Senate Standing Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments

The Senate Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendment will come to order. Good morning and welcome to our Committee. Today we have 13 measures on our agenda before we we do not have a quorum to establish, so we will start as a Subcommitee.

I see that we do have our first author up and we will go ahead and allow Assembly Member Stefani with AB699 to present when you are ready.

Thank you Madam Chair and Members. Today I'm presenting AB 699, a Bill focused on a simple but powerful goal ensuring voters have access to clear, accurate and understandable information which when deciding on local tiered tax and bond measures current law requires jurisdictions to fit complex financial disclosures into a 75 word ballot label.

This might work for simple flat rate taxes, but it completely breaks down when you're talking about tiered tax structures or multi phase bond financing. Let me show you exactly what I mean. I have this chart here on this easel and this is a sample from a parcel tax to fund emergency medical and disaster response services.

You can see just how detailed the rate structure is. These rates vary depending on land use, acreage and even exclude exemptions for low income seniors and disabled residents. Now look at the red text on the left and that's how much of this information would need to be cut just to meet the 75 word limit.

So even if a jurisdiction tries to be transparent, current law forces them to oversimplify, strip out meaningful distinctions and reduce everything to averages or projections, numbers that may not reflect what a voter, an individual voter, will actually pay. The result is confusion among voters. So AB 699 offers a simple good government fix.

It allows jurisdictions with complex measures to direct voters, to direct voters to the Voter Guide, where there's a space for clear, plain language explanation of exactly what the measure does, how long it lasts, what it funds, and what the tiered tax or bond will cost that individual voter who is reading up on that particular measure.

And let me be clear, this Bill does not remove information. I've heard various things throughout the process about what this Bill will do. This Bill does not remove information. It places it in the space designated for transparency, the Voter Guide.

While keeping the ballot label concise and readable, this is a practical solution to a real and urgent problem. It improves transparency, increases voter confidence, and ensures that complex but important measures don't fail because the ballot itself is the barrier. We've received helpful feedback on how to improve clarity around bond repayment language.

While there isn't consensus yet, we're committed to continuing the conversation, exploring amendments moving forward and with me today, I have JT Herrich Mack, Policy Director at the Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California, and Rebecca Killeen, legislative advocate for the Coalition for Adequate School Housing.

You have two minutes. Please begin.

Good morning. My name is J.T. Herrichmack on behalf of the Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California, representing nonprofit affordable affordable housing developers across the nine counties of the San Francisco Bay Area. Local bonds are one of the most important sources of revenue for the construction and preservation of affordable housing in our communities.

We need to be building about 120,000 affordable units each year to address our housing crisis. And while we have more than doubled the amount of affordable housing we produce in the last five years, we're still only hovering around 12% of what we need to build each year.

The solution to unlocking more homes is multifaceted, but a major component is funding. While state and federal dollars help, they are bolstered significantly by the presence of local funding. Local sources help make an application for other funding that much more competitive bringing homes to the working people that make our communities strong.

Transparency is vital to sustain the ongoing commitment and support of the voters that support affordable housing and A Confused Voter Votes No. Voters are confused by the relatively recent changes that the ballot label requirements.

In 2022, when Berkeley's Measure L was voted on, nearly half of the 75 words had to do with a convoluted best guess estimate for bond repayment. Only three words create affordable housing describe the potential uses of the bond for voters that were worried about housing.

These descriptions are not easy to understand in such an abbreviated space, and that 75 word limit makes it impossible to describe exceptions to any levied tax. For example, if we wanted to create an exemption for low income seniors, in part due to this confusion, Measure L fell short of the 2/3 vote that it needed by only 7%.

We don't believe that it serves the ideal of transparency to provide information without context that we know confuses voters. We also want to be able to have community supported housing that doesn't tax those that may be stressed about paying their own mortgage.

AB 699 allows for a bond or tiered tax to make better use of the Voter Information Guide, which has space to accurately explain how a voter may or may not be affected by the proposed bond. Thank you. I respectfully ask for your aye vote

Good morning. Rebecca Kaline on behalf of the Coalition for Adequate School Housing, representing school districts on school facilities issues. Local bonds are the primary source of revenue to construct, repair and upgrade school facilities. Schools are implementing the new transitional kindergarten grade level.

We're addressing the need for student and workforce housing and we are making essential health and safety repairs, seismic upgrades and updating our facilities to meet the educational needs of today's students. All of this requires funding, most of which comes from local bonds with some supplemental state funding through the school facility program.

Voters are confused by the new ballot label requirements which simply do not make sense for bonds. Tax rates fluctuate annually to pay principal and interest on bonds due to changes in the economy, property values, project schedules and more. In some cases, a bond is an extension of an existing tax rate with no increase to voters taxes.

We should provide accurate information that voters can understand and the best place to do that is is in the Voter Information Guide which has space to explain how a voter may or may not be affected by the proposed bond.

Left unfixed, we will see a widening gap between the haves and the have nots where some school districts continue to pass bonds and improve their facilities and others, especially low wealth districts, are not able to do so and our students are the ones who will suffer. Thank you for your support.

Thank you. Excuse me. We'll now hear in support for anyone else in support of the room for AB 699. Please approach name and organization.

Good morning. Graciela Castillo-Krings here on behalf of All Home and Enterprise Community Partners in strong support.

Kelly Brooks on behalf of the Urban Counties of California and the California State Association of Counties. Here in support.

Andrew Dawson, The California Housing Partnership in support.

Michelle Gill on behalf of California Association of School Business Officials and o n behalf of my colleagues at Association of California School Administrators. Thank you.

Sierra Cook with the San Diego Unified School District in support and also on behalf of our colleagues at the Riverside County Office of Education in support.

Sebastian Torres with Pinnacle Advocacy on behalf of the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials in support.

Good morning. Mike Monaghan on behalf of the State Building Trades in support.

Madam Chair Nicolo Deluca on behalf of The City of Oakland in support. Thank you.

Thank you. We will now hear from any of those in opposition to the measure.

Good morning. Madam Chair and Member Amy Garrett on behalf of California Association of Realtors in respectful opposition to this measure. While we share the goal of full transparency for voters when considering local bond measures, we differ on how that might best be achieved.

Namely, we would hope for an expansion of the ballot statement rather than removal of the information to be put on a separate voter guide where voters are less likely to see it. Thank you.

Anyone else in opposition to AB699

Trent Lang, California Clean Money Campaign not in opposition, but we have been working with the author about our concerns with the way that the current language refers voters to the ballot.

We're very optimistic that we'll be able to reach a solution and I'm very grateful to the author and the sponsors for working with us so that we don't have to oppose it in the future. Thank you.

Thank you. Savannah Jorgensen with the League of Women Voters of California just echoing trends concerns about transparency but also echoing that. We really appreciate the openness of the sponsors and the author working with us on amendments and we hope we can reach a solution. Thank you.

Thank you to all those who issued either support or opposition today. We will now bring it back to Committee Members for any comments, comments or questions. Dr. Choi, thank you Chair.

Since I'm the only other member on the dais, I guess it's my turn. I appreciate your author's intent to provide more voter information on the very usually very complicated tax measures.

Tax bonds or bond measures are typically involving sizable amount of money that should be raised through taxation and on the label 75 words that's in print and your bill is directing since the tiered bond measures will require a lot more explanation to do rather than limited space.

So therefore refer see county voter guide for detailed tax rate information simply just to find out more information.

Typically I think that you are referring to online when printed guys when we receive average person typical average person is likely to make an assessment of what this bond is based upon explanation given on the printed, you know material rather than going to the computer trying to find so honest and clear concise information as much as possible.

And for further information refer to online photo guide can be done but totally not the labeling clearly and just simply see the photo guide online. This is sounds your explanation sounds like it's not limiting transparency but it is not providing as much information as possible given the situation. So for the average person this is not really transparency.

So I'm very concerned. And then as you know 2019 very identical bill was vetoed by Governor and this is a reattempt. I don't think I can support the bill as is. Thank you.

Thank you Dr. Choi. So I will just you know ask the author would encourage you to work with those who had some concerns today as they issued in Committee.

But I do appreciate the simplifying here the work that you've done to expand just transparency for the local tax and bond measures and just really encourage the continued work as this Bill should this Bill get out of Committee today, but I just want to thank all those who are able to testify here in support and again, making sure that there are the concerns moving forward, if you're able to address those.

But I will allow you to close.

Thank you Madam Chair, and thank you, Senator Choi for those comments. I greatly appreciate them. And I just want to make sure and reiterate what I've said in the prior committee where I presented this, that this the voters will still know, on the ballot that this is a tax or a bond.

It simply directs them to the voter guide, which they didn't know before, to go to the voter guide and let on these tax measures that there would be more information there, and this is just clear.

But if you want to know how this measure affects you based on your income, based on your property value, this will give them the information they need. And people that are typically prone to not vote for taxes will probably still not vote for taxes or bonds.

But the people that care deeply about the schools, the safety of their roads, affordable housing, and might want to look into it more in terms of how will it affect them personally.

This measure simply directs them to the voter guide for the explanation you see here in the red to understand how exactly it will affect them that individual vote as they are making their decisions.

So I definitely respect those comments and we will continue to work with those that have raised concerns about how we are directing people to the voter guide, but I believe in this bill. I believe that it is transparency at its core. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote when it comes to it.

I will ask do we have a motion on AB699? Given that we do not have a motion, we will allow other members to get here.

Thank you.

We will now move to file item 4, AB950 by Assembly Member Solache. Please begin when you're ready.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. First and fore, I want to thank your office and the amazing staff that works in this Committee. Members, I am proud to present AB 950, which seeks to update the current laws surrounding disclosures for billboard political ads.

AB 950 is a product of collaboration between the bill's two sponsors, the California State Outdoor Advertising Association and the California Clean Money Campaign. Current requirements, while intended to increase transparency, often have the unintended consequences of causing very long and difficult to read disclosures.

AB 950 will implement various space saving measures and visual improvements to make sure that billboards remain an effective and affordable advertising medium. With these updates, billboard disclosures laws will strike a balance between transparency and practicality to prevent disclosures from becoming a visual burden and keep billboard messaging impactful.

As I introduce my witnesses, it makes me happy to have both industry and advocates working together to make a good legislation. Of course, they are working with a good author as well. With me today representing the California State Association is Audrey Ratajczak, and representing the California Clean Campaign is Trent Lange.

You each have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and Members. Audrey Ratajczak on behalf of the California State Outdoor Advertising Association, and we're here to express our strong support for AB 950. The Outdoor Advertising Association is all of the billboard operators in the state and they have 90% of all the billboard signs throughout California.

AB 950 provides a much needed and balanced update to political advertisement disclosure requirements as they apply to outdoor advertising, but particularly billboards. While existing law rightly aims to ensure transparency by requiring disclosures of advertisement sponsors, its application to billboard formats in the current version, current law has led to unintended and problematic consequences.

Specifically, under the current regulations, it can result in some disclosures occupying up to half of the advertisement space, especially when the top contributors must be listed in large text formats. This crowds out the primary message of the advertisement and undermines both the readability and effectiveness and ultimately reducing the utility of billboards as a tool for political speech.

AB 950 offers a thoughtful fix and it allows for the use of recognized abbreviations for contributor names, replaces unnecessary repetitive legal language with concise alternatives, and allows us to use committee ID numbers to direct a link to find that information online with the ID number. These changes preserve the spirit of transparency while also enhancing legibility and communication efficiency. So for these reasons, we're here in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Trent Lange, President of the California Clean Money Campaign. We're proud now to co-sponsor AB 950. We're very grateful to the author for working with us and the sponsors as well, and for the work of this Committee. Transparency in political advertising is crucial for our democracy.

That's why we sponsored bills to ensure clear disclosure of top funders of ballot measure and independent expenditure ads, starting with the California Disclose Act, AB 249, in 2017. We followed those bills with bills to perfect the disclosure format for other types of ads, including online ads, petitions, and text messages, all of them skillfully authored by Members of this Committee.

The one major ad format that disclosure formatting wasn't really tuned for in the first place was billboards and other large print ads like yard signs. Current formatting disclosure requirements often force their disclosures to be too long for the format, taking unnecessarily large amounts of space and making the top funders hard to read.

AB 950 solves this problem to make billboard disclosures shorter and clearer by shortening the independent expenditure disclaimer from the current legalese 15 words to just the five word, not paid for by candidate, allowing ads that show the top funders to just show the committee number paying for the ad rather than the long and sometimes misleading committee names.

Allowing approved abbreviations and admission of redundant wording and funder names to make them clearer. Even better, AB 950 improves readability by placing the not paid for by candidate disclaimer first, so people will see it and so the top funders are always in a consistent place at the end of the disclosure. Removing most underlining, bolding the top funder names, requiring top funders to be shown on a single horizontal line when possible, which also improves readability.

With these improvements, voters will get shorter but clearer and more accessible disclosures, making AB 950 a worthy billboard disclose act. So again, we really appreciate working with the sponsors and the Assembly Member and this Committee and respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any others in support of AB 950? Name and organization, please. Do we have any who wish to speak in opposition? All right, seeing none. We will bring it to the Committee for discussion or comments. Dr. Choi.

I have a question. I didn't find anything regarding the other than billboard or any other, you know, television ads not paid for by the candidate and also top contributors. But nowadays we see a lot of campaign through texting. Does the texting involved in your bill, but how is it dictating?

Because texting takes up is a relatively short message and trying to tell who the candidate is, and when you try to require... I mean it is so obvious if for Steven Choi then people will understand I paid for it. If somebody else, you paid for my then your name has to be released in the texting message as well?

I can answer that. So text messages were covered by AB 201 in 2019, authored by the Chair, as a matter of fact. That does have a lot of disclosures you want. However, sometimes they are a little bit overly long, and some of this bill's shortenings will apply to text messages also.

It will allow the committee paying for the ad to shorten the name of the top contributors in text messages, on TV ads, wherever. Those approved abbreviations are allowed anywhere, as is the shortening of the 15 word disclaimer for independent expenditures, just not paid for by candidate. So it's focused on billboards and yard signs and to a lesser extent smaller print ads. But it also should improve the shortness of the disclaimers in other formats as well.

And Dr. Choi, I will also echo what Trent just said. Yes, we did a lot of work on text message disclosing through AB 201, which, you know, just want to make sure that that was made aware for the public.

Yeah. For example, if you say paid for by XYZ, can people understand what does it really mean? Does it present any meaningful message?

Well, that's why these, the Disclose Act always requires the top contributors of $50,000, the three top contributors of $50,000 or more to be displayed. Although text messages, for space reasons, it's only top one that's required. So people will. For ads for ballot measures and paid for by independent expenditures, people will always see at least the top one to three contributors. Because you're right, the committee name sometimes what does that really, what does that really mean.

Takes up unnecessary space and more confusing, you know.

And that's why in this bill, if top funders are shown and also in AB 201 for text messages, just the number of the committee can be shown if there are top contributors. So people can look up the committee if they wanted to, but they don't have to have the whole long, long name. We agree with that.

Yeah. Obviously, your bill is good for more transparency and the clarity, so I'll be in support.

Thank you. Thank you. And Chair, may I answer also to Senator? And Senator, I think that's part of our reasoning of bringing this bill to the Committee for transparency and just really highlighting the top contributors to a given campaign.

And you know, I will jump in and just say thank you for the work that you've done on this bill. I think it's a very worthy bill, and I love to be added as a co-author as well moving forward. But I would love to give you the opportunity to close.

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. And to the Committee, again and again, I can't say thank you to the Committee staff. John Duncan in my office is amazing. He's been working really well with the Committee and has kept me abreast of all the changes we've had to make. But at the end of the day, I represent a district that's full of freeways.

710 Freeway, the 105 Freeway, 605. And just driving through the freeways, I always see the billboards, right? And it's like I can't read fast enough because I'm, you know, as a political junkie, I want to read who's paying for it, not paying for it. And sometimes the disclosure is just so much. That when this bill idea came to our office, I was loving the idea. Obviously, I give a reflection of my district, but obviously the State of California.

As you're driving from LA to Sacramento for a given reason, you see a lot of political billboards, especially in the season of campaigns. I think this transparency part is going to be really add to the transparency of the community to read who's funding these ads because sometimes, you know, the messaging could be either support or not support. But it's important that we all know who's funding these campaigns as a whole. So I just thank you all for the consideration today, and I ask for an aye support. Thank you.

Thank you. So do we have a motion on AB 950? Oh, when we do have quorum, I will note that Dr. Choi will move the bill. But thank you so much, and appreciate your time and effort.

Thank you, everyone.

I see that we have our next author in the room. Item number two, AB 789 by Assembly Member Bonta.

Thank you, chair and Committee Members. I introduced AB 789, in response to the continued escalation of political violence targeting elected officials, candidates, our families and our staff. As public servants, we willingly sacrifice much to serve, including time with our families and a measure of personal privacy.

However, there is one thing we should never be asked to sacrifice, which is our sense of safety or the safety of those closest to us. I've certainly personally experienced threats. I once stood in my front yard and received a text message that said, you look great there.

It wasn't from a number that I knew and it wasn't something that I could control. And I think many of us have experienced that kind of level of lack of safety. Sadly, this is not unique.

It's not unique to people in the Legislature, people who are sitting in our city councils, people who are sitting in our county as county representatives, or any public office. And it's certainly not unique to those who also experience a sense of not feeling safe as they seek office as candidates.

We've witnessed in recent times, additionally, the incredible sadness and tragedy of assassination attempts and actual assassinations of two Minnesota state lawmakers and their spouses. A 2023 study by California Women's List found that 42% of women experienced stalking at least once while they were campaigning. Nearly one in five reported it happening frequently or very frequently.

This rate is 15 times higher than what men report experiencing. And this disparity is even more pronounced for women of color. Nearly 55% reported incidents and 53% of LGBTQ women reported frequent harassing or stalking incidences.

AB 789 builds on a Bill that I had in a prior year and now eliminates the $10,000 lifetime cap on the use of campaign funds for elected officials, candidates, families, Members and staff security expenses through January 1, 2029. Beginning January 1, 2029 a $10,000 per calendar year cap will apply.

All expenses, just to be clear, must still be directly related to the duties of running for office or holding office and must be properly documented and reported in campaign filings. Candidate and elected official safety is not a partisan issue. It is a shared reality that has already received broad bipartisan support.

You will now hear testimony from Audrey Ratajczak representing Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer. Thank you again and chair and Members of the Committee.

Thank you. Good morning again Chair and Members Audrey Reticek from Cruise Strategies on behalf of Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer. And here today in strong support of AB 789, by Assembly Member Bonta and really thank her for bringing this much needed legislation forward.

This Bill provides necessary changes in law to protect the safety of elected officials and their families. And as the Assemblymember stated, due to her great work over the last few years, the cap was increased modestly. But still, this isn't enough, especially in the current political climate.

The safety risks faced by public officials today are real and growing. Elected officials often serve in highly visible and sometimes polarizing roles, making them vulnerable to targeted harassment, threats and violence.

Ensuring that we they have flexibility and resources to proactively protect themselves, their families and their staff is not only reasonable, but it's essential to public service and democratic engagement.

As an elected official for over two decades, DA Spitzer and his family have experienced numerous concerning threats, including a stalker that has shown up at his home multiple times. Throughout his career he has had to implement a myriad of necessary security protections that far exceed the current cap.

So for these reasons, the Orange County District Attorney's Office is in strong support of AB 789 and urges your support today. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any others in the room who wish to testify in support of AB 789.

Good morning. Johnnie Pina with the League of California Cities and strong support. Thank you.

Is there, do we have any witnesses in opposition to AB 789. Seeing none, we will bring it back to the Committee for discussion or comments. Dr. Choi.

Yeah. I can understand your reason for proposing unlimited amount of campaign money can be used for candidate security. In light of the fact that we have seen recent violent acts on elected officials. And then also the District Attorney from Orange County came out here to testify his own personal experience.

The same area that I come from Orange County, I can understand his side. So any legitimate money being spent on the candidates, on security measures, I can understand. And I understand your previous Bill allowed to increase up to 10,000. And this Bill is removing the cap, right.

It's removing the cap temporarily until 2029.

Okay. That is one of the questions why unlimited amount should be allowed now through this Bill is justified. Why from 2029 that the danger disappears and this Bill will bring it back to 10,000.

I think that there are some unique circumstances that are happening right now.

And we wanted to be able to create an opportunity for there to be an ability for people and individuals, either candidates or elected officials, sitting elected officials, to be able to provide the resources that they need for security in the form of home security, but also personal security that they might need to have as they go to different events.

You know, this last several weeks, I went to, had the opportunity to go to several parades and several rallies. And if I had wanted to be able to have security there, personal security to be able to ensure that I would be have a greater sense of security that could have cost me $10,000 right there.

And this Bill applies to not only individuals who are candidates and elected officials, but also staff Members and family Members.

And so I think in this moment in time, when the level of vitriol and political hate and rhetoric is at this point actionable and demonstrated to be actionable by people who take into account the level of hate that is happening and decide to take incredibly awful actions on elected officials and candidates.

It made sense to be able to allow for an unlimited cap for a limited period of time and then to move to a model of having a yearly cap of $10,000 a year. Given the number of incidents that any one candidate or any one elected official might seek to be able to implement safety services around.

Essentially, I think your idea is agreeable because if I spend my money for my own candidate, you know security purposes, it will just drain down my real money for real campaign to get my name out. So it is a judgment of the candidate how the money will be spent.

But some people may not have that kind of limitation Because in my case I never had any sufficient campaign money. I would never thought about my hiring my own security guards. So your explanation is not clear after three years why sunset had to be removed, the danger may escalate more instead of reducing.

That was my first question and second question is that this security money can be spent for hiring your own relatives as well.

No, it cannot. It cannot be used. There's a limitation that.

But it does allow in law relatives, doesn't it?

We received technical assistance from the FPPC on this and were very clear in outlining that campaign funds could not be used for safety services that applied to relatives.

So if this law changes FPPC regulation will have to apply comply with your regulation.

This Bill was advised we received technical assistance from the FPPC and therefore we included in this Bill language that very much precludes individuals who are family Members to be able to receive.

So did you remove that in law relatives as well.

That is I didn't remove it. It was never a part of the Bill and we are following the recommendation of the FPPC to not have safety services.

Very clearly you cannot have family Members are prohibited.

Are they allowed or not?

Can you say very clearly so my side up to cousin.

Those are family Members sir would be precluded from this Bill.

Is there any person expertise?

Through the Chair, I would allow if we have a FPPC representative, if they'd like to come forward to clarify the question.

Hello, Erica Boyd from the FPPC. So, this says that security expenses do not include payments to a relative within the third degree of consanguity—consanguinity. Immediate family though is who it applies to and immediate family in the act is defined to include a spouse or domestic partner or dependent children living in the house.

Sorry, but he's trying to get clarification on whether or not you can use funds to be able to pay for security services provided by family members.

In law side.

And the answer to that is no.

No. Security expenses do not include payments to a relative within third degree of consequence.

So, you cannot—I cannot use my security money for to hire in laws for my security guards.

Correct.

That's not in here.

But the Bill doesn't clearly state.

It, sir, it clearly does state that.

It doesn't.

Any further questions or comments...? Thank you. So, I will just thank the author for the work that you've done in previous sessions to address this.

And you know, as you stated, public service should never be about sacrificing our own health wellbeing, as well as our staff and constituents that do attend these public events that we do have.

And so, I am in support of the Bill today and certainly, you know, understand that we will have to continue working on this in subsequent years. But if you'd like to close.

Thank you. I just want to point to the analysis written by this Committee on page two. It clearly indicates in Section five, statement D that it excludes payments for guns made to a relative.

And that is part of the legislation as well. This Bill, I think, acknowledges the moment in time that we are in right now with, since the passage of the last measure on this signed by the Governor, January 6th, this happened.

Legislators have been assassinated, and our resources have diminished in our ability to provide safety for people who are elected and people who are candidates. With that, I respectfully request an aye vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you. We will wait when we have quorum to motion. So, moving in file order, I know we have Assemblymember Avila Farias who's been waiting, but I do have Assemblymember Addis who's file Item 3, AB 808. Please begin when you are ready.

Thank you Madam Chair and Members, today I'm here to present AB808 as you mentioned which would aid in modernizing campaign finance and lobbying reporting. Systems to improve efficiency, accessibility and data analytics for both regulators and the public.

The California Automated Lobbyist and Campaign Contribution and Expenditure Search System, which we all know of as Cal Access, has provided public access to campaign finance and lobbying data since 2000. However, after 25 years, the system is outdated and operating on an unsupported platform that limits updates and lacks modern data analytics capabilities.

I think anyone who has interfaced with Cal Access would recognize the need for updating and so does our Secretary of State in consultation with the Fair Political Practices Commissioner FPPC. Together they are rebuilding out the Cal Access Replacement System or cars, a new filing system designed to enhance accessibility and efficiency.

So as part of the transition there are technical updates to the Political Reform act that are needed. Currently, the PRA are planning Political Reform act is structured around form based disclosures which has shaped Cal Access into a more static form driven system limiting its capability.

And the PRA requires electronic and paper based filings that hinder the transition to an entirely electronic system. So AB808 would amend the PRA to ensure that the requirements and procedures for filing will work cohesively with the new system by doing a couple things.

Eliminating the outdated option to file reports by fax and adding clear language and definitions to standardize how reports should be submitted to ensure consistency and compliance statewide. We also are clarifying that independent expenditures or ies must be verified in both routine and semiannual and pre election filings. So both routine, semiannual and pre election filings.

Joining me today are Tim Cromarty on behalf of the Secretary of State, Dr. Shirley Weber and Lindsey Nakano, Senior Legislative Counsel at the FPPC. And then we have a couple of technical witnesses in the audience. Should there be technical questions, please begin when you're ready.

You have two minutes each.

Madam Chair and Members Tim Cromartie on behalf of Secretary of State Shirley Weber, co sponsoring the measure with the Fair Political Practices Commission. AB 808 is designed to modernize campaign finance law by aligning outdated provisions with current technology and practices.

The Bill prepares state and local filing systems for smoother transition to cars, the California Automated Reporting System, which will replace our legacy Cal Access platform. These updates support the broader goal of making campaign finance data more accessible, accurate and timely for the public, regulators as well as the regulated community.

Our key objectives with this legislation are to modernize our terminology and filing processes, establishing consistency across jurisdictions and clarity for timely reporting. These new requirements in the measure will not be triggered until the appropriate technology infrastructure is in place to support them.

All proposed changes will go into effect upon the certification of CARS and the Secretary of State's office is committed to working closely with the FPPC and all stakeholders to support the successful implementation of these provisions. Respectfully ask for your high vote.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Members. I'm Lindsey Nakano, Senior Legislative Counsel with the Fair Political Practices Commission. Very pleased to co sponsor AB808 with the Secretary of State's office and under the leadership of Assemblymember Addis. AB808 is a straightforward Bill. Historically, campaign finance and lobbying reporting was designed around paper or a form based system.

The Cal Access replacement system is currently in development and will be fully electronic and data driven to facilitate the development of that system.

AB808 transitions relevant sections of the Political Reform act away from this form based and paper based reporting terminology and makes other conforming adjustments and updates in service of the requirements for the development of this new system.

This is an important Bill that will assist the Secretary of State's office as it continues its process progress on the new Calaxis reporting system. Thank you to this Committee for your time today and to Assembly Member Addis for your leadership.

Do we have anyone else in the room who wishes to testify in support of AB808? Seeing none. Do we have any witnesses in opposition of AB808? Seeing none. We will bring it back to the Committee for discussion or comments. No. Okay. We will move it to allow the author to close.

When we have a quorum, we will be sure to move for a motion. Thank you. Thank you. All right, let's go ahead and move to our next item on file. Item number five. We have Assembly Bill 1079 by Assemblymember Avila Farias.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. I'm pleased to present AB 1079. 1079 would eliminate the automatic stay in cases involving the California Voting Rights Act, and the Fair Maps Act. Nearly 25 years ago, the California Voting Rights Act was enacted to give historically underrepresented communities a real voice in our democracy.

Not to be confused with the federal counterpart of the CVRA prohibits at large election systems from impairing the ability of protected classes to elect candidates of their choices. In short, it looks to ensure that all minority communities enjoy voice at the table.

Yet today, even after the courts ruled that election system violates the law, the local jurisdictions can delay compliance simply by filing an appeal and prolonging injustice and silencing voters of color. AB 1079, ends the loophole going forward. This Bill requires court decisions protecting voting rights to take effect without unnecessary delay.

AB 1079, will make sure that justice is not indefinitely delayed and that people of color are fully represented in our electric process. Thank you.

Do you have any witnesses testifying support today. No, I don't. Is there anyone wishing to testify in support of AB 1079. Seeing none, any of witnesses in opposition of AB 1079. Okay, we will move it back to our Committee then for dialogue or comments. Dr. Choi.

Yeah. I have a question. Why this election procedure and clarity and lawsuits of appealing process anything to do with the always bring in to me irrelevant factor such as disadvantaged communities, the rural areas. Are they really relevant issues with this filing of appeals in the trial court.

Senator, I'm not sure I understand you're. Are you making a statement or asking a question.

Why certain areas, certain disadvantaged group that you mentioned has to do with at large voting and method county is sued and the appeal process that has to should not be practiced as is to stay until it's finalized.

Basically, as I indicated in my presentation, I'm trying to clean up the legislation from 25 years ago that we discovered there is a loophole in there that when communities are asked to move forward and follow the law that this loophole the state orders allow individuals to indefinitely stay in the status and not transitioning from at large elections to district elections.

And so that was not the spirit of the law intended 25 years ago. And so we're simply trying to tidy up the law to make sure that you know, the California Voting Rights act is into play when it is asked to transition for communities.

I mean sounds like this is a more judicial system and nothing to do with the election and disadvantage and for disadvantaged communities, et cetera.

It's intermingled together because it is a law and of course stay orders that it triggers an election process when somebody or a legal process that has to be challenged through a legal system. So they're intertwined together. They don't operate independently of each other.

Do you have any further questions for the author?

I will stop there.

Thank you. Dr. Choi. I will just say thank you for the work that you're doing. You know, we should not delay any justice for our marginalized underserved communities across our state. Certainly appreciate the Bill in front of us and will be supporting. Would you like to close.

Thank you. I appreciate everyone's time and just ask respectfully asking for an aye vote. We will motion when we have a quorum.

We will move to our next item on file, AB 1164, by Assemblymember Ransom. Please begin when you are ready.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Committee Members. Thank you very much for the opportunity to present Assembly Bill 1164, regarding the elections and constitutional amendments. I'd like to start by thanking the Committee staff for their work on this Bill and to say that we will be accepting the Committee's amendments outlined in the Committee analysis.

As we know, voting is a fundamental right. The California Voter Bill of Rights currently outlines key protections for our voters, including the right to cast a ballot, request assistance, report election fraud, and vote in a language besides English.

The Voter Bill of Rights also affirms voters' rights to a new ballot if voters make a mistake, but it does not specifically lay out common circumstances that warrant a replacement ballot. This has led to an inconsistency in how the right is enforced at polling locations throughout our state.

Clarifying this law by providing more specific—specificity—will foster greater understanding of the rights for both our voters and the election workers. In order to address the deficiency in current law, this Bill lays out specific circumstances that warrant a replacement ballot for our voters. Overall, this Bill encourages a more transparent electoral process.

And by clarifying these provisions in the Bill, it helps to standardize replacement ballot practices across jurisdictions to strengthen voter confidence and clarity.

With me today, I have, as witnesses, Mr. Tim Cromartie, the Deputy Secretary for Legislative Affairs for the Secretary of State, Dr. Shirley Weber, and Ms. Savannah Jorgensen, the Public Policy and Organizing Manager for the League of Women Voters. And with that, I'm going to pass it over to Mr. Cromartie to begin. Thank you.

Certainly. You each have two minutes. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members, Tim Cromartie, on behalf of the Secretary of State, Shirley Weber. This Bill makes important clarifications to the Voters' Bill of Rights to ensure that all Californians and voters clearly understand the circumstances under which they have a right to obtain a replacement ballot, should the need arise.

We thank the Committee staff for their collaboration in a joint effort to bring clarity and brevity to the language. Our objective has been to clarify the rules while minimizing the potential for confusion. To that end, the Secretary's Office respectfully is not in agreement with the recommendation to change the word cast to submit, in connection with the ballot and the act of voting.

The term "cast your ballot" has a legal significance that "submit your ballot" does not. And we have presented evidence to the Committee that the phrase cast your ballot is both widely used and understood by voters.

Our legal division has produced a memorandum substantiating this, which was shared with the Committee late yesterday. However, we wish the Bill to move forward in either form. We wish that to be clearly understood and we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Good morning, Chair and Members. I'm Savannah Jorgensen, here on behalf of the League of Women Voters of California, in support of AB 1164.

AB 1164 will clarify the California Voter Bill of Rights by specifying that voters who haven't already cast their ballot are entitled to a replacement ballot, both when they make a mistake and when they don't have a ballot that was mailed to them.

This might seem like a small change, but for voters on the ground, it can make a significant difference. California has long recognized that empowering voters with clear, accessible, information is essential to a healthy democracy.

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

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

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

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

Do we have anyone else in support of AB 1164? Name and organization.

Sebastian Torres with Pinnacle Advocacy, on behalf of the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials, in support.

Do we have any of those in the room who are in opposition of AB 1164? Seeing none. We'll bring it to the Committee for discussion or comment.

All right, we have no comments from Committee today, but I just wanted to say thank you to the author for your willingness to work here together as this Bill moves forward and would allow you to close.

Awesome. Again, thank you for the opportunity to present this Bill. We do think that it is very important that our voters understand what their rights are because mistakes are made.

We also want to make sure that we provide clarity for people who work with those who are trying to cast their ballot across our state during these very important elections. And so, with that, we do appreciate the work with your staff. We did accept the amendments. And then, we do know that you received the late legal memo.

So, if there's anything that your Committee has come up with on that, I definitely would love to hear that. But if not, we are willing to go ahead and move forward in the spirit of, you know, being able to provide this tool for our community. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Motion, when we have a quorum.

Thank you.

I'm happy to sit and wait.

We have our next author in the room. Item number nine, AB 1249, by Assemblymember Wilson, Please begin when you are ready.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Senators. I'm pleased to present AB 1249, a Bill that reflects our continued commitment to strengthening democracy and expanding voter access for all Californians. Today, only 29 of our 58 counties provide early voting through the Voters Choice act, while the remaining 29 do not.

For many working families, caregivers and voters with transportation challenges, voting on Election Day can be incredibly challenging. Sponsored by the Secretary of State, AB 1249 bridges the gap by requiring all non VCA counties to offer at least one early voting location on the Saturday before a statewide election. Additionally, this Bill streamlines the vote by mail process.

Current law allows the voters to submit their vote by mail ballots in person without the need for an identification envelope, and this Bill would include at designated county offices or slot like locations by expanding early voting opportunities, we're helping ensure that every eligible voter can participate fully in our democratic process.

AB 1249 is a small but significant step towards creating equitable and more inclusive electoral process in California. Additionally, we will be taking the suggested Committee amendments.

Today with me is Tim Cromartie, Deputy Secretary of the State, Legislative affairs for the Secretary of State. And Savannah Jorgensen, the Public Policy and Organizing Manager for the League of Women Voters of California.

Please begin.

Madam Chair Members Tim Cromartie, on behalf of the Secretary of State Shirley Nash Weber. This Bill would expand early voting opportunities in counties not currently operating under the Voters Choice act and streamline the vote by mail process for voters who wish to submit their ballots in person.

As Assemblymember Wilson said, the VCA now operates in 29 of our 58 counties, soon to be 30. However, a significant disparity exists between VCA and non VCA counties regarding early voting options.

Voters in non VCA counties often face limited opportunities to cast their ballots before Election Day, creating barriers for those with work obligations, transportation challenges, or other scheduling conflicts.

AB 1249 takes a measured approach to addressing this disparity by requiring all non VCA counties to provide at least one early voting location on the Saturday before each statewide election, ensuring voters have additional opportunities to participate in the democratic process. It is at the discretion of the counties which location will be open on Saturday.

A key goal of the Bill is to establish additional uniform early voting opportunities in these non VCA counties by requiring access on Saturday, a day when voters, particularly those who wish to vote in person, do not have the childcare, transportation, or employment related challenges, or a combination of these factors that may prevent them from voting on weekdays or weekday evenings.

Saturday voting alleviates these concerns and allows them to more easily vote in person, and Saturday was specifically selected with this objective in mind. In addition, allowing voters to submit vote by mail ballots without an identification envelope at the county elections offices or satellite locations reduces administrative burdens while maintaining election integrity through the existing verification procedures.

These changes will significantly enhance voter convenience and accessibility, while minimizing financial and logistical burdens on county elections officials. Our democracy is strongest when all eligible voters can participate fully in the electoral process. With that, we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

If we could just hold for one moment, I'd like to establish a quorum. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

The Secretary notes a quorum has been established. Please proceed.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and Members. I'm Savannah Jorgensen here again on behalf of the League of Women Voters of California in support of AB 1249. AB 1249 will ensure that voters and counties that have not adopted the Voters Choice act will have increased access to early voting opportunities.

It also promotes consistency across counties that will help to alleviate voter confusion about when they can vote. Early voting sites support critical voter services. They provide language assistance, and access to accessible voting for voters who cannot receive such services elsewhere.

And given the increased use of vote by mail and the need to cure problems with ballots that have been mailed in, more in person access at convenient times will make it easier for people to come in and fix issues with signatures. In turn, this will reduce the number of ballots that can't be counted.

We believe that there are many reasons that voters seek staffed locations, ranging from needing assistance to preferring the reassurance of knowing their vote has been received to exercising a meaningful act of civic participation.

Data from vote center counties shows that black, Latino and young voters are more likely than other groups to vote in person and to return the ballots they receive in the mail at vote centers. That's important to understand because these groups are significantly underrepresented in the electorate. And to achieve a more representative democracy, we want to encourage engagement.

We know that public awareness of new opportunities to participate in democracy is lacking and that many do not know how to access basic information like where to vote in person.

Because of this, we have recommended and continue to recommend that the Bill requires counties to do voter education and outreach to inform voters of this new opportunity at a time when voting rights face increasing threats nationwide, California has consistently led in expanding ballot access.

AB 1249, continues this tradition by reducing barriers and empowering communities to participate more fully in our democracy. We urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have anyone else in the Committee room in support of AB 1249. Name and organization.

Thank you. Chair Sam Hood, on behalf of California Common Cause and support. Thank you.

Good morning. Kim Alexander with the California Voter Foundation. We support this Bill. We think it will help speed up the vote count. We do have a couple of recommendations in our letter for strengthening it and we'll work with the author and the. Secretary of State staff on that. Thanks.

Paul Spencer on behalf of Disability Rights California, we support this Bill and we appreciate the inclusion of accessible voting options for people with disabilities.

Do we have anyone in the room wishing to speak in opposition of AB 1249. Seeing none, we will bring it to the Committee for discussion or comments. Dr. Choi.

Assemblymember Wilson, I would like to ask I appreciate by providing extra day for voters for the people who are in a situation couldn't just come on the voting date so one Saturday before election day early voting that is very convenient for those who are in that situation.

But one question here in the summary I see is that the Ballot at the office of county election officials or a satellite location without providing signature for comparison with the voters signature on file, why would you allow voters to verify that person is the real voter by signature and so that signature can be easily verified.

Yes. Thank you for this question. I would note that our Bill doesn't change the verification process. There is an existing verification process that's outlined in Section 3016.5 for how you verify a voter to be able to transition them from a absentee voter, a vote by mail voter to an in person voter.

And so all our Bill does is allows for that in person who is currently a vote by mail and they have a ballot that they're bringing that they received in the mail, to transition to an in person voter which means they can take that ballot from that envelope and we call it the naked ballot at that point and enter it into the system.

And so this our Bill just allows that to happen at a satellite location.

And so the verification process that exists currently by law we don't address that and we're saying we're keeping that the exact same it expands where they get to do that process at and the poll location have to follow existing law and ensure that the voter has gone through the verification process that any voter would normally do at another location.

Can you help me clarify again my understanding. There will be two types of people who appear on the voting side in person. One is to drop off mail ballots already pre-marked. Yes. And that envelope sealed and then outside, clearly voter signature is required.

And those who are dropping them off, some people will bring pre-marked months as a guide for me to save my time and actually vote.

So actually I would add to that. Currently voters do a couple of things. So like you noted, a voter could come with a ballot that was already filled out, placed in an envelope, where they do sign the envelope and they can come in, not talk to anyone and drop that in the box. Yes.

And without interacting with anyone.

That envelop must have a signature.

Must have a signature or it will not be counted. Right. Now there's also another traditional type of voter where that voter comes in, they walk to the front, they talk to someone, they identify themselves, they actually sign on the dotted line, they receive a ballot and then they go and they actually vote.

They could have a sample ballot that they filled out, but doesn't matter. They actually go to a booth, they vote and then they walk to a machine and they scan their ballot in. Right. So those are the two traditional types. There is another type though.

There's a person who has filled their actual ballot that they received via vote by mail completely and they walk in with that ballot completed, they go to the check in just like the person who didn't come with the ballot. They say I'd like to vote in person.

They do the signature, whatever they do at that particular point, they follow a verification process that the other voter verified and then instead of receiving a ballot, they say I'm going to use this ballot and then they walk over to the scan station and they scan it in.

So what that is allowed today, whether you are a VCA County or a non VCA County. What our Bill does is for those that are non VCA County, it allows that to do that at more locations, and whatever location that's identified at the county as a satellite location.

It allows them to do that extra process that I just detailed out there and I'll look to my witness to make sure that I didn't describe that inaccurate that I described that, that I described it accurately.

That is correct. That was an accurate description. And again, this is not a new process at all. It is simply in an expansion allowing them to do this at satellite locations for Saturday voting.

Which they wouldn't be able to do. Yeah, not for the Bill.

Yeah. By appearing in person, that meant the person actually wanted to vote on site. If that's the case. Usually ballot is given rather than pre-filled.

So just noting, as I said earlier, that exists currently by law now. I am aware of several families who live in my district and have had an opportunity to go and meet them who vote as a family.

They sit down and they talk about the issues and they fill out their ballot and some actually mail their ballot in. Some individuals within that family actually mails their ballot in and some like to go on voter day and scan it in. I'm one of those people. It stands one time. I have always voted in person.

And then I was so glad we have vote by mail option because one day, two days before we were to vote in the primary, I got Covid and so could not go vote in person. And so I was glad I was able to immediately fill out my ballot and, you know, get it in.

But so it just depends. Some people do like that process of being at home, filling it out, understanding the issues, looking up whatever they can find and filling it out, not doing that, only to fill it out again. Because time is money, right.

And so if you can fill it out in advance at home and then come and be treated like your average voter and turn that ballot in in real time, that is a benefit to voters. And that's part of what this is, is about how do we make it convenient to vote.

So we can increase participation and so that people who have childcare issues, who have time issues, where they're at work and they only have a few minutes that they now get this opportunity to vote and feel secure in their vote. Because dropping in the mail sometimes doesn't feel secure for someone.

Actually seeing it get scanned in feels very secure. Like I know my vote was counted and some people need that. I would say we have a fair election system where we count every vote and we strive to have every single vote counted.

But sometimes it's about the person and their personal preference and ensuring that they know their vote is counted because they actually saw it get scanned in, they saw that number click up and they felt good about being able to participate in the process that way.

Yeah. Another concern is that for those counties who did not opt in for VCA, this is another burden to open.

A burden well received. So I would note VCA has quite a bit of requirements that are - that can be difficult for some of our counties, especially our rural counties. I have the opportunity and privilege of representing three counties of the 58 of the 29 counties or the 58 counties in our in our state.

And two of those are non VCA counties. And so now in those two counties, they will have the opportunity to at least meet the minimum threshold of being open for at least six hours on a Saturday. And if they so choose, they can do more without having to meet the full burden of being a VCA County.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you to the author for that very thorough explanation. Very well done. I just also want to say, you know again, this Bill is addressing the gap for early voting opportunities for non VCA counties. We want to continue encouraging more opportunities for folks to vote and participate in our democracy.

So with that, I support the Bill and the work that you are doing and thank you for accepting the amendments today. We'll allow you to close.

Thank you. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right. We will. We don't. Do we have a motion on AB 1249. We will wait for authors to arrive.

Thank you for your time. Thank you. We will now move to file item 10. Assembly Member Sharp-Collins with AB 1411. Please begin when you are ready. Thank you.

Alrighty. Good morning, Chair and Members. Before I begin, I would like to accept the Committee amendments and I am here to present Assembly Bill 1411 as a measure that aims to provide more information to voters in support of their exercising their constitutional right.

In 2016, California approved A Voters Choice Act, a new election model that allows voters to choose how, when and where to vote. Unfortunately, not all counties adopted this model, creating an imbalance in voting flexibility and information for residents.

Assembly Bill 1411 requires counties that did not adopt the Voters Choice Act to create a voters education and outreach plan that will provide voters information about online registration, vote by mail procedures, pre registration opportunities, ballot tracking options for overseas voters and key election dates.

Assembly Bill 1411 also requires the Secretary of State to provide county county elections officials a template for their voter education outreach plans. This is essential in advancing voting equity. So by addressing the unique barriers faced by the different communities, these measures ensure that all eligible individuals have equal access to the democratic process.

This is particularly crucial for the historically marginalized groups such as low income individuals, people with disabilities, non-English speakers and communities of color who face this majority systemic barriers to voting. By removing barriers to the participations, we create a stronger and more inclusive democracy where every citizen's voice matters.

With me today to add additional testimony and comments is Mr. Tim Cromartie from the Office of Secretary of State Dr. Shirley Weber.

Madam Chair Members Tim Cromartie Secretary of State's Office AB 1411 requires counties that do not conduct all male ballot elections pursuant to elections code Section 4500 to design and implement a voter education and outreach plan subject to review by the Secretary of State.

This new mandate on locals is combined with a mandate on the SOS to provide a template for counties to guide them in preparing their voter education and outreach plans. This will somewhat mitigate the costs incurred by the counties as a result of this Bill.

SOS has no objections to the Committee's proposed additions to the template that the Secretary of State must provide the county specifically options for language accessibility for voters with disabilities and for in person voting.

AB 1411 provides uniformity across California in the development and implementation of voter education and outreach, ensuring that voter education efforts by all counties are effectively coordinated and publicly accessible.

The purpose of these plans to identify and educate qualified electors who are not currently registered voters and get them registered to vote remains a vital objective if the state is to continue to encourage participation in our democracy. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have anyone else in the room wishing to testify in support of AB 1411? Name and organization.

I'm Paul Spencer with Disability Rights California. We support this Bill and with and we appreciate the amendments to include people with disabilities and also to post the plan on the county elections websites. Thank you.

Do we have anyone in the room wishing to testify in opposition to AB 1411? Seeing none, we will bring it back to the Committee for questions or comments. Dr. Choi.

Assembly Woman Sharp-Collins I have a question regarding this voter education that the basic idea is plausible and educating and promoting and reaching out to voters to vote. Voter education and outreaching is a great idea. Isn't that part of the campaign?

Why do we have to in other words like each party will try to promote, register more voters and then educate whom to vote for and then each candidate will do exactly what you are describing here but you are requiring the county to do so.

This will cost them extra money and you are mandating the campaigning you know to vote to register. That is within their prerogative when their budget is there and if they desire to do so, they will do so without mandating. Why do you try to mandate such a campaign issue?

If I may? The counties have actually been mandated to produce these plans since the first law took effect in the mid-1970s. We have shared with the Committee, plans of that type going back to 1976 1977 and at some point the counties began to they just sort of fell off with compliance.

Current law has an enforcement provision that allows the Secretary to refer non compliance, noncompliant counties to the Attorney General. To my knowledge, the Secretary of State has never exercised that clause in law, but the fact is the counties are out of compliance with an existing mandate right now.

The purpose of this Bill is to change the approach to remove the enforcement provision and to instead induce the counties to cooperate and submit plans by the Secretary of State's office, providing them with a how to, a template as to what that, those plans must include.

So they are being given affirmative guidance for the first time with this Bill. In addition, the enforcement provision has been removed because we believe a collaborational effort with the counties is probably going to be more productive and get better results in the long run.

Isn't this Bill require the counties to do outreach in the voter education? You sound like that's more optional, which.

No, sir, it's a mandate. I'm sorry? No, sir, it is a mandate. They are required. They will be required to submit voter education and outreach plans. That is correct.

So currently the law doesn't prohibit for counties doing such things might take reaching out and doing voter education, voter registration, things like that.

Well, to be specific, the law currently requires them to do this. They simply have been out of compliance.

And you can simply. I mean, why does it have to require, as I said while ago, that they will do on their own, voluntarily, and then also each party's interest groups, election interest groups, and the personal candidates, you know, to get their votes, they will do automatically such things.

Well, in the first place, many counties simply are not complying. They're not doing it. The state has a compelling interest in having voter education outreach in some form happen on a fairly broad basis. And leaving it to the political campaigns is not an answer because their efforts tend to be much more specific and more targeted.

And there are whole areas where they will not reach based on either an assessment of what their resources are or whether their message is going to resonate with particular demographics.

The other thing I would point out is that voter information, including how to vote, is not a partisan issue. So those candidates will not be able to let them know how to do that.

That is absolutely correct. Thank you.

I just respectfully ask for your vote.

Thank you. Yes. Do we have a motion? All right. Senator Umberg. Motions AB 1411.

Any other comments from Committee Members? Seeing none. I want to thank the author for accepting the Committee amendments today and the work that you are doing as relates to this Bill. And we'll ask if you'd like to close.

Roll Call

We are taking up the consent calendar. Proposed for consent are five items. File item 7. AB 1214. File item 8, AB 1370. File item 1 or 11, rather. AB 1511. File item 12, AB 1512 and file item 13, AB 1513. Do we have any Member who wants to pull an item from consent? Seeing none, we have a motion by Senator Choi. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

File item 1. AB 699. Do we have a motion so moved? Move by Senator Umberg. Motion is do pass to Committee on a probe. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

3-1. We'll leave that open by item two. AB789. Do we have a motion moved? Moved by Senator Umberg. Secretary, please call the roll.

Motion is due. Pass. Senator Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes, Aye. Troy. Allen Limon? Aye. Limon, Aye. Umberg, aye. Umberg, aye.

3030 that is on call. File item three. AB 808. Motion is do passed to Committee on approved. Secretary, do we have a motion? Move moved by Senator Umberg? Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

4-0 that is on call. File item four. AB 950. Motion is do pass to Committee on approach. Do we have a motion moved by Senator Umberg? Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

That bill's on call. File item five. AB 1079 do pass. Do we have a motion moved? Moved by Senator Umberg? Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

3-1. That is on call. File item six. AB 1164 do pass as amended to the Committee on Approbes. Do we have a motion so moved? Moved by Senator Umberg. Secretary, police. Call the roll.

[Roll Call]

4-0. That is on call. File item nine, AB 1249. Motion is due. Passed as amended to the Committee on appropriations. Do we have a motion so moved. Moved by Senator Umberg. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

3-1. That is on call. File item 10. AB 1411. Motion is due. Passes amended to the Committee on approach. So that was motion by Senator Umberg. If you could please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

3-1. That bill's on call. We will move back. Yes, we'll move back to the consent file. And Secretary, please call the roll lifting.

[Roll Call]

4-0. We will leave that open for Members to add on file item one. Yes. That is AB699. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Umberg. I to not voting. One. One moment. No change on the votes for item one. AB 69931. Leaving that on call. We still are waiting on another Committee Member to add on. But before I do, I just want to, you know, say thank you to our Republican Committee consultant and recognize, Corey, for your work.

I know that you are retiring. I know that this is the last Committee hearing, but we still have an informational hearing. So I certainly want to. To give you time there as well. But I just want to thank you for your service on this Committee that began in 2005.

And in your 20 years staffing the Committee, over 1,000 measures have been referred to the Committee. The election code has expanded by over 200 pages. You have helped shape the discussions in one form or another just surrounding election policy. And so because of that, the Committee has been better off for your work.

So I just want to say thank you for your years of service to the people of California and would allow Dr. Choi to also issue some remarks.

Okay. I also want to add, as the only Republican Member on this election Committee Member, my consultant, Corey Butts, will be retiring, and I don't know whom I need to turn to for my questions. After more than 20 years of your service on this Committee and the state, I really appreciate one correction. I want to add.

According to my data, he dealt with more than 2,200 measures, I guess which one, maybe you can verify which one is correct, but at least more than 1,000. So it's a lot of bills. You analyzed and advised all the Republican Members on this Committee.

And I know we all go through the circle of life from one career to another and the retirement phase. I think good time has come to you and you chose to retire at the right time for you. And next chapter of your new life, retire means you have a brand new tire.

So you have a long miles to go. And I would like to extend your best wishes to you and to your family. Thank you so much for your Service.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. We know that your service in this Legislature goes well beyond the Committee here. But again, thank you and congratulations.

[Roll Call]

5-0. That Bill or the consent calendar is adopted. All right. That concludes the elections Committee. We are adjourned.