Senate Standing Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments

Okay. The Senate Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments will come to order. Good morning, everyone. We have 13 measures in our agenda today, and let's establish a, a quorum.

[Roll Call]

K. We have a quorum. Thank you. We'll take up, first our consent calendar, proposed consent items. There are seven of them.

File item six, which is s p thirteen eighty nine DALI. File item seven, which is SCA 4 Archuleta. File item nine, SB 1418 Cervantes. File item 10, SB 1429, a committee bill. File item 11, SB 1430, committee bill.

File item 12, s p fourteen thirty one, committee bill, and file item 13, s p fourteen thirty two, a committee bill. Kind of a motion on the consent calendar motion by, the vice chair, and let's call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. We'll put that's three o. We'll put that on call. And we have two items on special order of business. We will start withSB 884 by Senator Umberg. You may present.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Today is a busy day, both here and in Judiciary. I appreciate your patience. I had to start Judiciary Committee this morning. Thank you, Mr. Chair, as well as Mr. Matsumoto, for your help on this bill.

This is a very important issue. The next opportunity, I'll be amending the bill to allow law enforcement to arrest at polling locations for crimes against another person or property and expand the electioneering buffer zones to 200 feet at the discretion of the county supervisors. This bill—it's somewhat unfortunate that it's required in today's environment. When the president of The United States says that they're going to interfere in elections and those around them say they're gonna interfere in elections, I believe them.

When, for example, Sheriff Bianco attempts to basically seize ballots and potentially disrupt even a past election, I believe both federal as well as local law enforcement when they say that they may engage in what I believe to be illegal activities and thus the need for the bill.

SB 884, I'm proud to off—author—along with Senator Cervantes, safeguards the integrity of California elections by establishing a 200-foot buffer zone around polling places and ballot processing sites, prohibiting both electioneering and a non-time sensitive law enforcement actions, such as white collar crimes, to protect voters from intimidation and disruption. Under existing law, electioneering is prohibited within a 100 feet of polling locations, and counties are required to provide vote centers and ballot drop off locations with minimum access standards.

Vote by mail ballots are currently counted at postmarked by Election Day and received within seven days. SB 884 builds on these protections by expanding the buffer zone to 200 feet and explicitly prohibiting law enforcement activity at polling places, ballot processing sites, and election officer offices. Bill also increases voter access by expanding vote center hours, opening ballot drop off locations earlier, increasing their availability, and allowing county elections officials to extend voting hours if interference occurs.

SB 884 updates vote by mail procedures to ensure ballots postmarked on or before election day are counted if received within ten days, helping address recent changes in the United States Postal Service postmarked practices that could otherwise disenfranchise voters. Although 884, SB 884, is a work in progress, it's important that we respond to the credible threats to our election with time limited safeguards to protect voters and their access to the ballot. This is a nervous time.

This is a very nervous time, I think.

This election is a test of our democracy, and this is a tool to help make sure that voters have access and that the process maintains its integrity. I ask for an aye vote. I am my witness.

Great. Thank you, Senator Umberg.

Is there any additional supports? Please come forward and state your name and affiliation, if any.

Good morning. Savannah Jorgensen with the League of Women Voters of California. We support this bill in concept and look forward to its continued evolution to get us to a support fully position. Thank you.

Good morning, chair and members. Karen Stout here on behalf of UNIWSUS in support. Thank you.

Good morning, chair and members. Daniel Conway here on behalf of Common Cause, joining the League of Member of Women Voters, and working with the Senator on a few amendments, but in support.

Good morning. Connie Chan on behalf of California State Treasurer, Fiona Ma, in support.

Morning, chair, members. Elmer Lizardi with the California Federation of Labor Unions, in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Carlos Lopez with the California School Employees Association, in support.

Okay. Any additional support? Seeing none. Is there any opposition? Please come forward.

Good morning, Chair Wiener, members of the committee. My name is Kristen Braun Connolly. I'm the Elected Clerk Recorder and Registrar of Voters for Contra Costa County. I'm here in my capacity as one of three co-chairs of the California Association of Clerks and Elections Officials, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak today on behalf of our association across California in respectful opposition to SB 884.

But I just wanna say I very much appreciate working with Senator Umberg and how we might improve the bill and appreciate your comment that it's an open, you know, it's still an open book, or work in progress.

Excuse me. And I also wanna acknowledge and thank the author for removing the requirement in earlier amendments that the Voter's Choice Act counties open vote centers twenty days before elections day. This addressed many of our concerns, in, in terms of it being an unworkable provision. But major concerns remain, and they significantly affect the feasibility and safety of election administration in every California county. I understand there are amendments being taken on the expansion of the electioneering boundary from a 100 to 200 feet.

And while intended to strengthen voter protections, this change introduces serious practical and enforcement challenges. A 200 foot boundary frequently extends beyond the property controlled by the county at that location and crossing into public sidewalks, neighboring businesses, and private parking lots. Counties cannot enforce electioneering rules on property they do not control, and I appreciate the opportunity that to understand the amendments that are coming, and happy to elaborate.

But of primary concern, SB 884 would require counties to substantially increase the number of ballot drop boxes. Counties are fully committed to secure and accessible ballot return options, but adding large numbers of additional drop boxes, especially on a compressed timeline, poses major logistical, staffing, and financial challenges.

Every box must be sited, permitted, installed, secured, maintained, and serviced throughout the election period. Some counties already travel long rural routes or operate with limited staff. Others face shortages of secure public facilities. Increasing these requirements statewide and having them be the same between VCA counties and Polling Place counties without data demonstrating the need and without ongoing funding risks creating obligations that counties simply cannot meet. When temporary funding expires, counties would be left with the responsibility of removing and storing hundreds of newly mandated boxes.

I do want to highlight that—what this would mean for a few counties. This would mean a 130 new drop boxes for Los Angeles County, 62 for Orange County, 70 for San Bernardino County, and 20 more for us in Contra Costa. California already maintains one of the nation's most robust and—ballot drop off infrastructures. Any expansion should be evidence-based, locally tailored, and fully funded.

Election administrators share the author's commitment to voter access and election security, but SB 884 still imposes significant operational burdens that do not align with voter behavior, available resources, or practical realities on the ground.

Finally, it's important to say, it's E minus 42 in our parlance. We're just 42 days out from June 2nd. It's too late to impact any changes for this election. I think it's important to say that out loud. We would already be on a compressed timeline to do something for November, but I just want everyone to understand what it means to successfully administer an election.

For these reasons, CACEO must respectfully marine remain in opposition. We stand ready to work with the authors on amendments that support voters while remaining feasible, sustainable, and safe for election workers and the public. Again, I appreciate Senator Umberg's commitment this morning that the bill is a work in progress. Thank you for your time this morning. I'm happy to answer questions.

Thank you very much. Any additional opposition, please come forward. Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the committee. Colleagues, any questions or comments?

No. Thank you. I understand clearly what you are trying to do with this, but I have opposite opinion and then agree with the opposition witnesses. One of them is that the 200 extension of ballot box and no law enforcement activities allowed. And the judicial judicial jurisdiction of the land by extending 200 feet.

I can understand the county positions, the dilemma there will be. And at the same time, it, it raises a question. With the 100 feet boundary already set, literally, how it'll make a difference, a 100 versus a 200? And that is creating more confusion, and it's not extending 200 feet from one 100. It's not gonna change any attitude of a law enforcement.

That's my opinion. Number two is that, last year, I introduced several bills related to election integrity issues. So, one of them was, to make a ballot result to be counted in a shorter time than, currently, it is in California. I don't remember, but exactly about thirty eight days from the election date, the secretary shall verify and confirm the election results. And then, I now —my bill was to allow the mail ballots to arrive by the election day, rather than seven days after concurrently.

And then now, right now, this is trying to extend even further. So, that delays the—voting is not only right, but the privilege of the voters. So, they should also bear their responsibility, obligation, to meet the election regulations and be sure that they will if they choose to mail it by US mail, they know on reliability of the US mail, and that they can mail it in advance five days before, seven days before, so that the ballot will arrive on that day.

And then also, they have options to bring their ballots to the, to ballot boxes and then also the voting booth. So, there are number of ways that the voter can easily make sure that their ballots will arrive by the voting date rather than extending.

By extending, do you think that will increase the voter participation? I don't think so. Seven days and simply extending to ten days. So, I think our California election voting law is too lenient and inefficient. So, we need to work on these problems to make it more efficient.

So, based on that, that's my opinion, and you will have your opinions. So, I don't expect your, your reply, but you are free to answer to that. So, based upon this, my beliefs, I don't think I can support this bill today.

Okay. Any other questions or comments? Okay. I'm seeing none. So, thank you, Senator, for this bill.

It is quite important, given that we have, you know, sometimes people say to me, hey, are they gonna, like, cancel the election or, or declare Martial Law and have no election? And my response is always, I, I, I certainly hope not, and I don't think—and I think that the, the much bigger risk is that they will, try to intimidate people at polling places.

They will target specific cities, specific precincts, particularly with heavily Latino population, just to try to intimidate and scare people, because that's what they do. They're thugs, and they, and they wanna scare people into not participating, because they know that their positions and their policies are so unpopular that they need to try to steal an election.

So, this is an important bill. I know Senator Cervantes also has an important bill. I was, I just say this is an important bill, and Senator, you also have a very important bill. It's currently in the Assembly, and I know we'll figure out a really strong approach this year. This bill needs some additional work.

We chose to focus on on two aspects, and I appreciate you agreeing to to make amendments. They're not in this committee. They'll most likely be an Appropriations Committee. One is expanding the buffer around polling places from a 100 to 200 feet, even though I understand why, particularly in a dense urban environment, like San Francisco, but other cities as well.

That could sweep in a big transit plaza or other public space where we would typically expect people to campaign, and so, I appreciate you agreeing to amend the bill to say it stays at a 100 feet, but a county board of supervisors can choose to go higher up to 200 feet.

And then, the second piece is the limitations on law enforcement activity of any level, federal, state, local, with, within, I believe, 200 feet of a of a polling place. I understand that, and I agree with the desire to not have law enforcement intimidation of voters in within that zone. But obviously, there are just more normal crimes that can be committed.

Someone could assault someone or, or steal or commit—or commit vandalism—or do something where we would want law enforcement to be able to enter and enforce the law. So, we worked, we worked out an idea about saying that if there is a crime against person or property, they—law enforcement could enter for that.

I don't know if that's gonna end up being the perfect language. It might need to be workshopped a little more, and we're happy to be involved, with that. So, thank you for agreeing to make that amendment as well. And with those two amendments, I'll be—I'm recommending an aye vote on this bill today. Do we have a motion on the, the bill and then, and then it's moved by Senator Cervantes, and you may close.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair, for working with us on this bill. Thank you, Senator Cervantes, for your dedication to the same issue, and thank you to the registrars. I have worked with registrars for many, many years, and, and I think that the overwhelming majority share the same commitment that that we do here is to making sure that everyone who is eligible both has access to the polls in a way that is free and fair. And I, I will continue to work with you.

I understand that there are some logistical challenges, and we will do our best to make sure that those logistical challenges are feasible.

That's point number one. Point number two, just to address, my neighbor's Senator choice concern about the 200 feet versus the 100 feet, I think that the chair addressed that. That's at the discretion of the county supervisors. So, in other words, supervisors think that somehow this is gonna create either chaos or some other, unwanted impact, the board of supervisors, not us, but the board of supervisors can make that decision as to whether they wanna extend it or not.

This does reflect, in, in your comments, Senator Choi, is whether it's a right or a privilege or, or whatever it may be, does reflect sort of the clash of values.

The clash of values is, is that I believe that the administration is trying to restrict the ability to vote. It's trying to restrict the access to the polls, and, and we, I think, collectively are trying to make sure that everyone who is eligible to vote has an opportunity to vote and that their vote is counted. I also agree that should the president not have basically and his allies not have said, hey, listen, we're gonna make sure we put ICE, for example, in polling places, that perhaps this wouldn't be necessary. And I also agree that in terms of the Postal Service, if the president hadn't said, hey, listen, we're gonna monkey around with the Postal Service, then maybe this wouldn't be necessary.

But there are—when the president says those things and his allies say those things, sometimes I think that's odd, but they come to be, they come to pass, and so I think we have to take that very seriously, and we have to act in accordance. And for those reasons, I ask for an aye vote.

Great. Thank you. And we have a motion by Senator Cervantes, and we will call the roll, and this will be passing the bill to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

[Roll Call]

Okay. The vote is three to one. We'll put that bill on call. Thank you, Senator. I'll see you shortly.

Next, we'll go to item number two, SB 1164 by Senator Cervantes. You may present.

Thank you, mister chair and committee members, for the opportunity to present Senate Bill 1164 today. I wanna begin by committing to the amendments that my team, the sponsors, and the committee have worked on to clarify the information required. A notification letter sent to local governments pursuant to page five of the committee analysis. I also wanna thank the staff for all their work and their assistance on this bill.

I wanna refer to the committee to the, campaign legal center support letter and state publicly that I concur with this interpretation of SB 1164.

As was stated, by our colleague previously, democracy in America is under attack by Trump and his conservative allies in Congress, and it is in the Supreme Court as well The United States. As we know, we now find so many of the voting rights protections that we have relied on for decades hanging in the balance. Conservatives on the court had steadily been chipping away at the federal voting rights act of 1965.

This year, it is expected the Supreme Court of the United States will issue a decision which could likely result in much of what is left of VRA. This means that many of the safeguards against vote, voter suppression, voter discrimination, and that we have really relied on in California for generations may no longer be in place.

While we have the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 in law, the CVRA only protects against discrimination at at large election systems. If the court acts to overturn what is left of the Federal Voting Rights Act, state law will be insufficient to protect California voters. This is where SB 1164 comes into play, which is part of the California Voting Rights Act of 2026.

SB 1164 will codify many of the provisions of the federal voting rights act into state law and will ensure that no matter what the Supreme Court does California voters will continue to have safeguards against vote dilution voter suppression and voter discrimination. The bill also provides the California attorney general and individual voters with more tools to enforce voting rights laws.

We cannot allow California to continue to be imperiled by the chaos emanating from Washington DC. Here in the golden state we will continue to protect our democracy. Today with me to testify on behalf of the bill we have our sponsors California democracy partnership, we have Adam Lios Senior Counsel with the NAA Legal Defense Fund, and Kristen Nimmers, policy and campaign managers with California Black Power Network. We also have Julia Gomez, staff attorney with ACLU Southern California, to help answer any questions.

Good morning. Chair Weiner and committee members, as you said, I'm Kristin Nimmers. I'm with the California Black Power Network. We are a coalition of over 45 black led and black empowering grassroots organizations throughout the state. Formerly, we were known as the Black Census and Redistricting Hub, and our coalition began with an intentional and specific focus on democracy.

We were a state partner in engaging hard to reach black residents and led a statewide campaign to inform the public about the state redistricting process and uplift communities of interest. For over a decade, our member organizations have been engaging voters year round to provide public education on voting and elections. Through this engagement, we have been able to learn the challenges facing voters, what increases accessibility, and what can result in voter suppression.

Have also been called to support and advocate on behalf of communities in the face of intentional acts to suppress black votes and political power. Disenfranchisement and voter suppression are not confined to the past.

In 2022, leaked recordings captured LA City council members making racist remarks in discussion about how to redraw district lines to maintain power at the expense of historically black communities. In 2018, a court found that Latino voters face similar dilution attempts under Kern County supervisorial map. We've also seen increased efforts to restrict access to the ballot as election deniers take hold of some local governments.

Last year, we joined an amicus brief challenging the attempt in Huntington Beach to enact a voter ID law based on unfounded claims of fraud. We highlighted the burdens, voter ID requirements placed on black voters and other communities.

And although successful, the outcome of that case turned on a narrow legal theory that is not always available in these cases. These examples confirm that we still face threats of discriminatory redistricting and efforts to pass laws that suppress voters of participation. SB 1164 provides important safeguards against this by strengthening the California Voting Rights Act to cover district based systems and adding a limited preapproval program to prevent repeat violations.

It also fills gaps and remedies available to stop policies that disproportionately burden voters of color by providing a cause of action for voter suppression and directing courts to interpret election laws in favor of protecting voters. Since 1965, when black people gained the right to vote, we have made significant strides in building an inclusive democracy for all.

We are at a critical moment in history that those efforts are under threat, and we must take action to protect democracy. We respectfully ask for aye vote. Thank you.

Good morning, chair Wiener and committee members. My name is Adam Liaz, and I'm senior policy counsel with the legal defense fund or LDF, and I'm thrilled to testify here today in strong support of SB 1164, which is a key piece of the California Voting Rights Act of 2026 legislative package. Since LDF's founding by Thurgood Marshall, we have worked to empower black voters, including through enforcing the federal voting rights act.

And as the Supreme Court has undercut the VRA, LDF has prioritized state voting rights acts. Nearly twenty five years ago, California led the country by passing the nation's first state VRA.

Since that time, seven states have enacted state VRA's, and just last week, an eighth went to the governor's desk in Maryland. Nearly all of the laws that have been inspired by your work here in California provide a broader range of anti discrimination protections than the existing CVRA of 2001. State VRAs are powerful, practical, and popular solutions to voting discrimination. 78% of voters across the country support a state VRA in their own state, and two thirds of California voters support expanding the CBRA.

And despite California's progressive reputation, as the previous witness explained, voters of color still face discriminatory barriers to equal participation in elections, especially at the local level.

SP Eleven sixty four would address voting discrimination in four important ways. First, the bill expands the CVRA's existing prohibition of racial vote dilution beyond at large elections, protecting against any district map or election system that weakens or silences the voices and voting power of communities based on race. Second, it prohibit prohibits voter suppression, confronting discriminatory barriers to the ballot. Third, the bill stops repeat discrimination before it occurs by requiring preapproval of certain voting changes for local governments with a recent history of discrimination.

And fourth, the bill requires courts to exercise discretion in favor of voting access and equity.

As the current administration turns the Federal Government from a bulwark against discrimination into a direct threat to black voters, California needs a stronger VRA now more than ever. We urge the committee to advance SB 1164 and put California back on the forefront of voting rights. Thank you so much, and I'm happy to answer questions.

Thank you very much to both of you. Is there any additional support for SB 1164? Please come forward and state your name and your affiliation, if any.

Good morning, chair Wiener and members. Symphony Barbee on behalf of the ACLU CalAction, proud cosponsor.

Hello. Deanna Kitamura with Asian Law Caucus. We are part of the California Democracy Partnership, and we are in enthusiastic support.

Savannah Jorgensen with the League of Women Voters of California, also enthusiastic cosponsors of this landmark bill to strengthen California's voting rights, also registering a proxy me too in support for NextGen California.

Sarah Brennan with the Weideman Group on behalf of PANA in strong support. Thank you.

Daniel Conway on behalf of Common Cause California in strong support.

Mister chair, members, Terry Brennan on behalf of SEIU California in support.

Nina Long, from API Specific Empowerment in support.

Elma Lazari on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions in support. Thank you.

Carlos Lopez on behalf of the California School Employees Association in support.

Aliyah Griffin with the American Federation of State County Municipal Employees in support.

Good morning. Chloe Shea on behalf of California Environmental Voters in strong support. Thank you.

Kevin Shankman, Voting Rights Attorney in support of the concept and intent, and commend Senator Cervantes for her continuing support of voting rights.

Ramla Saheed, Executive Director of the Partnership For The Advancement of New Americans or PANA, a proud co sponsor and fully in support. We appreciate your vote.

Tiffany Mok on behalf of CFT in support. Thank you.

On behalf of the United Nations Association California chapter, we earnestly and enthusiastically support this bill.

Any additional support? Seeing none, is there any opposition to the bill? Please come forward.

Not in opposition, but no position right now. Sylvia Solis Shaw here on behalf of the city of Santa Monica. We do have some concerns regarding how this legislation would impact current ongoing legislation dealing with the CVRA that we're currently in, but we want to continue or have that conversation with the author's office as the bill moves forward. We currently do not have a position, but just wanted to, state that in the committee. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional opposition? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the committee. Any questions or comments, colleagues? Senator Choi.

Thank you. I hear very important expressions, but they are very subjective or abstract to me. I don't know why I hear such terminologies as voter intimidation, voter suppression, voter voter dilution. I mean, here, US citizens, who have registered to vote are given, to vote to cast vote. And the earlier version, 200 feet, no law enforcement is needed when I see law enforcement uniformed the guards around the voting booth, I feel more protected.

And I'm a minority member. When I go to voting booth, I don't feel any intimidation, any suppression, or any discrimination just because of my look. I don't understand what you are describing here. All those fancy words are very good in essence by definition is supportable, but the reality that is not occurring in the voting booth. What can you illustrate specifically what is happening by certain class what was the protective class?

What population you are talking about? Am I included there? What kind of intimidation or suppression takes place in reality? Can you give me some examples?

Sure. Senator, thank you for the question. Yeah. So protected classes in this bill refers to, any voter across the state, who might have their vote suppressed or diluted based on race. So, yes, you, sir, would be part of a protected class.

Any voter can be part of a protected class as part of this bill. It's a race neutral bill. To your question about specific examples, so you you mentioned a couple of the different kinds of, threats into the right to vote that the bill addresses.

So starting with vote dilution, what that means, sir, is that you might be able to go and cast your ballot, but because of the election system, your vote might not be weighted equally, and you might not have the opportunity to elect a candidate of choice. And if

My vote would not be counted?

It might be counted technically, but it might be, overwhelmed or drowned out by other voters in the jurisdiction. And so we have lots of examples of this.

I don't know what you are talking about. So, I mean, if I voted yes for this for you, you're a candidate, you should get the one vote.

So when we have a situation where voter preferences break down consistently along racial lines, this is known as racially polarized voting. In that circumstance, that can interact with certain election systems, like at large systems, for example, to ensure that folks who are minorities in a certain community are never able to have their preferences realized.

So you could go and cast your ballot over and over again, but you're never going to be able to effectively elect a candidate of your choice, because the majority is going to overwhelm your vote consistently all the time, and that's because of the way that the election system is structured.

And so that's part of this is what part of what this bill is protecting against, is to make sure that election systems are not structured to consistently silence voices in in in communities because their votes and voices are drowned out. That's the vote dilution portion of the bill.

This actually part of it already exists in California law, sir. It's, there's a prohibition against vote dilution that is specifically directed at at large elections. What this bill does is expand that to also protect against unfair districts that are discriminatory because they, populations of people of color or other voters are, cracked or packed into certain districts in a way that also similarly drowns out their voices. So that's the first piece you asked about.

The second piece you you mentioned is voter suppression, and for that, those are discriminatory barriers to the ballot.

So on the first example, you get to cast your vote, but it might not be equally weighted. These are examples of things that make it difficult or impossible for you to cast the vote in the first place, and so my colleague gave some examples of that happening, around the state already.

We've seen, for example, in in Siskiyou County with Hmong voters having, barriers to the ballot, we've seen attempts to, reduce, election, poll electronic poll work poll books, which can create long lines in certain parts of the state. So if there are certain practices that, reduce opportunities to vote in a way that is disparate and discriminatory and has a a material disparity impact on protected class voters that is actionable under this bill. And maybe my colleague can offer some more specific examples.

Yes. I think, something additional to add on the redistricting piece is I also brought up the LA example. And in that example, they were specifically talking about how to pull and put black communities, historically black communities in Los Angeles, in particular districts where their votes would be outweighed. And so that's some of the pieces that he's talking about in terms of redistricting.

Another example I gave is in Huntington Beach when they tried to create a voter ID law and the burdens that that would cause for voters of color.

Voters of color, statistically do not have IDs at the same rate as other folks, and requiring an ID can sometimes operate similarly as a poll tax, which we know historically disenfranchised black folks intentionally. And so these are some of the examples where rules can be created that create new barriers to being able to register, to being able to show up, and cast your vote, which should be counted. So

Okay. When I fill out the the voter registration, nobody knows what color my skin is, what race I am. And even now, I self declare I'm a citizen and that there's a living up to the applicant whether the the legal requirement, which is very, very important. The citizenship verification, even that is not even checked. It's self determining and self declaring your citizen.

If you are 18 years old or older, then you you can vote. That that's two two requirements. And when I show up in the ballot box, nobody even ask, at least the current California law is prohibited to require my ID. I simply show up and state my name, and they give me a ballot, and I vote. And well, you you you you are Asian, and you are not not supposed to vote and don't vote.

I I I don't think that happens anywhere in this country, I mean, in the in this state. And how I'll be suppressed or intimidated from voting. Once I vote, it should go to register of voters and the tablet who the ballot I mean, the the the ballot was cast for candidate one or two. I mean, it should be counted, and it's not color coded of my skin color on on the ballot. And so what I'm hearing from you, I understand that shouldn't be done.

It should it isn't I believe it is oversensitive. And even though you are saying it is happening, but your ex explanation is above my comprehension. So any anyway, I don't think that this is valid reason for us to revise and come up with other regulations on the California voting rights. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. So I support the bill. One thing that I David and I have talked about is in terms of the lawsuits against cities to force them to go to district elections, which sometimes

I think are

go over the top. The goal of this bill is not to make it easier for for cities to be sued, to force them to redistrict. We wanna keep the status quo, or we wanna not make it easier. And I and I also, just a question. This is the first I'm hearing of the concern from the city of Santa Monica about pending litigation.

I I personally, it makes sense to me not to mess with pending litigation, but if if you would like to comment on that now, you may or I don't wanna put you on the spot because this is just coming up for the first time.

Yeah. So this is also the first time that we are hearing from any city on that matter, and it's something we will can discuss moving forward.

Okay. Yeah. I mean, my my initial reaction to it is it seems to make sense not to impact pending litigation, but perhaps we could just have further conversations about that. Can I speak to that briefly? Yeah.

Yeah. Just to note that the primary impact of these these new provisions is actually to codify existing California law and including court interpretation. And so, for example, with the vote dilution piece, what we're really doing is taking what the court laid out in the Pico in Santa Monica Pico case, that relevant case about needing to bring forward a benchmark and putting that into state law. So our view is that, you know, we're not intending to shift that.

We're intending to codify those standards and then clarify them.

Yeah. And that makes a lot of sense. Okay. Great. With that, you may close.

Respectfully ask for a no vote.

Okay. The pearls of a small committee, I don't know that we're I I are you are you We need a motion. No? No. Okay.

We're gonna have to take up a motion when we have either Senator Allen or Senator Umber back because I I can't make a motion as chair. So maybe we should probably reconsider that rule, but yeah. Okay. Thank you very much, Senator.

Yes. I know. Okay. I see that Senator McNerney is here, for item number 3, SB 900. You may present.

It strikes me. Good morning, Chair Weiner, Vice Chair Chao, distinguished members of the committee. I will start by accepting the committee proposed amendments, and I thank the staff for working with my staff to make these real. SB 900 updates and strengthens California's existing campaign disclosure rules to better clarify who is paying for political advertisements. California has passed a number of disclosure laws related to mail, TV, radio, social media posts, texts, and petitions.

These bills have increased visibility into outside spending groups and led to a more transparent political advertising framework for ballot measures and independent expenditure costs. However, lengthy disclosures on billboards and other large print take up a lot of space, making them cumbersome to read, especially if they're on the TV and they disappear in a few seconds. This is, something that we need to overcome with SB 900. California can ensure voters better understanding of who's funding campaign ads.

The bill shortens free the length, of the required disclosures so that they're shorter and easier to read and requires the top five fundraisers of $50,000 or more to be shown on political mail rather than only the top three.

And here with me to testify this morning, is Audrey Ryachek, on behalf of the California State Outdoor Advertising Association. Thank you, Audrey. And Trent Lang, president and executive director of California Clean Money Campaign. With that, I would like the chair to recognize Audrey, to bring in her testimony.

You may proceed. You each have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning, chair, members of the committee. Audrey Ratajczak on behalf of the California State Outdoor Advertising Association, and we're here in strong support of SB 900. SB 900 addresses a very real practical issue with how political disclosure requirements are currently applied to billboards. While we fully support transparency and ensuring voters know who is behind political messaging, the current rules have had unintended consequences.

And in some cases, disclosure text can take up nearly half of a billboard space, making the message difficult to read and reducing the effectiveness of the medium. Billboards are designed to communicate clear concise information to the public and when disclosures overwhelm the sign it not only limits readability but undermines the intent of the law by making the information harder not easier for voters to understand.

SB 900 offers a balanced common sense solution and maintains transparency while improving readability by allowing the use of standard abbreviations streamlining repetitive language and incorporating the FTC committee id number to ensure full disclosure information remains easily accessible.

We work with the author and stakeholders to try to strike the right balance between transparency and effective communication. For these reasons we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Good morning. Good morning, chair and members. Trent Lang, President of California Clean Money Campaign. We're proud to Co-sponsor SB 900 and are grateful to for Senator McNerney's leadership, the Outdoor Advertising Associations, collaboration, and this committee's work.

We sponsored several bills to improve disclosure, of top funders about measuring independent expenditure ads over the years, starting with AB 249, the California Disclose Act in 2017, then following with bills to protect the disclosure requirements for other types of ads, including online ads, petitions, and text messages.

But the current formatting requirements take up too much space on billboards as it has been described, banners and other large print ads, making the top funders too hard to read. SB 900 solves this problem by allowing allowing top funder names to be shortened in defined ways. Good examples are currently they have to show PG and E corporation and affiliated entities. That would be shortened to PG and E. California Labor Federation could be shortened to CA Labor Fed.

And it's important to note that these changes are voluntary. Advertisers can use them or not. It also allows the current independent expenditure disclaimer to be shortened from 15 words, which is way too long to just not paid for by a candidate. Much simpler and easier for people to read. Also, several formatting improvements for print ads, such as requiring the top funders to be bold in a consistent place at the bottom of the ads.

With these improvements, voters will get shorter, but clearer and more accessible disclosures. It's also important that SB 900 increases the number of top funders to be disclosed on political mailers from three to five. We chose three for the rest of disclose act, because voters can't read more than three on TV or billboards, but mailers offer plenty of space and time for five as San Francisco has shown. So we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Any additional support, please come forward.

Savannah Jorgensen with the League of Women Voters of California in support, also registering Me Too's in support on behalf of Courage California and Money Out Voters In.

Daniel Conway here on behalf of Common Cause of California, also in support. Thank you.

Any additional support? Seeing none. Is there any opposition? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the committee. Any questions or comments?

Senator Choi?

Thank you. So intent of the, bill is, very supportable, and, your focus of the bill is, to shorten, the disclosure from top two, and those names are too long and that takes up a lot of advertising space. But that intent is good, but your bill is requiring to list up to five for those names who have contributed more than $50,000. I have two questions. So our limitation is not $50,000.

It's other other than IEs. I don't know who who our our senators. Is it the 4,900 or $5,900? I forgot. Anyway, that's a limitation not up to other other than governor I don't know.

Governor's limit is over 50 over $50,000. So who which position has a $50,000 campaign, one individual, one company can donate? That's one question. K. And then number two is that if we allow If you require up to five, that the space you are trying to limit in advertising this closure is not gonna work out because you are expanding up to five.

And then also your witness mentioned that that this is voluntary, but I thought that this is also required. It's not a voluntary disclosure. This is a required disclosure, isn't it? Can you clarify?

I'll let the supporting witnesses answer these questions.

Yeah. The the top funder disclosures as in current law only apply to ballot measure advertisements and independent expenditures for and against candidates. As you correctly pointed out, candidates themselves don't ever have any contributors of $50,000 or more to their campaign committee. So so that does not Issue,

you're referring mainly for ballot measures?

Mainly for ballot measures and outside groups that made do ads for and against candidates. Not paper by the candidates themselves, but but for outside organizations. Super pack ads, independent expenditures, they would have. They, under current law, have to disclose their top funders of $50,000 or more, and this would retain that, but with these these changes for print ads.

And realistically speaking, by looking at the top five or whoever gave over $50,000, that will make any difference in the voter preference whether to support or not to support, not the issue, but who gave the money was funded.

Let let me take a crack at this, doctor Chu. Choi. Choice.

C H O I. Good choice.

That'll help me remember. Yeah. Sure. I don't know about I don't speak for everyone, but when I see a political ad, I like to look at the bottom and see where where it's from. And that tells me a lot about the candidate, who is supporting the candidate, and it gives me a clue as to whether I find the ad credible or something that I can support.

Now, I'm probably not the only one in California that does that and feels that way. So I think, just as if we can help, people, more people understand, where campaign money is coming from, I think, the voters are gonna be able to make more informed choices.

If that's the case, the acronyms you are suggesting, how many people will recognize what the acronyms that you you will be using in in the future in the build board?

Well, I think if you

replace California with capital C, capital A, that's pretty recognizable. Company by CEO, that's all I mean, these are recognizable, pretty standard abbreviations that we'll be authorizing in this bill.

Thank you.

Just just to follow-up to to your question for the number of funders. The disclose act is tailored to show the right number of funders for the medium. On television ads, it's been three. That's about how many you can read in five seconds. Radio ads, it's it's a a two or sometimes only one if the disclosure takes you too so long because of that.

The top five here in billboards will remain at only only three and other large print ads. The bill is only saying on political mailers to increase that to the top five of $50,000 or more, because on those, the disclosure is is only 10 font. It doesn't take up much space, There's plenty of space, and voters have plenty of time to read them over if they so desire.

If if there's, like, a radio advertising, do they have to name all five? No.

Just two.

Just two.

As in current law.

So if this bill passes up to five, it's only written mailers?

Only political mailers. Yes. Only political mailers on ballot measures and and by outside groups, not by the candidates themselves.

That sounds better. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Any other questions or comments? Seeing none, you may close.

I respectfully asked for an aye vote. Great.

What did you say?

I'll make a motion.

Okay. A motion to move as amended to appropriation appropriations. Right? Yeah. Okay.

The motion is do passes amended to appropriations committee, and we will call the roll. (Calls Roll)

Okay. 3-0. We'll put that on call. And then our final author is here, Senator, Niello, who has

I need to go back to respond first.

Oh, I'm sorry. No. No. Yes. Our final presentation: Senator Niello for two items, Items Four and Five: SB 1225, followed by SCA 3. So, Senator, you may proceed with SB 1225.

Last but not least, right? So first, I am presenting SB 1225. SB 1225 transfers the responsibility for preparing ballot titles and summaries for proposed initiatives and referenda from the Attorney General's Office to the Legislative Analyst's Office. California's initiative process is a vital component of our system of direct democracy.

To function effectively, it requires a nonpartisan entity to draft clear, accurate, and impartial budget ballot language. When a ballot language is prepared within a partisan office, it becomes vulnerable to politicization. Excuse me for tripping on that. This can result in wording that can be misleading, or perhaps incomplete, perhaps creating confusion, but if particularly slanted, creating mistrust in the system, which I have heard from people on several occasions.

California has seen multiple instances where ballot titles and summaries have been criticized as biased or incomplete. Couple notable examples: in 1978, Proposition 13, written by Republican Attorney General Evelle Younger, failed to include in the ballot title and summary that the initiative would raise the threshold for the Legislature to approve a tax increase from a simple majority to a two-thirds vote, which was one of the key arguments against it.

In 1996, Republican Attorney General Dan Lungren wrote the title and summary for Proposition 209, also known as the California Civil Rights Initiative, which banned affirmative action in universities. The title nor summary mentioned the words affirmative action. Instead, it used the more loaded term: preferential treatment.

Proposition 22 in 2020 exempted Uber, Lyft, and the like, using non-employee workers from AB 5, which requires them to make their drivers payroll workers. The measure required the companies to provide contract workers with some employee-like benefits. The original title by AG Becerra's Office was, changes employment classification rules for app-based transportation and delivery workers.

But the final title was, exempts app-based transportation and delivery companies from providing employee benefits to certain drivers and delivery workers. The first was accurate, while the second was clearly biased against it. Largely unbeknownst to voters, AG Becerra had also engaged in a lawsuit against Uber and Lyft over worker classification issues months before the election.

To strengthen public trust and ensure impartiality, SB 1225 places this responsibility with the Legislative Analyst's Office. The LAO already plays a central, nonpartisan role in the initiative process by providing impartial analyses on each measure--always, I would add, excellently written--fiscal impact summaries, yes and no argument summaries, and ballot labels used in county voting materials.

Assigning the title and summary function to the LAO builds on its existing responsibilities and reinforces the integrity of the process. Preserving the credibility of California's initiative system is essential. SB 1225 is a straightforward step to promote transparency, accuracy, and public confidence. My witnesses here are Ryan Woolsey, here to act as a technical witness on behalf of the LAO's--Legislative Analyst's Office--and Savannah Jorgensen, on behalf of the League of Women Voters. I respectfully ask your aye vote, and I will hand this over to my witness.

Thank you very much. You each have two minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm Ryan Woolsey with the Legislative Analyst's Office. I currently serve as the office's Initiative and Ballot Coordinator. The LAO does not have a position on the bill. As the senator mentioned, we're here just to provide some context on how these responsibilities would fit in with what we're already doing.

As the senator mentioned, we prepare analysis and descriptions of what ballot measures would do for the voter information guide and also for the ballot label. In the course of preparing those materials, we do extensive research. We meet with proponents and opponents to try to get as broad a perspective as we can on the potential impacts of the measure. Our primary goal in all of this is to assist voters with making their decision, and we maintain a strong commitment to impartiality throughout the process.

As for the core responsibility of developing the title and summary, we've said before on similar legislation that this is something that we believe we are able to do. There are some administrative responsibilities that would come with this legislation that we currently are not equipped to carry out.

For example, we would become responsible for receiving initiatives and processing the fee the proponents are required to submit. We have a very lean administrative organization and we would need additional resources to do that, but again, as to the substance of the task of preparing the title and summary, we believe this is something that we could do.

But just to be clear, your-- the LAO-- even though you're sitting here with support witnesses, the LAO is not supporting the bill.

Correct. We are neither supporting nor opposing. We have no position.

They are neutral.

Yes. Technical support.

We're providing technical assistance.

No. I'm saying technical to the committee today.

Correct.

All right. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members. I'm Savannah Jorgensen with the League of Women Voters of California, here today in support of SB 1225, which would go into effect if SCA 3 was enacted. We have supported this bill and the associated constitutional amendment every time it has come before the Legislature, and that's because it's a bread-and-butter good government bill. The LAO is nonpartisan by design, tasked with providing impartial fiscal and policy analysis to the Legislature and the public.

Its reputation for neutrality would strengthen the public's confidence that titles and summaries are fair and unbiased. In contrast, the Attorney General's Office is a partisan elected one, and even when the AG's Office works hard to act impartially, public perception of partisanship can erode trust in how ballot materials are framed, especially in a polarized political environment. The LAO specializes in analyzing complex policy and fiscal proposals.

Its staff routinely assess the impact of legislation, initiatives, and budget proposals, giving them expertise to accurately articulate what a measure would do. Clear, accurate summaries are essential to inform voting, and the LAO has a proven track record of conveying detailed information with great transparency, lucid rationales, and in plain language.

The bill also streamlines and strengthens California's direct democracy system by consolidating explanatory duties under one trusted nonpartisan agency. Finally, the LAO operates under a consistent professional framework, regardless of the political party in power. This can provide voters with a more predictable standard for how ballot language is written across elections.

The LAO's Office has a distinguished history of conducting itself in a fair manner that is insulated from political pressure, making it well-suited for writing ballot measure titles and summaries. For these reasons, the League of Women Voters of California urges an aye vote. Thank you.

Any additional support, please come forward.

Daniel Conway, on behalf of California Common Cause. Just wanna thank the senator for his longtime leadership on this issue.

Any additional support? Okay. Seeing none, is there any opposition to this bill?

Hello, Chair and members. Elmer Lizardi, here with the California Federation of Labor Unions. Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak on this bill. We are opposed to SB 1225 and, by extension, the companion measure, SCA 3, which would remove the Attorney General's current duty of providing a title and summary for proposed initiative or a referendum measures and instead give this duty to the Legislative Analyst's Office.

Currently, the state's Attorney General is entrusted with this duty to ensure both the democratic and finally efficient process. First, the current system reflects our democratic values because the Attorney General is elected by the voters. Challenges to the title and summary of proposed initiative or referendum can hold the Attorney General accountable not only in court but also at the ballot box. Challengers to any initiative are likely also voters who can further express their opinion by voting for or against that Attorney General.

The current system is also financially efficient because the entity which defends the title and summary in court is also the entity which has authored the language. Under the proposed law, the title and summary would be provided by the LAO, but any subsequent lawsuit would still be defended by the AG's Office.

This change would create an additional unnecessary layer of bureaucracy since the need to draft legally defensible and neutral language already creates a working accountability mechanism. Drafting titles and summaries for proposed initiatives and referendums is a serious and important duty, and it must be transparent to ensure public trust in the process. Shifting the duty to the unelected LAO would eliminate our current system, which we argue, continues to serve our state well. Thank you so much, and for these reasons, we must oppose and respectfully ask for a no vote. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Any additional opposition?

Mr. Chair and senators, Terry Brennan, on behalf of SEIU California. We've been on the winning and losing side of a lot of these conversations as he-- the senator illuminated. We still support keeping it the way it is. The legal team at the Attorney General's Office is well-equipped to do this and has done a fine job. Thank you.

Alia Griffing with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, in opposition.

Tiffany Mok, on behalf of CFT, a Union of Educators and Classified Professionals, in respectful opposition.

Michael Young with the California Teachers Association, also opposed.

Any additional opposition? Okay. We will bring it back to the committee. Any questions or comments? Okay. Seeing none, you may close. Or actually, I'm sorry. Forgot my order. I'm gonna comment.

I'm voting no on this. I understand the argument in favor of it. I think it's completely reasonable for this to stay with the Attorney General. There is an entire-- a team there that does this work. The idea that we would shift it over, have to create a new team at ledge-- at the LAO, which has never done this before and is a office that's part of the Legislature, makes no sense to me. So respectfully, to the folks who support this, in my view, this should stay where it is, and I frankly think it's a solution in search of a problem. So with that, you may close.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. The arguments against it is that the Attorney General is elected, the ledge analyst is not. It imposes-- a comment was made. It imposes an additional layer of bureaucracy and that the Attorney General is well-equipped to carry on the duties as they have been. I won't dispute the fact that the AG is elected, but that is also the reason to support my bill rather than oppose it.

I don't deny that the AG is well-equipped, but to say that the ledge analyst would need a new team denies the already significant responsibility and involvement the LAO has and initiatives.

They, in fact, write the detailed analyses to move from the detailed analyses to a short statement that summarizes those analyses. I would be hard-- I'd be hard pressed to understand how that would create the necessity of an entire new team. And that speaks to the issue of an additional layer of bureaucracy. It would not.

As was stated, there are a few things that the LAO believes that they might have to perform, though, in terms of resource need, my opinion is that would be extremely small, and I think it's important to point out that, number one, the bill itself is bipartisan. Senator Umberg is a joint author, Senator Allen is a co-author, and two times--two times--this bill has passed unanimously or nearly so out of this very committee.

The bill dies in what I call the killing fields of the Suspense File of the Appropriations process, so I never know entirely why, but in terms of the policy, again, it has passed out of this committee unanimously or virtually, so two times. So I respectfully ask an aye vote, even of the Chair.

Thank you very much. Do we have a motion? And this would be do pass to Appropriations. Is there a motion? Moved by Senator Umberg, and we will call the roll.

[Roll call].

Okay. That is two-- one to--excuse me--one to two, and we will put that on call. And we will now go to Senator Niello's second item-- oh, I'm sorry. My apologies.

I'm going back to item two, SB 1164. Do I have a motion? So Okay. And that is to pass to the judiciary. And we'll call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. I will put that on call. Senator Niallio, your second item. SCA 3.

Thank you, mister chair. I'll be brief on this bill, and I mean it. I often say the phrase I'll be brief is always followed by anything but brevity. But I've already basically presented the the issues of the bill, and I shall wait until I have your undivided attention. Yeah.

So the the reason for it and the arguments are really the same as 12/25. The responsibility for writing titles and summary statements is both in the constitution as well as statutory. So that's why I have a policy bill and also a constitutional amendment. This, if passed, would go to a ballot before the voters to decide on. I am positive that they would approve this because this is a good government proposal.

And my witnesses are the same. Ryan Woolsey with the LAO and Savannah Jorgensen with the League of Women Voters.

Ryan Woolsey with the LAO. I don't have anything to add, but available to assist the committee.

Savannah Jorgensen, League of Women Voters of California, also nothing additional to add. We urge your aye vote.

Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Additional support, please come forward.

Daniel Conway, still with California Common Cause, still in strong support, still thankful for the senator's leadership on this issue.

Any additional support? I see none. Opposition?

Good morning, chair and members. Carlos Lopez with the California School Employees Association. We just wanted to echo the comments made towards the last bill and state that we are in opposition.

Tiffany Mok, on behalf of CFT. For reasons already stated, we oppose the bill. Thank you.

Tom Lazard, California Federation of Labor Unions. Opposed. Thank you.

Any additional opposition? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the committee. Any questions, comments? Seeing none, Senator, you may close.

I presume the chair's position is the same. You have the chance to change your no vote on the previous one to an aye vote on this one, and I would very much welcome that. I would just echo all of the points that I made before. This is a good government issue. As I said, I am quite positive that the voters would approve it, and, that's why the two entities that have testified, in support have testified in support.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay. We is there a motion to pass to committee on appropriations? Move by Senator Umberg, and we will call the roll. {Roll Call}

K. The vote is one to two. We'll put that on call. Thank you, Senator. Thank you.

We'll now go to our final item, item 8, SB 1360 by Senator Cervantes

You may present.

Thank you, mister chair and committee members, for the opportunity to present Senate Bill 1360 today. This bill is part of the Civil Rights Act of 2026. 1360 will improve language access to lawfully registered voters who self identify availability of translated election materials. A pillar of California's strength is the vibrant diversity of its population. The Golden State has the highest percentage of households, eligible California voters or 12.3% of the state's electorate who identify who self identify as LEP according to the latest American Community Survey.

And in the Berkeley IGS poll, 70% of California voters support providing language access to voters with limited English proficiency. This bill would ensure that Californians continue to enjoy the language access assistance provided by Section two zero three by codifying these provisions from federal law into state law. However, the bill will also expand on Section two zero three by expanding the potential languages covered by state law.

Beyond the languages covered by Section two zero three of the Federal Voting Rights Act, SB 1360 will provide the same level of language access assistance if 5,000 voting age citizens in a county speak that given language. This is less than the threshold of 10,000 currently required by Section two zero three.

The languages covered by Senate bill 1360 would be based on the language determined by the Secretary of State every five years. The bill will bring us close to fulfilling the dream of an inclusive democracy in California that makes voting accessibility even for nonproficient in English. So at the end of the day, I want to make sure that we do all that we can to address this issue.

I know that there are concerns from the clerks and election officials association that we will be, working with and addressing moving forward. We here, have today the California Democracy Partnership, Deanna Katamura, managing attorney with Asian Law Caucus, and Ramla Shahid, executive director of partnership for the advancement of new Americas, Panana.

You just have two minutes.

Good morning, chair and members. My name is Ramla Saheed, and I'm the executive Director of PANA, the Partnership for the Advancement of New Americans. We are a policy and organizing hub that advocates for the full economic, social, and civic inclusion of refugees and displaced populations in the San Diego region throughout California and across California. I wanna mention that we we have had productive discussions with the c a c CEO, and we remain open to discussing their concerns.

We are a proud supporter of SB 1360 because California must expand language access beyond languages, beyond languages currently covered under federal law.

Our democracy cannot wait for every cannot work for everyone if too many of our communities are still left out. California is, again, the most diverse state. There are significant refugee and immigrant populations that speak languages that are simply not covered by Section two zero three. California should expand the definition to include all languages. In San Diego County, that would mean that thousands of Arab speaking voters would finally be allowed to register and vote in their language.

SB 1360 also matters because it would streamline the petition process for communities that are often undercounted, dispersed, or not fully reflected in government data, and therefore do not, at first glance, meet numerical thresholds for full language coverage. The petition process is critical because it gives communities a way to come forward with other data sources and evidence of need to ensure undercounted communities are not excluded simply because census data is incomplete.

One elder in our community told us voting should be just me, myself, and Aye. That is what this bill is about. It's about dignity, it's about independence, and it's about agency and voice.

We encourage your a vote in support of SB 1360. Thank you.

Chair Wiener and committee members, I'm not Diana, sadly. She is here to answer technical questions, though. I'm still Adam Liaz, with a senior policy counsel with LDF, and I'm very happy to be testifying in support of SB 1360, which is another critical piece of the California Voting Rights Act of '22 2026, package. Language access protections are an essential part of the federal VRA and a key piece of most state VRA's enacted since 2021.

Congress amended the VRA in 1975 to add section two zero three, which guarantees that all election materials, including voteable ballots, be translated for limited English proficient or LEP voters that meet a certain population threshold.

California's large Spanish speaking population and the advocacy of congressman Edward R Roybal of Los Angeles were influential in the formation of Section 203. Congress deemed its protections necessary to enforce the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments after finding that language minority communities, quote, have been effectively excluded from participation in the electoral process. Millions of Californians rely on Section two zero three's protections, but they are both inadequate and under threat. SB 1360 addresses four critical gaps in California and federal law.

First, it ensures that voters who currently receive in language materials under Section 203 don't lose those protections due to their expiration in 2032 or lack of enforcement by the current administration.

Second, the bill expands protections to all languages, not just Spanish, Asian, and native languages covered by federal law. This means that sizable communities that speak languages like Arabic will be eligible for coverage. Third, the bill lowers the numeric threshold for coverage from 10,000 to 5,000 LEP adult citizens in a county. And fourth, the bill establishes a petition process, so communities that are underrepresented or invisible in census data can demonstrate their need for language assistance.

Combined, these provisions would bring California in line with what other state voting rights acts have done to open our democracy to eligible voters whose first language does not happen to be English, and they will result in increased language services for LEP LEP communities in about a dozen counties.

We urge you to vote yes on this important piece of the CVRA of 2026. Thank you, and I'm happy to answer questions.

Thank you very much. Any additional support, please come up and say your name and affiliation, if any.

Hello. I am Deanna Kitamura from Asian Law Caucus, and I'm here in strong support.

Savannah Jorgensen with the League of Women Voters of California, enthusiastic cosponsors of this critical bill, also registering a meet you in support on behalf of NextGen California.

Hello. Symphoni Barbee on behalf of the ACLU Cal Action proud cosponsors. Thank you.

Hi. I'm Melinda Howard Horarte, United Nations Association of California. We strongly support this bill. Thank you.

Aliyah Griffin with the American Federation of State County Municipal Employees in support.

Trent Lang, California Clean Money Campaign in strong support.

Carlos Lopez, California School Employees Association in support.

Kristen Nimmers, California Black Power Network in strong support.

Hi. Chloe Shea on behalf of California Environmental Voters in strong support.

Daniel Daniel Conway on behalf of Common Cause of California in strong support and also registering the support of Catalyst California.

Kevin Shankman, voting rights attorney in support.

Any additional support? Okay. Any opposition? Please come forward.

Good morning. Kathay Feng, Senior Deputy for Los Angeles County Registrar Recorder, County Clerk, and one of the co chairs of the CACEO Elections Legislative Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to speak today on behalf of the county elections officials, and we're here to express concern that the proposed state policy does not fully address language assistance needs, and for that reason we respectfully oppose Senate Bill 1360 unless amended.

At the outset I want to apologize that CACEO did not have time to submit a letter through the portal because our legislative committee only just met this Friday, this last Friday. I also want to acknowledge and thank Senator Cervantes' office for facilitating productive meetings between us and members of the language advocacy groups because we think that there is an opportunity to really serve all Californians and provide linguistic access.

Since I only have two minutes, I'm gonna skip through lots of my testimony and just get straight to the four major areas of concern. First, we want to be sure that we are focused on, in addition to expansion, eliminating the inequitable and unreliable determination models that are created by election code 142001's precinct based determination formula. That formula starts with taking census data that is collected at the block level and then it has to be imputed to precinct shapes which are totally different geographic areas.

And then because the boundaries of precincts don't align with census blocks and they can vary greatly in size, the process of matching census data to precincts creates a requirement that inferences have to be made that introduces significant noise. Now what's the practical reality of that?

Precinct based models have unintended consequences. In this latest round of determinations, for instance, some languages with more LEP voting age persons in a county were dropped, while other languages with far fewer speakers were added. And that creates a real dilemma for counties as to how we can serve large communities that have a language need based on this precinct based model of determination.

CACO seeks an amendment to eliminate the precinct based model and really focus on the countywide formula that is embodied in 1360 to ensure that counties are dedicating limited resources to serving your greatest need. Second, we'd like to set yes.

Thank you. In terms of timing, if you could just wind up, please.

Okay. Second, we support the California voting rights act standard as the standard, which means 5% or 10,000 persons, but would support expansion to new languages. Third, we'd like to define better the petition process so that there's an actual threshold for determination, a standard.

Yeah. Thank you.

And then lastly, we'd like to allocate a budget appropriation

Okay. So that the quality of service is not just based on the least possible standard.

Thank you very much. Any additional opposition? Okay. Seeing none, we'll bring it back, to the committee. Colleagues, a motion by Senator Umbergh.

Any questions? Nope. You may close.

Thank you. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay. We have a motion on item number, eight, and we'll call the roll. {Call Roll}

Okay. So we've completed all our presentation. Thank you very much. We're now gonna go and open the roll and make sure that Senator Allen Umberg is on everything, and we'll start with the consent calendar. Please call the absent member. No. It's already been voted. We've yeah. Please call the absent members.

[Roll Call]

We have completed our agenda. Thank you to everyone who participated today, and this committee is adjourned.