Assembly Standing Committee on Elections

We're going to get started in elections as soon as we have one of our Republican Members come on in. So bear with me. Please be patient. Thanks. And one more announcement. We're still waiting for Senators authors to come and present your bills. So we just have five on calendar today and I'm doing two of them.

So we're looking for Cervantes, Perez and Alan. Thanks. Good morning. I'd like to call the July 162025 hearing of the Assembly Elections Committee to order. Do we have a corn? We have a corn. We do have a quorum, so we will. Before we proceed, let's call the roll and establish a quorum.

[Roll Call]

Wonderful. 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 written testimony through the Legislature's position letter portion portal.

The portal can be accessed through the Committee's website at aelc.assembly.ca.gov the Committee has five measures on its agenda, nothing on consent. When we hear the bills on the agenda, we'll 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 in support are those designated by the authority. Other witnesses are limited to providing their name, the organization they represent, if any, and their position on the Bill. Additional comments will be ruled out of order.

We seek to protect the rights of all who participate in the legislative process so that we can have effective deliberation and decisions on the critical issues facing California. In order to facilitate the Committee's business and public participation in today's hearing, we will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings.

Violations of these rules may subject you to removal or other enforcement action. So before we move on the agenda, I have an additional announcement to make. I have a letter from Senator Reyes requesting that I be permitted to present her SB3 16 on her behalf. So I will be presenting that Bill at the appropriate time.

With those announcements out of the way, we will now move on to the Committee's agenda. So should we do the consent. Okay, so since I am the only person here, I don't see any Senators. I'll go ahead and present SB316. That's okay. And I will turn over the gavel to our Vice Chair, Macedo. Okay, Never mind.

Okay, we have a Senator here. So we will now proceed to hear item two, SB3, by Senator Cervantes. And you may begin when ready.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Committee Members. Thank you for the opportunity to present SB3 here today. I want to begin by accepting the suggested amendments on page 5 of the Committee analysis. And I want to thank the Committee staff for all their assistance with my team on this bill.

This bill is a manifestation of what we learned from Senate Election's March informational hearing about the signature curing process. SB3 is also a companion Bill to Assembly Bill 827 by Assemblymember Berman, which this Committee approved in April.

As we know, with more than 80% of California voters now voting by mail, signature curing is rapidly becoming an integral part of political campaigns in our state.

Our collective experience from the recent election cycles, especially the presidential election last November, also shows the existing laws governing the signature carrying process contains ambiguities that create issues for voters and campaigns, as well as county registers.

These reforms include, for instance, a new requirement that county registrars would only be able to accept signature carrying forms produced by the Secretary of State's office or by the county registrar.

This would prevent the proliferation of forms created by political campaigns, political parties that we saw this last cycle, which would require county registrars to make determinations on whether each form complied with the law.

In order to help reduce the number of rejected ballot signatures, SB3 will also add a statement to vote by mail envelopes, reminding voters that the signature they provide will be compared to other signatures county registrars have on file, which may include the signature of the voter's driver's license.

The reforms in SB3 will ensure that the signature gathering process, which appears here to stay, becomes a trusted, better understood, increasingly reliable part of California elections in future years to come. With that, I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you. Do you have any witnesses in support?

Not today.

Anybody in the room who'd like to sign on as a #MeToo to support the bill? We'll move on to witnesses in opposition, any witnesses in opposition, anybody who just wants to go to the mic and say, I don't like it, don't see anyone. I'll bring it back to the dais. Any questions or comments from Committee Members. Wow.

We have a motion. Do I have a second? I have a motion by Assembly Member Bennett and a second by Assembly Member Stefani. Would you like to close?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the time and the consideration of each of the Committee Members. Respectfully asked for your Aye vote.

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

So I want to thank the author for her work on this bill and for accepting the Committee's proposed amendments. And with those amendments, I'm recommending support. Madam Secretary, please call the roll on.

SB3 by Senator Cervantes. The motion is due pass as amended and be re referred to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That bill is out 4 to 0, but we'll keep the roll open for absent Members. Thank you. And I don't see another Senator in the room, so I'm going to try to hand over the gavel one more time to our Vice Chair, Macedo.

The next item on the agenda is ACA 8. Okay, we're gonna do SB 316. Okay. SB 316 by Assemblymember Reyes, presented by our Madam Chair. Madam Chair, you may begin whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to present SB316, the high school Voter Registration Act. On behalf of Senator Reyes, I would also like to thank the Committee staff for their work on this bill. Every election cycle we discuss how low the voter turnout is across the country, especially for our youngest voters.

We need to do more to instill in our youth the importance of voting and simplify the Civic engagement process. SB316 is an excellent tool that would make it possible for 16 and 17 year olds to pre register to vote so that upon their 18th birthday, they are automatically registered voters.

In addition, it would provide students with information on in person voting opportunities, vote by mail procedures, including the importance of the voter's signature, ballot, tracking services, services provided to voters with disabilities, and key election dates and deadlines.

By bringing the resources directly to our youth, we can ensure that they are developing the habit of being civically engaged, regardless of their party affiliation. Civic engagement is an invaluable contribution to Our democracy and SB 316 will increase participation on election day.

Here to testify and support are Junior Torres Gutierrez, a student from the Inland Empire, and Ruth Sosa Martinez on behalf of Power California Action.

Hello, first and foremost, my name is Ruben Torres. Currently I am a high school student in San Bernardino. I'm here with the Inland Congregations United for Change to speak on behalf of my community. I'm here in strong support of SB316, the high school Voter Registration act, right now.

Currently, as it stands, California law requires high school to offer a semester long civics course and to participate in voter education weeks where students can register to vote. While this sounds promising on paper, the results tell a different story.

Currently, as it stands from 2024, the Public Policy Institute of California found that Voter turnout among 18 to 24 year olds have dropped by 12.7 percentage points. Each year the voter turnout gets low. This shows us two truths. First, that youth turnout in California is alarmingly low.

And second, that our current civic education system is not preparing students to participate in our democracy. SB316 will change that. This bill goes beyond encouraging civic engagement.

SB316 ensures that every 11th grade student receives clear, practical information about how to register and how to pre register to vote, what the rights are and how to actually participate through elections, through mock trials, debates and so on. That's provided in the bill.

Right now, many students do not simply know where to begin or whether they're eligible to pre register at the age of 16. SB316 makes sure that civic education isn't just a checkbox, but rather that schools show the students how to participate.

In my community and communities across California, I've seen how many students are unsure, intimidated and simply unaware how to engage civically. Some are afraid to participate in a democracy because no one shows them how to do it. SB316 is that guidance?

As a young leader in San Bernardino, California, I've had countless conversations with people who say things like why should I vote in the future? Nothing I will do will change. And I get it because many times I felt like that as way too. It is easy to feel powerless than to feel courageous.

The real issue is that no one shows them how to participate and show them how powerful their voices are. That is why civic education is so important. We cannot expect our youth to participate in our system of government when we never show them how meaningful their participation looks like simply offering them as an option isn't enough.

It is a responsibility as a student and to show others what having a voice looks like. And it should also be the responsibility of the State of California to show students that they have a voice. SP316 is doing just that.

Thank you. You have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning Members of the Committee. My name is Ruth Sosa Martinez. I'm the policy strategist with Power CA Action and a proud co sponsor of SB316. At Power CA Action, we work to build youth power in California through civic engagement.

We know from direct experience that the earlier young people are introduced to the democratic process, the more likely they are to become lifelong voters. In fact, young Californians are on track to be the largest voting bloc in the state by 2028, but our systems are not built to support them.

While we acknowledge that existing law encourages schools to facilitate voter registration, implementation has been inconsistent. In 2022, fewer than half of the high schools responded to the Secretary of State's annual survey, and many schools reported being unaware of the requirements. Altogether, SB316 sets a simple, clear standard. This isn't just about fixing a compliance issue. It's about equity.

Every student, regardless of the school they attend or the resources their school has, deserves access to clear, accessible information about how to participate in our democracy. SB316 aims to shift that. It creates a simple, low cost standard requiring high schools to distribute voter registration materials and informational notices to students before the end of their 11th grade.

The bill creates consistency, clarity and accountability in how we reach young voters and how we create pathways for their political participation in California.

At Power State Action, we work with a lot of young people across the state, many in rural communities, in low income communities where civic infrastructure is weak and often these students don't have the generational knowledge to participate. SB 316 ensures that no matter your zip code, you graduate with the tools to become a lifelong voter.

Schools already have access to free registration materials through the Secretary of State's office. What's been missing is the structure and accountability that SB316 provides. This is a practical low cost fix to a systemic barrier and more importantly, it's a signal to young people that their voices matter.

I'm happy to answer any technical questions about the bill's implementation and want to thank you for your time and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Are there additional witnesses in support of this Bill? Please state your name, organization that you represent, and your position.

Is it on you? Oh, there you go. Good morning. Chairmember Sam Nasher on behalf of the Los Angeles County Office of Education Support, thank you.

Morning. Dora Rose, Deputy Director, Legal and Voters of California in strong support. We want to thank the author for taking some clarifying amendments recently.

Ben Gombeck with the California Chamber of Commerce and support.

Paul Spencer with Disability Rights California in support.

Ozzy Dolan, high. School student in San Bernardino and I support this bill.

Angela Cardenas, Youth organizer with ICUC in San Bernardino, and I strong support. This is bill.

Arturo Orozco, board engagement organizer with ICUC, and I strongly support this bill.

Thank you. And before we proceed forward, will you be accepting the amendments on this bill? Yes, I will. Shocking. Do we have any primary witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. I will bring it back to the dais. Assembly Member Bennett.

I just want to compliment the young people that spoke today very, very effectively. And congratulations on getting to that level. Of communication skill already. Good for you. Good for both of you. I'll move the bill.

It's his first time testifying.

Thank you. So Member Bennett, he moved the bill. And Senator, Member Solache.

And I'll gladly second it, Mr. Bennett. And with that, Madam Vice Chair, I want to also acknowledge our youth for being here. Obviously thank the author for the work. It reminds me of the first time I came to testify to bill. I was a student government leader at the CSU and I came to Higher Education Committee.

So I just want to applaud our youth. I got to actually meet them in the hallway and my office, my floor the other day. So. So good to even see them at work here today. So with that, I'm just happy to support the bill and I would like to be added as a co author as possible, please.

Thank you.

Assembly Member Tangipa.

Thank you. And. I just have some slight confusion. I like to look at previous votes of the past and those who have voted on this bill. And the author of this bill didn't even vote on this bill. Can I ask a question? Where is the author and why hasn't Senator Reyes voted on this?

She has a medical leave.

Okay. It's interesting. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Tangipa. My concerns come from another place that I came into this, that I want young people to have a healthy relationship with politics. And at a time that when you turn on the TV, that doesn't happen.

That's something that all of us up here should want, is that young people want to be engaged civically and they want to have a good relationship and be an educated voter. So I applaud both of you for being here today. I'm very grateful.

You don't live in my district because you might be coming from my job when you're of age to run for my seat.

The main concern that I have is we already have so many unfunded mandates right now on the schools that if I believe thought we were able to put our money where our mouth is with this, I would be able to support it because I do want young people to get registered to vote.

But because of the fact that this potentially could be an unfunded mandate, I will not be able to support today. But I do applaud your civic engagement, be a leader in your community, encourage your friends and your peers to also do the same.

And up here we will do our part to encourage young people to get enrolled to vote. And I know as being an election official, that's something you're passionate about as well. So with that, is there anybody else? Senator Stefani.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you for presenting on behalf of Senator Reyes. Obviously some of us know why she's not here and I wish her the best. And I, as a mother of a 20 year old who pre registered to vote when he was 16 and the mother of a 16 year old daughter, I support this bill.

I think it's great and I do want to compliment the youth and so great to see the future generation who is going to solve all these problems that we can't seem to solve, be so active and I'm happy to support this today. Thank you, Assembly Member Stephanie.

With that, Madam Chair, would you like to close?

Well, again, it's my great honor to be here to present the Bill on behalf of Senator Reyes.

And I am so inspired by the youth voices we're hearing here today and, and as a former county elections officials doing voter outreach to our high school youth, this is really going to expand on that and give them all the information they need to be, you know, involved civic participants in our democracy.

So I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

On SB316 by Senator Reyes. The motion is due pass as amended and be re referred to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

It's out 4 to 1. Thank you very much and best of luck to you on all your future endeavors.

Thank you. We're gonna look for some Senators. I don't want to hog the whole hearing.

You were doing such a great job.

Thank you so much.

If there's any Senators out there, please.

Actually, I have one more thing to ask. If I could also be added as a co author to SB316.

I will let whoever needs to know know.

But I didn't look at it. I don't know what you're. Oh, I just said, let me know what I Tell her. This I don't know.

So we are waiting on two Senators and both of them are tied up in other hearings right now. And so I do have another Bill and at the risk of monopolizing the hearing, I'm going to go ahead and present it and hand the gavel over to you one more time.

Yeah, he's presenting and Perez is cheering. So. So we're just gonna have a little, a little me time. Okay.

Next item on the agenda is ACA 8 by Assembly Member Pellerin. Thank you for joining us today. You may present your bill. Thank you.

So thank you, Madam Chair and Members. In 1934, California overhauled its procedure for elections of appellate and Supreme Court Justices. Under the procedure that has been in place since that time, the Governor nominates appellate and Supreme Court justices subject to confirmation by the Commission on Judicial Appointments.

Confirmed justices are subject to voter approval at the next Gubernatorial election and at the end of each 12 year term. These are called retention elections. In retention elections, justices do not run against opposing candidates. Instead, ballots ask voters to vote yes or no on whether the justice should be retained.

Since that procedure was created in 1934, justices have successfully been retained in more than 99.5% of retention elections. Three Supreme Court justices who were defeated in 1986 are the only time in in the state's history that a justice was not successfully retained.

California's General election ballots are lengthy, particularly in Gubernatorial elections when judicial retention elections appear on the ballot. Judicial retention elections can add more than a dozen additional contests to the ballot. Lengthy ballots contribute to voter fatigue and make the electoral process more daunting, especially for new and infrequent voters, while adding to election costs.

Furthermore, voters skip voting on election retention elections at high levels. The percentage of ballots that are left blank in retention elections regularly exceeds 25% and was more than 40% in some recent retention elections. Voters also regularly express frustration with the limited amount of information available about Justices who are on the ballot in retention elections.

ACA8 asks California voters whether they want to amend the California Constitution to provide that Court of Appeals and Supreme Court Justices will appear on the ballot for a retention election only if a petition is filed by registered voters. If no petition is filed, the justice would be retained without appearing on the ballot.

This process is modeled after the process that currently exists for Superior Court elections. AC8 is a targeted approach to address the challenges posed by California's lengthy ballots and to save money for election costs while protecting judicial accountability by maintaining voters ability to remove appellate and Supreme Court Justices when desired.

Joining me in support of ACA is Tim Cromarte from Am I saying that right? From the Office of Secretary of State Shirley and Weber and Dora Rose from the League of Women Voters.

Madam Chair and Members. Tim Cromartie on behalf of Secretary of State Weber, Secretary of State supports Assembly Constitutional Amendment 8, which proposes a meaningful reform to the judicial election provisions within the California Constitution.

ACA 8 streamlines the process for retaining appellate and Supreme Court Justices by aligning state law with existing practice in the lower courts, ensuring a more cost effective judicial election system. The scope of the measure is limited to judges who are running unopposed because experience tells us that this universe of judges, as has been said, are consistently reelected.

Our office therefore has no concerns about voters being disenfranchised as a result of this measure. ACA would allow the Legislature to specify that the names of the incumbent Supreme Court Justices and appellate judges who are running uncontested do not appear on the ballot unless a petition is filed requesting inclusion.

This reduces unnecessary election clutter and helps focus voter attention on contested races. ACA 8 improves the integrity and efficiency of California's electoral system while minimizing voter confusion and preserving transparency we respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Morning Chair, Members. Dora Rose, Deputy Director with League of Women Voters California here in support of ACA 8. This bill would would address a real challenge that we see in judicial retention elections.

Voters are being asked to weigh in on that rarely result in change and often come with no meaningful information to guide their decisions. In fact, as you've heard, out of 797 appellate retention elections since 1934, just three justices have ever lost. The rest have been retained, so retention's voted for 99.6% of the time.

This is not the sign of a healthy election system. It's a sign that races are functionally invisible, leading to ballot roll off rates that routinely exceed 25%, sometimes even up to 40%, as you hear. And when voters do participate, it's often through guessing, not informed choice.

The League has worked really hard to fill this information gap, creating educational tools and voter guides whenever possible. But without dedicated funding for meaningful judicial evaluation, our efforts can only go so far. If we're serious about giving voters the tools to make informed decisions in these contests, we'd need a public infrastructure to support that work.

In the absence of that, and almost 100 years there has been an absence of that, ACA 8 actually offers a very thoughtful fix Instead of placing every appellate justice on the ballot by default, it empowers voters to decide when an election is warranted through a petition process.

We expect to work with Assemblymember Pellerin to make sure that the threshold for petition signatures isn't an impossible hurdle to meet. The League has a long history of advocating for judicial Independence and accountability. We supported the original creation of the retention system back in 1934. We were actually proponents of it on the ballot.

And today we support modernizing it to reflect how it's working in practice.

ACA 8 helps clear space on the ballot for contested elections so voters can focus on contests where their decisions are most impactful and best informed, while preserving the public's power to hold judges accountable when it truly matters by getting them on the ballot through that petition process. We urge your Aye vote.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support?

Members Cliff Casate, on behalf of the California Judges Association, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other here people here in support now? Are there any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. I will bring it back to the dais. So I have one main concern, and you touched on it, which is we don't have the number of signatures that we would hit that threshold.

And so my first question is, being the author, would you be willing to negotiate that into this particular ACA of the number of signatures?

Well, we don't want to put it in the Constitution. So my plan is to absolutely see how people are responding to this idea. And if this is something that is supported, then I'll be working on legislation next year to arrive at that number, working with the various stakeholders currently to put these Superior Court judges on the ballot.

This number of signatures are anywhere between 100 and 600. 600. And we don't want to make this an onerous task. We want to make it reasonable for voters to decide if they want to put the retention election on the ballot. So we'll be looking around those numbers to see what works best for the State of California.

I appreciate that and that was a big concern of mine. The concern that follows is just because we have wonderfully reasonable and pragmatic people here now down the line, they could change that legislatively to higher that threshold.

And that's a concern that I have that then what if we raised it to 2 million or 3 million signatures, making it nearly impossible. So for those reasons I will not be able to support today.

But I appreciate your dedication to long term making sure that there is accountability in our judges and making sure that voters do have the ability to participate in our process. So appreciate that. With that, we have a motion and a second. Madam Secretary, I'm sorry, would you like to close?

So just thank the witnesses for their points that they've made. I mean, this bill is democracy. It enfranchises voters by allowing them to decide whether judicial retention elections should remain on the ballot.

And then if, if this does get passed by the voters, then if they decide they want that judge to appear on the ballot, there'll be a simple process to that. They can petition to put the office on the ballot. So we do want to support an independent, unbiased judiciary that is not politicized.

And this measure works toward that goal. So I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you very much. Madam Secretary, would you call the roll.

On ACA 8 by Pellerin. The motion is do pass and be re referred to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

We'll put that on call. Thank you very much.

Thank you so much. All right, we're still looking for Senators.

Okay.

Oh, wait, we got one. Oh, yay. I just saw you on TV.

Excellent. Back on TV. Okay, good, good. Yes, yes. I've been racing around the building. Well, thank you, members. Let me start by accepting the amendments as outlined in the analysis.

So, just for the record, this is item number five, SB760, by Senator Allen.

That's correct, yeah. All right, so I'm accepting the amendments. Uh, so what brings us to this issue? Elected officials are allowed to solicit contributions on behalf of a nonprofit to encourage charitable giving and supporting causes that benefit their communities. The official has to report any contributions that exceed 5,000 dollars in a calendar year.

Now, this is, this is the reason why we have that kind of rule, so as to allow for a better understanding in the public of potential influence of a donor, of a donor with an elected official.

And also, if there's any kind of connection between the nonprofit and the elected official, it's important for us to understand the potential conflict of interest there, too.

Now, the challenge that brings me to this story is that the stringent requirements that are currently in place make compliance difficult in some circumstances, and I fear, disincentivize pro-social behavior by elected officials. I'll just give you an example of why this came under my radar screen.

After the recent terrible fires in my district, charities activated to provide immediate aid and long-term recovery support to the victims. I was out every day for weeks, visiting sites, and was quite frankly, really impressed with the work of a lot of charities, especially the Red Cross and others.

I don't have any personal connection to the Red Cross, but I was just really impressed with the work that they did immediately on the ground, providing services for my constituents that were facing these terrible fires.

But the challenge is that I was warned that I had to be careful about because one thing that was constantly being asked on the press was, hey, both at the press and at public events, and all the things that we were doing. A lot of you have gone through these disasters.

Everyone always wants to ask, well, how can people help? And I think the most obvious way to help, quite frankly, was to support the efforts of the Red Cross and other organizations. But the challenge is the lawyers, you know, and I'm one, I love lawyers.

But you know, because of the law would say to us, look, be real careful before going out there soliciting donations for these worthy charities, because a contribution is considered a behest, even if it's made it a simple suggestion of elected official without any coordination with a potential contributor.

So if an elected official were to make a comment on social media or during a television broadcast appealing to the public to consider supporting nonprofits as aiding wildfire victims, any contribution could be considered a behest.

And this is true even if the elected official doesn't know if a contribution was made as a result of that public appeal, doesn't know if a contribution exceeds the threshold, or didn't coordinate directly with any of the potential viewers of that communication.

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

And let me just say, just because they're not likely to get prosecuted at the FEPC doesn't mean we shouldn't change the rules to make them more compliant with pro-social behavior. I hate it when people say, oh, no one's going to go after you for that. Well, that feels dissatisfying.

I think we should conform the law better to, to how it ought to be so. And we also don't want a situation where some of the more cautious among us are feeling nervous about saying, hey, go give money to the Red Cross.

Now I will say if your husband or wife works for the Red Cross, or your Chief of Staff works for the red, is on the board of the Red Cross, that feels a little different in terms of withdrawing reporting requirements.

So we worked really closely with the California Clean Money Campaign, Common Cause, some other good government organizations, League Women Voters, and others, to make sure that we retain critical reporting requirements for those kinds of connections.

So let me thank my good friend Trent and the Chair, the committee staff, Common Cause, and others for working collaboratively on important amendments that improve transparency so the public will know if elected officials or their family Members or staff will have any connections to the nonprofit. I put those kind of situations in a separate category.

With that, I respectfully asked for an aye vote, and I invite our witness, Trent Lang, to speak on the matter.

Absolutely. You have two minutes.

Thank you. Trent Lange, President of the California Clean Money Campaign, very pleased to support SB760 as amended by Senator Allen and the committee's great recommendations. Very grateful to both Senator Allen and the committee for working with us on and others on the details.

Behested payment reporting is a vital transparency tool because it shines light on when elected officials ask donors to support organizations that, in some cases, they're connected to. This helps ensure public trust and accountability.

But SB760 addresses the real and reasonable concern that Senator Allen very capably demonstrated that we don't want elected officials to be discouraged from asking publicly encouraging donations to worthy charities, especially during and after disasters, for the fear of triggering complex reporting requirements that may be hard to actually fulfill. That's not the outcome that any of us want.

Thanks to Senator Allen's thoughtful amendments, SB760 now exempts only good-faith public appeals, such as those made through TV, radio, social media, or public speeches, while preserving safeguards against abuse that are in current law.

As to be amended, it will exempt public speeches such as those given in front of city hall, but will not exempt fundraisers where an official is featured in a solicitation or directly ask the crowd at the fundraiser to donate to that specific organization at the fundraiser.

As you mentioned, the amendments will also ensure that behested payment reports are still required when an elected official knows that they, a member of their immediate family, or their campaign or officeholder staff has a defined conflict of interest, such as decision-making authority, getting paid a salary or founding Member status.

With these amendments, SB760 will give elected officials the flexibility to pursue these very important public appeals without having to worry about getting caught, without opening any loopholes in these sorts of situations.

So we're very grateful again to Senator Allen for his leadership on this issue and working with us as well as the committee, and respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Wonderful. Thank you. Anybody else in the room who wants to just come to the mic and be a me too in support of this bill? See none.

Anybody in the room who is a primary witness in opposition, anyone who just wants to go to the mic and say, I oppose. Seeing none. I'll bring it back to the members as sending over solace.

Thank you, Madam Chair. First, I want to thank the author for bringing this. We had a little conversation with my staff. I don't know if Trent, I can just become good friends in the legislature because I'm liking the work that he's doing, obviously has been doing.

But as a new member, obviously, we're seeing eye to eye on a lot of these things. I think you said it best, Senator Allen. We, as elected official,s were out there doing the people's work.

And I remember the countless times that I've done some requests as a local mayor, obviously with the fires recently during the pandemic, and just organically saying, hey, we have this effort. Please contribute, please help. And really not even because I'm doing it, but because there's a local nonprofit, literally nonprofit in the community.

And just, you know, I use a hashtag community effort in my city where we all just kind of, you know, gather and show our humanity and help others.

But by doing so, we need to make sure that we obviously are following the laws and that, you know, protect us as elected officials, our families and our staff, for that matter. And so with that being said, I like your legislation. I think that it's a step in the right direction.

And with that, I'd like to move and, if possible, like to co-author the legislation. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Assemblymember Bennett.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Applaud the author, the organizations, and committee staff. You've made a good case that we need to make a change. Whenever you make these kind of changes, you're concerned about whether you're opening up a loophole. And you, I think, boldly said this doesn't open up any loopholes.

I'm cautiously voting, saying I don't think it's opening up any loopholes, but the ability of the moneyed class that wants to abuse getting money into politics is, is very creative. And so I applaud you for it.

Looks like you've looked at everything you possibly can in terms of trying to affect those loopholes, but I think it's something we should pay attention to as this goes forward. The, you know, I haven't had a lot of time with the bill just yesterday and this morning.

And the one thought was perhaps in the future, looking at what types of organizations, I mean, you make it real clear the Red Cross and those kind of organizations that never make political contributions. But perhaps there's something different for organizations that get very involved in politics often times. And yeah, I could, I could think of those.

And, and then if, if somebody, you know, so that's. But I, if I, if I had a specific, you know, if I had a specific next step. But it is, it is always a challenge. I mean, the ideal situation in the world would be, let's just give the FPPC the authority to do what makes common sense.

But we can't write legislation that way. But that's what you would like to do. Nobody would ever get prosecuted for making an appeal for the Red Cross. They might if it was for the NRA or Planned Parenthood or somebody that, you know, gets involved, etc. You know, to. So don't.

Just, just, just, just a little bit of caution and, and keep, let's keep our eyes open for this. But my compliments for doing this and, did you make the motion already? I'll second, I'll second the motion.

Any other comments or questions from committee members? Seeing none, Senator, you may close.

Yeah, it's a great point. And it makes me wonder, you know, if there's some, I guess the question is, how do we differentiate if there's a C3, C4 affiliation? Because I agree with you.

Anyhow, if you've got ideas that the committee maybe wants to help us, obviously, you know, if Clean Money campaign or others want to help us kind of figure out how to hone that a little better, obviously we have to do it in a legal way. But I think it's a great point. I think it's a great point.

And I do want to thank Trent for his engagement on this. Just to say to the members, obviously, his organization, others would not normally be chomping at the bit to be here supporting a bill that takes away some disclosure requirements given their long-standing advocacy in this, in this area.

And you know, Trent's been doing this work long before I got here, and I've been grizzled and beaten down. But, but, you know, we really worked very reasonably with our office, and I just want to thank you, Trent, for that work.

And it sounds like we got a little bit more work to do on the political advocacy side. So thank you, Madam Chair, and for the Ccmmittee's work, I hope to enlist you as we try to, you know, thread this needle a little bit further on this bill. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

So, behested payment reporting rules provide important public disclosure of payments that have the potential to influence public officials. But as the author has identified, concerns about the broad nature of those rules discourage public officials from making general public appeals for assistance in response to natural disasters. I've been in that same position.

This bill strikes an important balance and will allow those public appeals to occur while preserving public reporting of payments that can influence officials. I want to thank the author for engaging with me and the committee staff, and other stakeholders on developing the amendments which you're taking. I appreciate that. And with that, I will support the bill.

And we have a motion by Solache. A second by Bennett. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

That bill's out, four to zero. We'll keep it open for the absent members. Thank you. And we are now waiting for our final author, Senator Perez. So everyone just take some time to meditate.

Okay, we have our final author here. We're going to move on now to item four, SB 512 by Senator Pérez.

Thank you, guys. I'm chairing Ed right now and we have a big bill, so. All the fun stuff you guys sent us. Good morning, Chair and Members. First of all, I want to start by thanking the Committee staff for your incredible work on SB 512. I will be accepting the Committee amendments outlined on page 5 and comment 6. SB 512 clarifies and ensures voters in a transportation district can exercise their right to propose and pass a transportation transactions and use tax measure by means of a citizens ballot initiative.

Over the past 40 years, Proposition 218 has granted voters across 25 counties the ability to approve local sales taxes to fund local and regionally significant transportation projects that have provided public and active transportation, interchanges, roadway improvements, and other essential transportation infrastructure.

Although Prop 218 acknowledges the power of the people to affect local taxes, California's elections code conflicts with that authority due to the lack of explicit authority to allow for residents of local transportation districts to propose and pass transportation transaction and use tax measures by means of a citizens ballot initiative.

As a result of these inconsistencies, any transportation tax measure that is passed by citizens ballot initiative may be susceptible to litigation, rendering these crucial transportation projects vulnerable to unnecessary delays and increased cost. SB 512 addresses this discrepancy that exists by aligning the state's election code with the provisions of Prop 218 and other authorizing statutes, bringing much needed consistency and clarity in California law.

This bill clarifies that the voters within a transportation district can qualify a transportation sales tax measure by citizens ballot initiative and reaffirms the ability of Californians to fund transportation projects that benefit their communities. Today with me to provide testimony in support and help answer technical questions is Keith Dunn on behalf of the Self Help Counties Coalition and the State Building and Construction Trades Council. At the right time, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

And you have two minutes. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I first like to also thank staff for working with us on this measure. Great insight and help, and we appreciate all of that. Let me start by saying clear the SB 512 does not authorize, require, or mandate any taxes. SB 512 seeks to provide taxpayer protection should local citizen led initiatives for transportation be placed on the ballot and then supported by a majority of the electorate of that county. The electorate can vote yes or they can vote no.

It's not a new concept. You're all here today as a result of this trust. This process is called democracy. Opponents of 512 sometimes call it strategic manipulation. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has given you direction in this measure. In 2017 California Cannabis Coalition versus the City of Upland, the court definitively established the citizens initiatives are not bound by the procedural constraints that apply to government initiated measures.

The court emphasized the primacy of initiative power in California, noting that it should be construed liberally in favor of the people's ability to propose and enact laws. While the ruling centered on election timing, it has been widely interpreted, along with subsequent lower court decisions, as allowing special taxes proposed by citizens to pass by simple majority. Opponents of 512 will argue that the two thirds vote requirement for special taxes still applies regardless of who places the measure on the ballot.

However, the Upland decision draws a critical legal distinction between taxes proposed by local governments, which are subject to much stricter procedural and substantive requirements under 218 and Proposition 13 as those proposed by voter initiative. All that being said, again, SB 512 is not seeking any new taxing authority. SB 512 seeks to ensure that if a citizens initiative is proposed and then also supported by a majority of the electorate, that taxpayer protections would be applied to those resources so that they are insured to be in good care.

SB 512 reinforces the foundational democratic principle that government works best when its trusted citizens are enabled to make decisions for their collective future, ensures that those resources are used for what the citizens have intended. SB 512 is a thoughtful, constitutionally aligned good governance proposal, and I would ask for your support.

Thank you. Anyone else in the room that wants to add on as a me too in support of SB 512? Step up to the mic. State your name, organization, and position.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Kiana Valentine with the Politico Group here on behalf of Transportation California, the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments, and the Tulare County Association of Governments in support.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Todd Bloomstine for the Southern California Contractors Association as well as the Southern California Association of Scaffold Contractors in support. Thank you.

Morning. Tyler Munzing on behalf of the American Council of Engineering Companies in support. Thank you.

Aloha. Mitchell Bechtel on behalf of the District Council of Ironworkers in support.

Good morning. Matt Easley on behalf of Associated General Contractors California, happy to be in support. Thank you.

Anyone in the room who's a primary witness in opposition to SB 512? If so, step on up. I see movement, but not coming up. Okay. All right. Any... I know there's a lot of movement. And anybody just want to go to the mic to express opposition? Name, organization, and position. Thanks.

Amy Garrett, California Association of Realtors, in respectful opposition to the bill. Thank you.

Kelli L'Heureux for the California Chamber of Commerce in opposition. Thank you.

Annalee Augustine here on behalf of the Family Business Association of California, also respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Jack Yanos on behalf of the California Fuels Convenience Alliance, respectfully opposed.

Okay, we'll bring it back to the dais. Any questions or comments? Assembly Member Bennett.

Compliment the author for coming forward with this bill. So thank you, Senator Pérez. The number of counties that have been able to successfully achieve the over the 50% margin but not to 2/3 margin is significant, and it's having a real impact in those counties to not become self help counties.

So I really appreciated the Supreme Court's ruling and this bill clarifying things so that you don't get hung up with suits that then make it much harder to bring in the financing that you need early on these projects. So I'm going to move the bill, and I'd also like to be co-author of the bill. Thank you.

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

I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

I know. So this bill clarifies that existing law empowers the voters in districts to propose transactions and use taxes for transportation purposes and the district already has the authority to impose those taxes. So nothing in this bill affects the vote threshold required for the approval of taxes.

And I want to thank the author for accepting the Committee's proposed amendments to ensure the proponents have flexibility when developing their initiative. So with those amendments, I'm recommending support. I have a motion by... I almost called you Senator. By Assembly Member Bennett. Do I have a second? A second by Assembly Member Solache. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

On SB 512 by Senator Pérez, the motion is do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That bill is out five to two. Thank you so much. Thank you. I know. So we're going to lift calls on bills here. So, Madam Secretary, what are we starting with?

Okay, File item number one is ACA8 by Pellerin. The current vote is three to one with the Chair voting Aye.

Okay, call the absent Members.

[Roll Call]

No. That bill is out 4 to 2.

What do we have next?

We're gonna adding on to adding on.

Starting with SB3. Item two, we're gonna add on. Madam Secretary, please call the absent Members.

On SB3. The motions do pass as amended and be re referred to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Okay. And that bill is out.

Oh, it was already.

It was already out. And then we're gonna call the absent Members for item 3, SB316.

[Roll Call]

Will now call the absent Members on. Huh? On item five, SB 760 Allen.

[Roll Call]

He's good to go, right? Okay. Okay, that clears our calendar and we are adjourned.