Assembly Standing Committee on Elections

Good morning. I'd like to call the 03/25/2026 hearing of the Assembly Elections Committee to order. Before we proceed, well, actually, we're gonna have to begin as a subcommittee. If members of the committee are monitoring this hearing, please come to Room 444 at the State Capitol so that we can establish a quorum. I'd like to welcome everyone who is here in the hearing room today and who are watching the hearing online.

For the purpose of this hearing, we are accepting witness testimony in person, and we are also accepting written testimony through the legislature's position letter portal. That portal can be accessed through the committee's website at aelc.assembly.ca.gov. The committee has nine measures on its agenda. Three bills are proposed for consent. When we hear the bills on the agenda, we will hear from a maximum of two primary witnesses in support and two primary witnesses in opposition of the bill with a limit of two minutes per witness.

As a reminder, primary witnesses in support are those designated by the author. Other witnesses are limited to providing their name, the organization they represent, if any, and their position on the bill. Additional comments will be ruled out of order. We seek to protect the rights of all who participate in the legislative process that we can have effective deliberation and decisions on critical issues facing California.

In order to facilitate the committee's business and public participation in today's hearing, we will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings.

Violations of these rules may subject you to removal or other enforcement actions. Now before we move on to the agenda, I have some additional announcements to make. First, there have been some changes to the committee's membership since we last met. So I want to welcome Assemblymember James Gallagher back as vice chair of the committee, a role he previously served in during his time in the assembly.

And I also want to welcome assembly members Elhawary and Johnson to the committee, and I thank them for joining us and look forward to having them present shortly.

I also wanna thank assembly members Mesita Mesito and Tangipa who are no longer on the committee for their previous service on this committee. In addition, I have a letter from the speaker appointing assembly member Dawn Addis to replace assembly member Steve Bennett on the committee for the purpose of today's hearing only. Assembly member Addis, thank you for joining us and filling in today. Finally, I want to acknowledge the service of the longtime Republican caucus consultant on elections issues, Daryl Thomas.

Daryl retired in January after a long career in the assembly, including serving as the caucus's consultant on election issues since 2006.

It's amazing historical knowledge that he has. And I wanna thank Suzanne for filling in today as the Republican consultant. Our committee did have not have a two year bill hearing in January, so we did not get a chance to acknowledge his service then. But I did want to thank him for his service to the people of the of the state of California and congratulate Daryl on his retirement.

With those, announcements out of the way, we'll now move on to the committee's agenda, but first, we're gonna go ahead and establish a quorum.

Madam secretary, please call the roll.

Here.

Here.

Pellerin?

Pellerin, here. Gallagher?

Gallagher, here. Addis?

Here.

Addis, here. Berman? Elhawary? Johnson? Solache?

Here.

Present.

Solache, here. Stefani?

Stefani, here. We have a quorum.

So, before we get to the rest of the agenda, let's take up the committee's consent calendar. There are three bills on the consent calendar. Committee secretary, please read the items on consent.

We have file item number four, AB 1736 by Pellerin. The motion is do passed to appropriations with recommendation to consent calendar. Then we have file item number six, which is AB 1853 Pellerin. The motion is do passed to consent calendar. And finally, file item number nine, AB 2153 by Berman.

The motion is do passed to consent calendar.

Does any member wish to remove an item from consent calendar? Yeah. Okay. Okay. So you know, we'll go ahead and have a motion and a second.

And moved by some member, Solache, seconded by some member Addis. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

Aye.

Pellerin?

Pellerin, Aye. Gallagher?

Gallagher, aye. Addis?

Aye.

Addis, aye. Berman, Elhawary, Johnson, Solache?

Aye.

Aye.

Solache, aye. Stefani?

Aye.

Stefani, aye.

Did you call me? I I. Yeah. Yeah. Okay.

Great. Great. Alright. We'll now move on to the other business on the committee's agenda. We have one author here.

It looks like Assemblymember DeMaio with item number eight. That's AB 1993. Come on up. Good morning.

Good morning.

You may present when you're ready.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the Elections Committee. I am here to present Assembly Bill 1993, which is pretty common sense. It's a best practice in election management. And I'm hoping that we can, in a, in a bipartisan move, do something small and common sense to show California voters that we are hearing them, that when mistakes are made or when criticism is leveled at election offices, that perhaps a practice is not a best practice, that the legislature hears those concerns and enacts common sense safeguards.

In the Prop 50 election last November, a variety of Internet posts throughout the state of California made the claim that your vote can be revealed because of holes in the ballot envelope. Californians like using mail-in ballots. Even Republican voters like mail-in ballots. It's a convenience. But when you mail out the ballot, it means that you have to protect the privacy of the individual's vote.

So, what we require is that an envelope contain the ballot so that the votes themselves are private, but information on the outside of the envelope can be provided to determine the identity of the individual. Several years ago, some counties started using holes on the ballot envelope. The holes were not mischievous. They are designed to help the processing of the ballots and those with disabilities.

However, Sacramento County, in placing their holes and in designing their ballot, designed a ballot that did indeed allow for the revelation of voters' votes because you could look through the hole and see that a voter voted a certain way on the measure.

I do not believe that this was done intentionally. I do, however, believe that in the interest of restoring public trust and confidence in our elections, this committee, this legislature, ought to hear the rightful criticism that was leveled and act. And the, the best practice that we can implement is just simply passing legislation, making sure that registrars double check their ballot envelopes for any holes to ensure that no vote can be seen. This is a best practice bill.

By not passing the bill, I think we send a terrible message to California voters that when problems come up that we refuse to act.

I'm in receipt of a a letter of opposition from the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials who say that AB 1993 would codify requirements that are not only difficult to implement but impractical for registrars. How difficult or impractical is it to design a ballot envelope to ensure that the votes are private. This is laughably unacceptable. And if this is truly the position of our election officials at the county, this sows the seeds of doubt. This undermines public trust and confidence.

And so, I believe it's even more important that this committee say we speak in a bipartisan manner and that we are telling our election officials, double check those envelopes, make sure that you look at how ballots can be inserted and to ensure that no vote is revealed. Again, I do not believe that there was anything unintentional done by Sacramento County, but because the mistake was made in Sacramento, it spread like wildfire, and people were posting pictures. It caused many voters to say, well, why bother voting?

It, it diminishes participation, using our mail in ballots. And, again, our mail in ballots should be seen as a convenience, but we have to make sure that that convenience is done with the highest level of integrity and with best practices in mind. So, I urge this committee, please support AB 1993. It's not impractical. It's just common sense.

And I will share with you that we did consult a, a poll that asked the question of California voters, do you believe that ballot envelopes ought to be checked and to ensure that no vote is revealed inside the envelope? The results were 92% in support, 6% unsure, and 2% opposed. I think those 2% need to get their head examined. But 92 percent, you don't get a vote like that unless you're running in a Saddam Hussein election. But this is something that's pretty common sense.

So, let's do something good for our elections. We may have disagreements on other reforms on election integrity, but this one should be a common-sense bipartisan action that we indicate that we heard concerns from this election, that we're always looking to raise the bar on integrity of how we do our elections. Thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember DeMaio. We allow two primary witnesses, two minutes. Do we have any witnesses in support of this measure? Any additional witnesses just wanna come to the mic and express support for the measure? Seeing none, we'll go ahead and move on to opposition.

Are there any witnesses in opposition to the bill? Come on up, and you will be given two minutes, each of you. Please begin when you're ready.

Good morning, chair—chairwoman—and assembly members. James Kus, Fresno County Clerk, Registrar of Voters, here today on behalf of California Association of Clerks and Election Officials. CACEO opposes this bill for its effects on process, accessibility, and security. For process purposes, ballot, ballot envelopes are purchased a hundred and eighty days to a hundred and fifty days prior to an election, 58 counties competing against all other counties across the country for a limited number of vendors.

Ballots are created approximately 60 to 75 days before any election. This bill reverses the process, requiring us to adjust our envelopes for something that isn't even made yet. And the ballots do have specific certifications that we must meet from the vendors and from the Secretary of State. From accessibility, it is a best practice to provide ballot signature guides on the envelopes, and I believe DRC California has also mentioned this as a best practice. Not all counties do this.

Some counties do. And that fran—the way that's done with two holes to the sides of signature envelopes is not intended in any way, ever, to show anything within, but to provide that access to voters with visual difficulties and even manual dexterity issues. And from a security standpoint, some counties will use these holes to actually verify that these ballots have been removed, that ballots have not been left in envelopes.

When you're dealing with hundreds of thousands or even millions of envelopes and manual removal, this gives a process of being able to do that double check to ensure that we have not missed any material as we go through. CACEO would like to ask that you do not hinder our efforts to provide services to the voting public and to ensure that our ballots are counted.

Thank you very much. Next witness.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Tim Cromartie on behalf of Secretary of State, Shirley Ann Weber. We are not—we do not yet have a position on the measure, but I have been directed to Register specific concerns. First, there are simpler and more direct solutions that are readily at hand.

As noted in the committee analysis, last October, the Sacramento County Registrar advised voters that there were at least eight ways to insert a ballot into the ballot envelope, and only two of them might result in a bubble being visible through the hole.

It also provided instructions for how voters could fold their ballots so that none of the voting choices were visible through the holes in the VBM envelope. Voters in all counties could also be instructed to insert a blank sheet of paper into the envelope to protect ballot privacy. Second, this bill is a significant addition to the secretary of state's mandate, and that SOS does not currently oversee the development or printing of ballot envelopes.

As no funding is attached to this vehicle, it represents a new and significant unfunded mandate. Third, based on typical rulemaking timelines, it is unlikely that regulations could be fully developed and improved in time for the March 2028 primary election, assuming this measure passes and takes effect in January 2027.

Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other additional witnesses in opposition? If so, you could just come to the mic, state your name, affiliation, if any, and position only.

Good morning. Evan Fern with Disability Rights California in opposition.

Thank you. Seeing no one else in the room, I'll bring it back to the dais. Any questions from members? Oh, okay. We have a motion and a second to move the bill, and we'll go to questions now for Assemblymember Addis.

Thank you. It's my, it's actually more of a comment. I wanna thank the elections officials in the...state are here to give their opinion. I recently toured my elections office in San Luis Obispo and talked about the various levels of security that they have to make sure that voters are anonymous, that none of what this assembly member is claiming is actually happening in our assembly, or, excuse me, in our, voter elections process, at least in the counties that I represent.

And so, wanna appreciate your comments and just the work that you've been doing.

I think county elections officials have suffered untold amounts of attacks that have been normalized, and I think this bill is actually another one of those attacks. I note that the assembly member has, been through a number of elections, got elected fairly himself, I assume, and voters were secure. And it seemed to have worn out in his own election that things went just fine, got him here legally. So, I just, I'm concerned about the attacks on our elections officials and our county offices of education.

I wanna say thank you for the work.

I won't be supporting the bill, but I do hope that as a bipartisan community, we can come together to support our elections officials.

Thank you. Any other comments or questions on the bill? Seeing none as—oh, oh. Vice Chair Governor again.

What is the issue with disabled voters that they need a hole in the ballot? Can you explain that?

So, the signature guides on when you're looking at your envelope, there's it's all, all envelopes for the 58 counties are somewhat different, a little unique. They all have the same general design. And for our signature area, they're gonna have a box where it says as your name and your date, and there's a line. Signature holes are two holes placed at the signature guides for me. Alright.

At the ends of that line, they actually allow a blind voter or voter with visual difficulties to know exactly where to place that line to be able to sign that envelope independently. And that's a major focus on accessibility is that we allow voters with an accessibility issue, whether it be manual dexterity or visual, visual issue to be able to complete their ballot and the voting process independently.

And that's the only way you could do that? I mean, we couldn't have, like, indentations or something like that or Braille where where that is at.

So a hole is a permanent safe marker. Braille or an indentation. When something's running through the US postal system, it's not the gentlest process. And so a variety of indentations, frankly, crushing and bending occurs to all mail pieces as they go through. So I don't believe that just a a slight raising or indentation would survive that, whereas the whole always survives as it is preexisting condition.

So let's say that I agree with you. Why can't you put those holes in a place as this bill requires? And usually, I've, you know, I've seen many ballots in my time, and usually, it was at the top where you sign. How come you can't place those in a way where they wouldn't be visible when you put, you know, the the actual ballot and where you're, you know, marking your ballot wouldn't be visible in the hole? Seemed like that wouldn't be too big of an issue.

Generally speaking, you're absolutely correct. In most cases, the holes don't line up even with no action by the registrar. Those two holes, as you mentioned, oftentimes are at either at the top or at at a lower corner. Again, every county has a different design. But the ballots themselves have set design limits within the certification process of the voting systems.

And when we make those ballots and roughly e minus 80 to e minus 60, that's three months or so after the envelopes are done. Now, if we were—there were some type of considerations here instead to align envelopes to the certification process, that would be expensive and I, I believe the SOS has indicated fairly time consuming. I know that certification process even more so to kind of align that. At the moment, it's basically putting the cart before the horse.

The horse that's really driving this process is the ballot themselves.

And as mentioned, multiple different ways to fold it. There's different—and that's for a limited set. In other counties, Fresno County has holes in their ballot. You can't see anything in any of our elections over the last six years that we've had it there. Okay.

I hope that that's true.

I appreciate the answer. I'll, I'll just end on this, Madam Chair, is it did happen. It did absolutely happen. And we had many people showing exactly where when those were put in the in the envelope, it was showing their vote. And that shouldn't happen.

And I think it's, you know, with the technology that we have these days, I think these vendors can figure out how to put holes in the right place so that we don't have this happen again. So, let's not act like this was some, some weird allegation or this was a conspiracy theory. It happened. People were just putting their ballot in the, the regular way that you do it. They weren't doing anything funny with it.

Put it in there, and it showed how they vote. Let's avoid that. And, and it you know, the gentleman has a point. You know, like, we want and we want people to believe in the integrity of our elections. It's something that shouldn't happen.

It's a simple change that we could do. I still have yet to hear a good—a really good reason why we need to have the holes. I'm sorry. I, I mean, even with your explanation, there's other ways that we could do that. I work a lot with the disability community myself, and I've, I've never heard anyone say that that's so critical that we have holes there, and that's how I make sure I vote.

You know? And here's the thing. It's audacious, man. It's you're here today on behalf of this organization talking about how this is such an impediment. Where were you last year when this election committee was considering the redistricting proposal, which is a...

Let's stick to the topic at hand.

$250,000,000, Madam Chair. Yeah. $250,000,000.

Can we please stick to the bill at hand?

We didn't come in here and say, oh, man. That's such an impediment. Please don't do that. Please don't have an off year election.

Okay. Excuse me.

We don't do redistricting. But putting, but making sure we don't have.

Vice Chair Gallagher, please keep to the subject at hand. We're talking about AB 1993 thing. Thank you.

I think you can agree, Madam Chair. It is ridiculous. And so, don't come in here and tell me that's such an impediment to me when you said nothing.

Okay.

About a random election.

Thank you so much for your comments.

By this body.

Anybody else have any comments or questions? Seeing and hearing none, Assemblymember DeMaio, you may close.

Thank you. And thank you Assemblymember Gallagher. Your comments are exactly spot on and quite appropriate, because it strikes to the, the credibility of the organization before us opposing this bill. It strikes to the questions that people have. Are registrars of voters and clerks doing best practices in election management?

Why are they opposing best practices in election management? You have an obligation to ensure that all of your operations are managed at the best quality standard possible. And we have an obligation to ensure that when there is criticism that we do everything we can, whether real or perceived, to deal with a problem. If we don't act on this, we are sowing the seeds of doubt. We are suppressing votes.

We are causing people to pause and wonder, should I actually use a mail in ballot? There's enough controversy and disagreement on how to do elections as it is. And Lord knows there's enough divisiveness in our political system. This should this should be a layup. This should be a gimme. To the, the member who says, well, if you're here, you should be perfectly happy.

That's not how we do democracy. No. It's not Mike makes right. It's not if you win, then, you know, you just simply say the system was right. We design a system to respond to the criticism and the concerns of all in our democracy without any sort of view on who won or who lost or what their political party affiliation is.

The testimony today seems to set a pretty darn low standard. The quote, only two of the eight designs revealed the votes of the voters. Only two of eight. That's a 25% violation of voter privacy. Absolutely unacceptable if that is our standard.

The comment was made that we buy our envelopes in advance of designing our ballots. Well, perhaps we talk to the envelope manufacturers and let them know as their clients what our needs are, and perhaps they can help us with those designs. But more importantly, since we design ballots, we can actually take the envelope that we bought in advance and make sure that no votes are exposed. This is not hard.

If your counties can't do it, I'm sure we can find some good government groups that can help you do it.

People are watching, and this is not going away. I believe that voters, if this legislature fails to act on common sense election integrity reforms, I think voters will intervene. We're already seeing that. We're already seeing a groundswell. And there will be an issue that they can vote on that will provide some remedy of this, and that is if we require our State Auditor to audit every election office to ensure that they're doing the work through best practices.

And part of that will be, are we ensuring that we provide envelopes that are accessible to the disabled community, which is a worthy and logical provision, but at the same time, protecting the privacy rights of California voters. I urge this committee to set a high standard. The voters are watching.

Thank you. I share the concerns raised by the opponents. This bill presents significant implementation challenges for county elections officials. If counties respond to those challenges by removing the holes on the ballot envelopes, it can make the voting process less accessible for voters with disabilities. In any given election, voters have many different ways to insert their ballot.

In the election in November, they could have simply just turned it around and had the backside facing the, the holes. For longer ballots or, or elections with multiple ballot cards, that number you know, the number of ways to put the ballot in increases. Requiring the Secretary of State to develop regulations that account for all of these variations would be an inefficient use of resources.

This is particularly unnecessary when the county elections officials have already taken proactive steps to educate voters on how to avoid these issues, such as inserting a piece of paper in between your ballot and the holes or simply turning the ballot around if there's contests that are not on the backside. AB 1993 appears simple, but in practice, it would create new mandates, new costs, and new compliance headaches for local elections officials while potentially reducing accessibility for our voters with disabilities.

This bill is a classic example of legislating around a social media controversy instead of solving election issues in a thoughtful, workable way. California should be focused on secure, accessible, and efficient elections, not imposing design mandates that may do more harm than good. For these reasons, I am unable to support this bill and respectfully recommend an opposed position. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

That bill will be on call. Thank you very much. We have our next author here, assembly member Boerner. You have item five AB 1788. Please come on up.

And begin when you're ready. Thank you.

Good morning, madam chair and members. First, I wanna thank the chair and her committee staff for working with me on this bill. I'll be taking the committee amendments, and we'll continue to work with the FPPC and committee to ensure that organizations like CSG and and CSL are not in inadvertently captured. AB 1788 is a transparency bill. It ensures that nonprofit organizations that pay for travel for elected officials disclose those payments to the public.

In 2016, the legislature amended the political reform act to require certain nonprofits that pay for candidate and elected off official travel to file a form 807 disclosure. In the nearly ten years since its passage, only two nonprofit organizations have filed a form 807 report. The Political Reform Act currently requires a nonprofit organization to disclose travel related payments for elected officials only if those payments exceed one third of the nonprofit's total expenses as reported on its IRS form 990.

Never thought I was gonna be talking about lots of forms. The payment total was more than $10,000 in a calendar year or more than $5,000 in a calendar year for a single elected official.

A review by the Fair Political Practices Commission found at least 10 nonprofit organizations spent over $20,000 on travel for public officials, but not did not file form 807 report. The review found many nonprofits paying for elected official travel did not meet the one third spending requirement and therefore were not required to disclose those payments. AB 1788 strengthens strengthens the existing disclosure requirements. This bill will ensure that travel paid for nonprofit, by nonprofit organizations is transparently reported.

There's no opposition on file, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

I have here with me chair of the Fair Political Practices Commission, Adam Silver, sponsor of the bill.

And you have two minutes. Welcome.

Excellent. Thank you, chair Pellerin, members. My name is Adam Silver. I'm the chair of the California Fair Political Practices Commission. Prior to being appointed to that position, I advised nonprofits on their reporting obligations under the political reform act both in private practice and as commission counsel at the FPPC.

I'm here to voice the commission's strong support for AB 1788. As the assemblywoman mentioned, current law requires nonprofits to file a form 807 disclosing donor accompanied sponsored travel only if more than one third of their total expenses are devoted to elected official travel. That threshold is proven to be overly restrictive. Since the requirement took effect in 2016, only a small number of nonprofits have ever filed.

An FPPC audit confirmed that many organizations sponsoring meaningful levels of official travel simply did not meet that threshold.

AB 1788 makes a focus change. Right? It removes that one third threshold and applies the existing dollar based standards directly. A nonprofit must file a form 807 when it spends more than $10,000 per year on qualifying travel for elected officials or more than $5,000 for a single official. I wanna be clear about what this bill does not do.

It does not prohibit nonprofit funded travel and does not change when a public official may accept travel. It is not intended to sweeply I should say, intended to sweep in broadly focused membership organizations like the National Conference of State Legislatures or the Council of State Governments for whom official travel is a modest part of their work. We're committed to working with the author and this committee to keep the bill appropriately targeted. We respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, and thank you to the author for her leadership in this area.

Thank you.

Happy to answer any questions that members may have.

Wonderful. Thank you so much. Are there any other witnesses in support who want to state their name, organization, and position? Step on up to the mic.

Good morning. Savannah Jorgensen on behalf of the League of Women Voters of California in support.

That's right.

Thank you. I will now move on to opposition. Is there anyone in the room who's opposed to AB 1788? See none. Anyone just wanna go to the mic and say you're opposed?

Seeing none. I'll bring it back to the members. Any questions or discussion?

I'll move the bill.

We have a motion and a second? Second. A third? Doesn't matter. Any other any comments, questions?

You may go ahead and close.

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much. I appreciate the FPPC and the author for their efforts to ensure appropriate transparency when organizations with business before the elected officials fund their travel. And I've expressed my concern that this bill could apply to organizations like NCSL, national conference, a state legislatures, and the council state governments. And, I'm glad to hear your comments today that you're gonna continue to work with us, to do, amendments to ensure that the bill does not apply to those organizations.

And with that, I'll be supporting the bill.

You have a motion by Assemblymember Addis, second by Stefani. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

On AB 1788 the motion is do pass as amended and re referred to the committee on appropriations. Pellerin?

Aye.

Pellerin, aye. Gallagher?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Johnson, aye. Solache? Stefani?

Addis, aye. Berman? Elhawary? Johnson?

Gallagher, aye. Addis?

Aye.

Stefani, aye.

That bill is out. Thank you so much. Thank you. We'll leave the roll open for our absent members. And now we have absent members.

So okay. Let's see.

I thought I saw Tongipa. Was he here?

He is.

Oh, there he is. Okay. Okay. Great. We have assembly member Tongipa in the room.

Welcome back to elections. And you have item two, AB 1560. If you're ready, we're ready for you.

Thank you. Sorry for that momentarily lapse. That was my Fresno County Clerk, and I haven't seen him in a long time. So I just wanted to say hi.

You may begin when you're ready.

Thank you. Madam chair and members, again, thank you. People's trust in government right now is collapsing. I hear it every single day from our constituents. And it's not just frustration.

It's a belief that the system isn't fair anymore. It it's that it's corrupt. That's exactly why I brought this bill forward to confront corruption and remove it from the legislative process. Whenever I talk to people about this issue, I ask one simple question. How many convictions for public corruption do you think there have been in California over the past decade?

Most people say, well, one, maybe two, maybe three. The real number is 547, public corruption convictions. That disconnect is exactly why trust is breaking down, and we continue to see examples that reinforce this. We have a responsibility to ensure trust and to act in the best interest of the people that we represent. Right now, there is nothing stopping individuals convicted of public corruption from coming right back and influencing state policy.

Let me be clear. That is not in the best interest of the public. There's a reason we don't allow elected officials to stay in office after being convicted of public corruption because that level of abuse is so toxic, so damaging, it undermines the legitimacy of the entire system. The same standard should apply here. AB 1560 is a targeted, timely step to address that.

It draws a clear line that if you've been convicted of public corruption, you don't get to come back and lobby the system that you abused. This is about accountability. This is about restoring trust. And for those reasons, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much. Are there any witnesses in support of the bill today? No. Anybody want to come to the mic? Are you a primary witness?

Or No. Oh, just come to the mic and

Yes.

Express your name, organization, and position.

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

Thank you. So we'll move on to witnesses in opposition. Anybody opposed to AB 1560? Come on up. And you have two minutes.

Good morning.

Thank you, madam chair and members. Tim Cromartie on behalf of secretary of State Shirley Weber. Again, we have no position on the bill. However, we do have one significant concern, which we would like noted for the record. While the secretary of State has no objection to the policy of the measure, as currently written, AB 1560 provides no mechanism for our office to be alluded to the conviction of any lobbyist for public corruption.

We are in the process of developing proposed amendments, which we will share as soon as possible. We'll be reaching out to the author's office for dialogue on that issue as we do not believe the measure can be effectively implemented without that issue being addressed. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Any other folks in the room who wanna express opposition to the bill? Seeing none, we'll move it back to the dais. Any questions or discussion? We have a motion by assembly member Gallagher, second by Johnson.

Any other questions or comments? You may close.

Thank you, madam chair. And two, just to address that, I I look forward to hearing those amendments from the secretary of state. We believe something almost as simple as an attestation where a lobbyist is just simply saying that I have not been convicted of corruption. It should be something that we can all work together, and I really appreciate that approach too. And I look forward to collaborating with anybody that simply wants to make the declaration that corruption should not walk the halls of Sacramento.

And I make that vow today that if I am ever convicted of public corruption, I will not be back in this business, and I hope everybody else makes that same, commitment. So, again, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much, and I appreciate, you this bill, and I I understand how the secretary of state feels about this in the Fair Political Practices Commission and how to effectively enforce the bill. So those agencies still, will, you know, have difficulty in building that public trust. So without those future amendments, I'm concerned that the implementation issues will be a barrier to effective enforcement. So I hope you will continue to work together to to thread that needle. So, with that, I will be recommending support.

And madam secretary, please call the roll. Oh, wait. We had a motion and a second. Yes.

On AB 1560 the motion is do passed and re refer to the committee on appropriations. Pellerin?

Pellerin, aye. Gallagher?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Gallagher, aye. Addis?

Addis, aye. Berman?

Aye.

Berman, aye. Elhawary? Johnson?

Aye.

Stefani, aye.

Johnson, aye. Solache? Stefani?

Aye.

That bill is out six to zero. Thank you so much. Good to see you.

Thank you. Good to see you.

Alright. We're gonna now move on to our next bill. Assembly member Addis, are you ready to take your item number one, AB 1539? Alright. And welcome, assembly member Berman.

Good to see you. And you may begin whenever you're ready.

Thank you. Thank you, madam chair, staff, advocates of this bill. Today, we're here to present AB 1539, the Protect Our Democracy Act, which would strengthen critical constitutional safeguards by making it a crime under the penalty of perjury to place a candidate for president or vice president on the ballot who is ineligible due to constitutional term limits and requirements of the twenty second and twelfth amendments.

I appreciate the committee's work on this bill, and I accept the amendments that are proposed in, in your committee analysis. I know we all think the constitution is the ultimate back drop, the ultimate backstop as it were to attacks on our election system, but I would posit that we need to shore things up.

The United States constitution was written to include various protections to ensure that no single individual wields too much power over the country. Among these protections is the twenty second amendment that limits a president to two terms in office as well as the twelfth amendment that says a person is not eligible for vice president if they are not eligible for president. However, despite this long standing pres prohibition, our president has made repeated references to pursuing a third term.

As mentioned in the committee analysis in March 2025 in an interview with NBC, the president did not rule out pursuing a third term saying that lot, quote, "A lot of people want me to do it, but, I mean, I basically tell them we have a long way to go. You know?

It's very early in this administration. There are methods by which we could do it." In October, the president told reporters he hadn't really thought about running for a third term, but also refused to rule out running again. Additionally, the president is selling merchandise for a 2028 election, including the slogan, "Trump 2028 rewrite the rules."

And I would say that this rhetoric in combination with actions taken to undermine our democratic norms coupled with multiple attempts to supersede the law pose an unprecedented threat to our country's democracy, and should not go unanswered.

And, additionally, whether this president himself seeks a third term or not, as leader of the free world, he does set the norms for what's accessible acceptable. We've seen this with his normalizing of sexual assault. We've seen this with his normalizing of attacks on our capital, and we've seen this with his normalizing of targeting the most vulnerable. Where this president goes, others may follow, and we've seen that time and time again.

So it's time to act to prevent a future third term, whether it's this president attempting to have one or any other president attempting to have one.

So that's why we've introduced AB 1539, and that would make it a crime under penalty of perjury for a representative of a political party to attempt to place someone on the ballot for president or vice president who is unqualified to serve during due to term limits. This would attempt this would prevent political parties from attempting to subvert the constitution by placing such a nominee on the ballot.

With me today is Genesis Gonzales, legislative director for lieutenant governor Eleni Cunilakas, and I'll turn it over to her now.

And you have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning, madam chair and members. Genesis Gonzales, legislative director for California lieutenant governor, Eleni Kounalakis. The lieutenant governor is a proud sponsor of AB 1539 and recognizes assemblymember Addis for her leadership in, introducing this important measure. This feels deeply personal to the lieutenant governor.

As US ambassador to Hungary, she witnessed firsthand the rise of Viktor Orban, a leader who systematically dismantled a burgeoning democracy by ignoring customs, norms, judicial orders, and constitutional constraints. She has seen that same pattern here at home. When leaders openly disregard those safeguards that protect our system of government, democracy itself becomes vulnerable. AB 1539 addresses that vulnerability.

It simply requires a representative of a political party to certify under penalty of perjury that their presidential and vice presidential nominees meet the constitutional eligibility requirements under the twenty second and twelfth amendments of The United States constitution.

These are not abstract rules. They are safeguards put in place to protect our democracy from the concentration of power and to ensure that no one, no matter how powerful, stands above the constitution. For generation, term limits and eligibility requirements have preserved the stability and peaceful transfer of power that defines American democracy. But when those boundaries are openly questioned, it creates uncertainty and erodes public trust in the very foundation of our democracy. AB 1539 does not change who can run for office.

It simply reinforces the rules we already have and ensures integrity of California's ballot. The peaceful succession of power has been a cornerstone of our national identity for nearly 200 and fifty years. We can no longer assume it will be respected without vigilance. This bill is about drawing a firm line and reaffirming that our constitution still matters. We respectfully request your support.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support that just wanna come to the mic and express your name, organization, and position?

Thank you, madam chair. Jean Hurst here today on behalf of the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors in support.

Thank you. And do we have any witnesses here in the room who are opposed to the bill? Anyone who just wants to come to the mic and tell us you're opposed? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the members. Any questions, comments?

We have a motion and a second. Any questions or comments? Seeing none, assembly member, you may close.

Thank you, madam chair. I respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you so much. The twenty second amendment to the US constitution is clear that no person can be elected to the office of president more than twice. Given how unambiguous that language is, I wish we could say that this bill is unnecessary. Unfortunately, president Trump and his allies have repeatedly floated the idea of his running for a third term in 2028. So under those circumstances, this is a reasonable bill to affirm the limits found in The US constitution.

I want to thank the author for accepting the committee's amendments, and, I'm recommending support with those amendments. And we have a motion by Solache and second by Stefani. Was that right? Or or Berman. Okay.

And madam secretary, please call the roll.

On AB 1539 the motion is do pass as amended and re refer to the committee on appropriations. Pellerin?

Aye.

Pellerin, aye. Gallagher? Addis?

Aye.

Berman, aye. Elhawary?

Addis, aye. Berman?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Johnson, aye. Solache?

Elhawary, aye. Johnson?

Solache, aye. Stefani?

Aye.

Stefani, aye.

Aye.

And that bill is out seven to zero.

Does anyone know if vice chair Gallagher is in the hallway? If not, the next bill up is mine. And if it's okay with the committee here, can I turn the gavel over to assembly member Johnson? Okay.

Why not?

It's it's a dangerous vice chair.

Okay. Alright. Then we turn this off.

Assembly member Pellerin.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Thank you so much. In 2022 and 23, the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District, Metro, worked with communities across its service territory to plan a network of bus services dubbed Reimagine Metro that would be faster, more efficient, more frequent, and reliable in areas of high transit demand. Reimagine Metro phase one launched in December 2023, implemented new higher frequency routes from Watsonville to Santa Cruz. Reimagine Metro phase two, which began implementation in March 2024, expanded Metro's network of frequent routes and increased ridership by 43%.

Reimagine Metro phase one and two were funded by a one time infusion of $28.3 million, and 2023 will run out in 2026.

To prevent service and job cuts after this funding runs out, Metro must secure additional state or local funding. Failure to secure additional funds will impact service to residents of Santa Cruz and Watsonville and will lead to significant metro employee layoffs. AB 1919 would add election procedures to address a gap in current law, which fails to outline how a qualified voter initiative for a local jurisdiction without elections procedures like Metro may be placed on the ballot.

By providing statutorily defined election procedures, it will allow voters to propose a special tax through a qualified voter initiative and raise the funds they need to be sustainable. And with me today to testify in support is Corey Aldridge, CEO of the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District, and Local twenty three general chairman, Jamie Renteria.

Good morning, members. I'm Corey Aldridge, and I'm the CEO of Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District. I first wanna thank Assembly Member Pellerin for championing this effort on our behalf. As a brief background, beginning in 2022, we worked with communities and our union, partners across our service territories to develop and implement what we call reimagine metro, Faster, more frequent, and more reliable service. This effort used one time monies that we received, from the state under SB 125.

Reimagine metro has been a tremendous success. We've seen ridership increases of 43%. And as this one time funding runs out, we are, like many other agencies around the around the state, Metro is facing a significant funding shortfall. We know that the service that we're providing is working. We see it in the writer's numbers, and we would hate to go backwards by eliminating service and having to lay off many of our employees.

To that end, as the assembly member noted, a group of local advocates formed a coalition, friends of of Santa Cruz Metro committed to gathering signatures and sponsoring a citizen's initiative to place a 1 half cent sales tax on the ballot to benefit Metro. Unfortunately, because we do not have election procedures outlined in our authorizing statute, it is it's uncertain as how local residents can place a citizen's initiative for Metro on the ballot.

This bill resolves the ambiguity by enshrining election procedures and are authorizing statutes and making it clear how local voters may pursue and place citizens initiative on the ballot. Thank you.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for your time. My name is Jaime Renteria. As she said, I'm the general chairperson for Smart Local 23. As of right now, I represent 217 fixed drivers, operators, and roughly 38 Paracruz operators.

Right now, we are asking for this measure to go through because if it doesn't happen, what we're looking at, we're looking at potentially a 100 union drivers laid off, and that's just on the fixed route driver side. We're not talking about any other unions that we have in there, which is SCIU or any of the paracruz operators. Mister Aldridge also mentioned we increased in service.

We would also be looking at a 30% decrease in service because we don't have the we don't have the operators to do this. We we started reimagine Metro with that kim buses, and we're working on cleaner air and everything.

And that's also gonna be affected as well. Right now, we went from with a new reimagine Metro, we went from a thirty minute service and routes to fifteen minute servicing routes, and that improved our ridership. Right now, we are providing free ridership to our our our our youth. And with this bill passing and everything going according to plan, we can also provide it to our seniors, disabled, and low income ridership. I I know everybody's seen the the the pricing gas right now.

Gas is extremely expensive. We're expecting ridership to improve. But by this bill not passing, it's gonna do a significant effect on our community, on our ridership. And that's pretty much what I had to say. I I only ask that we push this forward for the the benefit of our community and our and our our members.

Thank you.

K. Thank you. Do we have other witnesses in support? And remember to state your name and title and

Good morning. Jesus Gonzales, Smart Local 23. I'm a bus operator, and I support this bill.

Good morning, committee members. Louie Costa with Smart Transportation Division Safety and Legislative Board in support.

Trevor Haddix, Smart Transportation Division 492 out of Roseville, Sacramento in support. Also, a Santa Cruz native. Thank you.

Good morning. Gabriela Cervantes here on behalf of the American Council of Engineering Companies in support.

Okay. And then do we have any witnesses in opposition? See none. And then any any people in the audience? Yes.

Okay. Go ahead. In opposition.

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

Alright. Well, bringing it back to committee, is there any questions or comments from the committee? Yeah. Assembly member Addis.

Thank you so much, vice chair. And madam chair, I wanna say thank you for bringing this bill forward and allowing me to join author. It's always such a pleasure to be able to represent Santa Cruz County together and understand from talking to the director yesterday how important this bill is, how timely it is, how urgent it is that we're able to move this forward.

California has really leaned into many of our clean energy goals and our climate goals and public transportation as a critical, critical part of that. So appreciate you moving to put the power back in the hands of the people to be able to support local transit.

And also wanna appreciate, SmartTD and all the folks that came up and were advocating last week, that we got to meet with and talk about. And it's just a it's a wonderful thing when management and labor, the folks that are doing the actual work are joining together to be able to get something across that's important for the local community. So happy to move the bill, and, obviously, you have my full support. Thank you.

Any other questions, comments?

May I make one more comment? And I forgot to say it. I apologize.

Usually, I don't, but I'll let you do that. So go go ahead.

My My apologies. Quick comment. I forgot to mention, not only do I represent the bus drivers, but I'm also a bus driver myself.

Thank you, sir. I did have a couple questions. So what one question I have is why isn't the transportation district just doing this and putting it on the ballot?

I'm sorry. I didn't hear you.

Why isn't the trans transit district or board just putting this on the ballot themselves?

Well, they they don't have the citizen's initiative procedures, that are required. And if they likely did it without this legislation, they would face legal challenges. So this provides clarity in the law.

Okay. And then I know I know, you know, previously, and I think I think you supported this measure when the when the Taxpayer Protection Act was being circulated and gonna go on the ballot. We had a a legislation here. That I think you supported that said, hey, that vote should be two thirds vote.

Would you would you be open to doing the same thing here with this if this is gonna go to the voters, it's gonna be a citizen's initiative that's going to change that two thirds requirement that it should have to be passed by two thirds of the voters?

It doesn't change that requirement. The bill this bill just simply clarifies the process by which a measure proposed by the Metro board or a qualified voter initiative may be submitted to voters.

Yeah. No. I'm saying would you be open to making this this vote if we're gonna allow this, right, in this specific instance? And, otherwise, it would require two thirds to pass a special tax. Right?

Would you be open to making this vote? You know, I'm I'm not making this as a form of amendment today, but would you be open to the right direction?

We're not changing any of the provisions of law. We're just gonna be providing them the authority to put this before the citizens of Santa Cruz so we can keep the public transit moving and we could pea keep people employed.

Do you do you worry at all about, like, the precedent of now many different districts might come before us asking for, like, special treatment that's different, you know, than I mean, this isn't allowed right now. Right? And so many districts might be coming before us saying, hey. Do a special provision for us allowing a citizen's initiative that bypasses the two thirds vote.

Well, election procedures are already in place for cities, counties, and special districts. But in the case of metro, they don't have those clear provisions in law. So this bill provides that. So we're not changing anything, but just giving them that authority.

Okay.

Alright. Well, I I I appreciate it. I know it's a a local issue, important, certainly to your district. I I will be in opposition just because I think it you know, end running the the two thirds requirement, you know, shouldn't be something that we should make a habit of doing.

And, you know, when there's something like the special tax, I know it's hard to get that voter threshold, but that's what the I think the voters demand with, you know, the initiatives that are passed and the tax measures that have been passed.

So I'll be at opposition, but I I understand the, obviously, the the need of your local community. Okay. So with that, I will give you

Respectfully ask for your vote.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

the opportunity to close.

Okay. We'll call the roll.

Oh, we don't have motions.

We had a motion by

I I motioned.

Oh, did do you have motion?

By Addis, seconded by Elhawary.

Okay. On AB 1919 the motion is do passed and re refer to the committee on local government. Pellerin?

Pellerin, aye. Gallagher?

Aye.

No.

Aye.

Gallagher, no. Addis?

Aye.

Addis, aye. Berman?

Berman, aye. Elhawary?

Elhawary, aye. Johnson?

Aye.

No.

Johnson, no. Solache?

Stefani, aye.

Aye.

Solache, aye. Stefani?

Aye.

Okay. And that bill is out six to two.

We're now ready to take up our final Bill by Assemblymember Jackson, and that's item three AB 1562.

Oh, boy.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I want to begin by acknowledging the committee's comments, and I'm committed to working with the appropriate stakeholders to add guidelines on implementation, of this Bill. You know, last year, we had a quite a robust discussion in terms of the state of our democracy. And but one thing that I criticize California for is when it's hot, we go all in. But then when it's not, we just move on even though we didn't actually fix anything.

And so my argument is is that we still have work to do to strengthen our democracy, not just in the nation, but here in California. And a part of what I've been committing to do is find out ways how do we bring our citizens closer to their democracy, closer to how democracy works. Because the further we are from democracy, the less engaged we are, and the less engaged we are, the weaker democracy becomes.

I've been really reading the works of Hamilton and Jefferson, and over and over again in their writings, they talk about that the ultimate safeguard of our democracy is an informed and engaged citizenry. And it's up to them to stay engaged.

It's up to them to protect their democracy because at the end of the day, they are the natural guardians of our democracy. So a part of trying to bring people closer to to their democracy, AB 1562 aims to encourage civic engagement and strengthen our democracy by authorizing counties to randomly select individuals to serve as poll workers for elections. Two counties in Nebraska employs this drafting system to recruit work precinct workers, election office helpers, and ballot deliverers, among other tasks.

Nebraska has authorized counties to use this tool for recruitment and ensuring free and fair elections, and they've been doing this since '19 since the nineteen fifties. This is not a pilot program or it's a very long pilot program since the nineteen fifties.

Right? But the idea is is that this has already been proven to be able to work. Two counties right now, one county does it annually. Another county has needed it before when they had a low amount. I think it was during COVID, and they it was they were finding hard to find folks, and so they employed this method.

But it's important to know that voter confidence in any confidence in elections is at a all time low, leading to low voter turnout and overall less participation in our democracy. A research study has found almost 6,000,000 additional votes would have been casted in the twenty twenty four general election have voter confidence levels increased, to its highest. At the end of the day, we have got to start really focusing on strengthening our democracy, and it begins with strengthening an informed and engaged citizenry.

So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much. Are there any witnesses in support of AB 1562 by Assemblymember Jackson? Anybody who'd like to come to the mic and express support?

Good morning, Members of the Committee. Ruth Sosa on behalf of Power CA Action in strong support. Thank you.

Anybody in the room in opposition or anyone who just wants to go to the mic and express opposition? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to members. Any questions, discussion?

I have a question.

We have a motion, and we'll go to a question of Assemblymember Johnson.

Thank you. Excuse me. Assemblymember Jackson. I know California has faced a lot of criticism for slow counting. And, so more of a statement first and then

some follow-up questions. I'm not sure I understand why a resource should be diverted to a draft program rather than improving the speed and accuracy of our existing process. That's kind of my initial thought. But if citizens are already allowed to volunteer as poll workers, why is this bill necessary?

Right. It is well, number one, I'm not saying it's absolutely necessary, which is why we're not mandating counties to do it. We're giving them that option. But as we have found, there might be times where not even there there may be even a time where there aren't enough volunteers. Now we never know.

I mean, obviously, COVID happened. You know, data shows that COVID type things may happen more frequently. But, also, again, this is an option for counties to do. And so if they feel like this might be a drain on resources and not worth doing, that's fine. I'm just saying we should be promoting more options on how you can bring citizens closer to their democracy.

And, usually, you have the same people all the time. If you go to your polling place, sometimes you see them year after year. You know them by name. How's the grandkids? You know?

And all those type of things. But what I'm saying is that's not enough. And the less people have an opportunity to actually see the mechanism of how it works, similar to jury duty, that you start to mistrust something that you don't really understand and you haven't had a chance to really be a part of. And so this is, again, just being a way to say, we need to find more ways. I saw this as an innovative way that's has been proven over decades.

And I believe that, it's worth putting as a part of our laws in California to give people an opportunity. And, again, counties can choose to utilize the law or not.

Thank you. My second question is, just about, you you know, you mentioned that this is modeled after Nebraska, and it's been since what do you say? Nineteen fifties. Since the nineteen fifties. A really long time.

So not a pilot. But do is there data to show that this program is you said proven. So is it actually increasing election integrity, and do we see those results?

Yeah. Actually, there was a great NPR article on it. I I can send that to you as well that really talked about how, the benefits of it is that people actually did start engaging with their democracy more because people who usually would not have have been were part of the process. And the interesting thing about the way the county in Nebraska does it is that it actually requires you to serve up to four times as a election worker.

And same similar to jury duty, if there's extensions and all that stuff, they treat it like jury duty, basically.

And what they found was is that the first time, of course, they're like, oh, gosh.

Here we go. Why do I have to do this? But after that, you actually start to see them being more willing to engage in the process and actually appreciate that they've been able to be a part of something that they may not have seen as a as actually working the system and helping the system to work. The second thing is this. It actually brings in younger people to be more involved in the process.

And as we know, we have a big problem with, young people engaging and voting at higher numbers and things like that too.

So it actually got them more comfortable with understanding the process and wanting to use their rights as citizens to be able to cast votes.

I thank you for the questions, answers. I was really looking to find a way to justify the diversion of our resource to you know, with that election integrity and speed.

I won't be in support, but I do Yyah. Thank you for your thank you for your responses.

Yeah. Thank you for the question.

The Assemblymember Gallagher.

Yeah. I was I thought it was interesting that you brought up Hamilton and Jefferson, because they were rivals. They actually saw things very differently, in their in their time. And but I'm thinking about your, you know, I'm think I'm thinking about this is, we do have a problem getting poll workers, and maybe this is a way to cert certainly help encourage people, you know, get involved in the process. Well, I guess it does more than encourage.

I mean, so many adopts, like, stuck doing it, but it's it's part of participating in, you know, our country, participating in our democracy yeah. In our republic. So I'm I'm thinking about it. I mean, it's a unique idea and apparently not a new idea. But, yeah, I was thinking about that because I think Hamilton was, you know, much more of a fan of industrialization, a standing army, and I think Jefferson was not.

In fact, I think Hamilton actually once said to Jefferson, your people, sir, are a great beast. So They didn't they didn't see eye to eye on a lot of of things, but interesting that.

But there is one thing they did agree on. When you look at the Federalist Papers number 16, Hamilton talks about the citizen being the natural guardians of their democracy and the idea that they have to be engaged, but they also have to be informed if they're gonna be engaged properly.

Yeah.

And many of the letters that Jefferson wrote, he was a big proponent of that's why we wanted to have compulsory education so people can be able to read on their own, make decisions for their own, read things and and educate themselves on their own, and also advocate it for, the need for an educated citizenry. So, at this foundation, the exciting part is is that, at the end of the day, it's the everyday citizen that needs to understand.

I think we've gotten further away from that understanding for everyday citizens to understand. If you have a problem with your democracy, you have something to complain about, you you might need to look at yourself. What are you doing to be a part of the process?

What are you doing? Are you, what are you doing to scrutinize and hold your elected officials accountable? Right? So all that to say is is that, again, this

is just an opportunity to promote how we should all be thinking about as a legislature how to promote more opportunities to get people closer to their democracy.

Thank you. Assemblymember Berman.

Thank you, doctor Jackson. Yeah. For the for the Bill. I could not agree with you more on the need to strengthen our democracy.

Yeah.

And and I think, you know, we've seen things over the past, you know, the the decade that I've been in the assembly that really make me worry about how strong our democracy truly is. And so I I thank you for looking for, kinda outside the box ideas, on how we can do that, and I'd love to have more conversations with you on on the overall goal.

This is definitely an outside the box idea to to do that and, you know, get more people involved in in in their democracy and in the process that that our democracy relies on. So I'm gonna support the Bill today. I look forward to some of the details being fleshed out.

Yeah. You know, I think some things that were raised in the in the committee analysis on, you know, just, you know, additional areas that that some details and and refining needs to happen. A question that I'll ask you is and maybe Nebraska already has this.

I didn't get a chance to look Closely at their System of how do they make sure that their guardrails or how do we make sure that their guardrails in the law that, this can't be politicized by certain counties that, you know, we we make sure that the people who, participate as poll workers, do so in a nonpartisan way. Yeah.

And don't maybe, kinda pressure, voters and and that kind of thing.

Yeah. A part of it is one of the things that they all do is, they they make sure that the poll workers are evenly divided amongst parties as well. Gotcha. Similar to what we do for the citizens, election Redistricting. Redistricting, Committee.

For the state union? For for the oh, boy. Get get the gavel ready, Madam Chair. But similarly, they make sure that it's properly balanced. And they make sure so that's one of the guardrails that they do.

Now I am interested, and I'm I'm still learning from them. And I'm looking forward to conversation that I'll be having with them as well to talk about, well, what are some additional guardrails as well. Right? Because, obviously, no matter where you are, there's always gonna be people who don't act right.

Sure. Totally.

On all sides.

On all sides. Yeah. And and I think that's just human behavior, not in terms of political affiliations. I just think that we mimicked it exactly like the Nebraska law.

Yeah.

And so we're trying to I'm trying to figure out what is a good balance without being too prescriptive if each county is different as well. Yeah. And they may be using the law for a different purpose in a different way depending on how they do their elections, systems. And so I'm trying to balance the two. But obvious but I definitely looking forward to continue to engage with you and also sharing with the committee what we're learning from, those two counties in Nebraska as well.

And particularly looking to find out if there is additional language to making sure that we have that backstop. Yeah. Because we don't want this to actually create distrust in the system, as well.

Right. Totally appreciate it. I think a question I'd be curious to ask them is, like, when has it not when have problems arisen? And what did you do to help? Exactly right.

Absolutely. Yeah.

Appreciate it. Thank you.

And my staff is writing that down Or pretending to. Who knows?

Any other questions or comments from members? Assemblymember Elhawary.

Thank you so much, doc.

Welcome to the committee.

Thank you. We could celebrate later. Thank you, doctor Jackson. I I just wanna share that Aye, represent Assembly District 57, which is the district with the lowest voter turnout in the entire state. A district that is has many young people.

It's actually, I think, the most young people of any district as well. And so being thoughtful about opportunities for young people to engage in the democratic process, being thoughtful about how we can get them to really participate means everything.

And thinking about, you know, the work that Power California Action is doing, thinking about what, you know, innovative opportunities there are to get them involved, thinking about what it means, you know, even for school board members to be voted on by some of the high school students themselves. Right? Like, I just really appreciate you being thoughtful in that way and and look forward to really, like, what this can look like.

My dad lives in a it's a very different district than mine, an Assemblymember Lackey's district. And he is the poll worker, and he like, he's the main guy. Every election, he's like, sorry. I can't come to celebrate your election night. Like, I'm gonna be here I'm here.

Doing this. Right? And so but, you know, night. Like, I'm gonna be here doing this. Right?

And so but it's the reality that you said that it's the same person every time rather than thinking about how we expand that so that more folks have access. It really makes a difference. So thank you for this. Right.

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

This is the kind of discussion I was hoping the Bill would create. We we should be having this more often, and this I thought this was a, for lack of a better term, a cool way to, really just talk about we need to be thinking about this more more often, and we need to be more serious about this. And other countries do it in different ways. Right? Some still have drafts in terms of their military to say, you still have a responsibility to your country.

You still have a responsibility to your society. Right? We still have jury duty. We have jury duty. That's another way of saying, you still have a responsibility.

There's great responsibility for having the greatest title that you can have in this country, which is citizen. Right? But there's a responsibility that comes with that, and we need to take it more seriously, and we need to find ways to get people to take it more seriously as well. So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much. I appreciate your goal to encourage civic engagement and bring people closer to the democratic process to help foster trust in our electoral system. As a former registrar of voters, I know firsthand the challenges of recruiting individuals to serve as poll workers. I also know that the best poll workers are those that choose to volunteer opposed to the ones who are volun told.

And the programs we have to allow students to serve in the polls have been great to plant those seeds early and on the county poll worker programs that we've often used when we're short getting those poll workers.

And I wanna thank you for your amendments that to up in the original version in response to our concerns raised, and that if a county elections official does decide this is an optional program to avail themselves to this program, I hope it will serve them well. We did do a quick poll of elections officials and found that there were a couple counties that were interested in this.

So and I do believe for the for those who for this program to be successful, I think we'd also have to look at having the secretary of state draft regulations around this program as well. So but with that, I just wanted to put that out there, and I'm recommending support today. So thank you.

Thank you.

And we have a motion from Solache. Do I have a second?

Second.

Second by Elhawary. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

On AB 1562 the motion is do pass. Pellerin. Aye. Pellerin, aye. Gallagher.

Aye. Gallagher, aye. Addis. Aye. Addis, aye.

Berman. Aye. Berman, aye. Elhawary. Aye.

Elhawary, aye. Johnson. No. Johnson. No.

Solache. Aye. Solache, aye. Stefani. Aye. Stefani, aye.

That is that Bill is out seven to one. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

We're now gonna go through the bills and open the roll call for any of them that oh, we have one bill on call. I'm gonna lift the call on item eight, AB 1993 by Assemblymember DeMaio. The current vote is two to three with the chair voting no. Secretary, please call the absent members.

Berman?

No.

Berman? No. Elhawary?

No.

No.

Solache, no.

ElHawari? No. Solache?

That bill fails two to six. And now we have, some bills we're gonna allow the absent members to sign on to. So just give us a minute to organize. Well Where am I speaking?

We're gonna start with consent. Okay. Berman.

Aye.

Aye.

Berman, Aye, El Hawari.

El Hawari, Aye. Johnson?

Aye.

Johnson, Aye. And then adding on to AB 1539 by Addis Gallagher. He has left the building.

Oh, I know.

Item two Yeah. AB 1560 by Tangipa El Hawari.

El Hawari, aye. Salache?

Salache, aye. On item five, AB 1788 by Berner Berman.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Berman, I. El Hawari?

Aye.

El Hawari, I.

Solache?

Aye.

Solace, I.

Looks like we got you all in. That concludes the items on our committee's agenda today. This hearing is adjourned.

Thank you.

Thank you, madam chair.

Thank you.