I'm a retired community college teacher with clean money, but this would be separate 408. It seems to me that they already have the Eric program and a lot of states are for some reason dropping out of it. I think that the post office is. I have a lot of problems with my mail.

I'm not sure that that's the best place to turn this over to.

Thank you. Thank you. We'll now bring it to the dais, I believe as some Member Solache. Oh, okay. Okay. Anybody on the Committee have any questions or comments? Senator, Member Tongipa.

Good to see you. I just wanted to say thank you for bringing this forward. I know I was reading quite a bit of the data of what's happening in Michigan right now where they have about 105% more registered or 105% registered voters compared to the population of eligible voters there.

They've seen some laws that make it hard for them to remove inactive voters or people who have moved out of state and they have to keep them there. And they've seen or given reports too that spend a lot of money doing that. So I just want to thank you for being forward thinking and working in the system.

Thank you. It's good to see you.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments from Committee Members? Seeing none. We have a motion by Senator Macedo, a second by Tangipa. Senator, you may close.

Thank you. I don't know if I can improve this efficiency for cleaner, faster water roll maintenance as opposition person says. But I would be happy to add any better way because I thought about this. This bill has one flow. Right now, American people are most mobile people. They move so frequently. Maybe in 56 years.

I understand myself. I think I moved once in 10 years in average. Only that what I do is that when I move, what do I do first? First thing you do is change of address because you got to receive your mail.

But when you request, when you get a request from the Registrar of Voters rov, verifying your address with a postcard, very seldom, you know, people will reply to that. They Ignore. That's one of the things they ignore that.

So I think this postal Service database update because of voluntarily people when they move out or move in they automatically register there.

Only the flow of this bill might be that person would not register the heaven's address when they pass away because I do get the reports from people hey my mother passed away but still she's getting mail ballots. So I wonder how come ROV does not have a collaboration between the. What's the Department of. What is it?

Department of Health Services and yes they do. County elections officials do get husbands.

I would strongly encourage the Department of Health Services of each county each week at least to update. So this Bill is requiring to update the country updating on a weekly basis. Thank you. By the ROV with the US Postal Service. I urge your aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you. So you know California. I will attest to the fact that California's election officials work diligently to maintain voter registration lists in full compliance with federal and state laws. But voter list maintenance can be challenging in part because few voters notify their elections official when they move.

So I support efforts to examine other tools to help with keeping voter rolls up to date. Which is why I have authored legislation that sought to update the state's toolbox for voter file maintenance. But we need to recognize that those additional tools also come with additional costs. And county elections budgets are stretched thin as it is.

In fact, this bill is expected to cost millions of dollars per election cycle to implement. So I will support this bill. But I also want to underscore the importance of making sure that county elections officials have the resources they need to implement this bill. So Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

SB 408 by Choi. The motion is do pass and be re referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out 6 to 0 and it's great to see you. Thank you so much. Is there anything else that needs to be opened or. Everything's good. We need to add on which bill. Okay. We're going to go ahead and add on for our absent members.

[Roll Call]

I believe everyone's been able to add on. Thank you so much. This concludes the items on our Committee's agenda for today. The meeting is adjourned. Thank you all.

Happy birthday again.