Assembly Standing Committee on Elections

Good morning. I'd like to call the May 6th, 2026 hearing of the Assembly Elections Committee to order. Before we proceed, let's call the roll and establish a quorum.

[Roll call]. We have a quorum.

Wonderful. I'd like to welcome everyone who's 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 one measure on its agenda today.

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

Violations of these rules may subject you to removal or other enforcement action. Before we move on to the agenda, I have some additional announcements to make. First, I have a letter from the speaker appointing Assembly Member Dawn Addis to replace Assembly Member Marc Berman on the committee for the purpose of today's hearing only. Thank you, Assembly Member Addis, for being here.

And also, our Assembly Member Johnson is absent today, so-- and that position has not been-- no substitute is here for that. And second, the Republican Caucus has a new consultant, staffing members on the Elections Committee, so I'd like to welcome Eric Staniek and wish you well in your new role. With those announcements out of the way, we would move on to the committee's agenda, but we are missing the author, so we'll take a little pause, and we'll check out where she is. So hang on.

Good morning. So, again, we have just the one item on our agenda today, SB 73 by Senator Cervantes, and you may begin when you're ready.

Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members for the opportunity to present Senate Bill 73 today. I wanna begin by accepting the committee's proposed amendments, and I wanna thank the chair for being a principal co-author of this bill and for working with me on this important effort to protect our democracy.

If I could just interrupt one sec? Could I just go through the amendments that we have?

Yes, Madam Chair.

Okay. Okay. So I wanted to update the committee members that there's been lots of negotiations over the provisions of this bill. So just to make sure we're all on the same page, it's my understanding that the author is committing to take amendments to do the following: remove Section One of the bill to resolve the conflict with AB 1664, specify that the guidance prepared by the Attorney General for elections officials and building owners and employers will be developed in consultation with the Secretary of State.

Delete the proposed criminal penalties in proposed Section 15007 of the Elections Code, clarify that vote-by-mail observers cannot challenge an elections worker's determination about whether signatures on vote-by-mail ballot envelopes compare to signatures from the voter's registration record, delete Section Five of the bill, which proposed to add Section 15104.5 to the Elections Code.

Clarify that Sections 1553 and 19230 of the Elections Code do not prohibit agreements between elections officials and law enforcement agencies to permit law enforcement to provide logistical transportation or security support during the voting period on Election Day or during the canvas of the vote, and the word uniformed is-- will be brought back into Sections 18544 and 18545 of the Elections Code.

Clarify the language that allows the Secretary of State and Attorney General to object to a written authorization under those sections, and specify that criminal penalties apply only if someone knows about the objection and still remains at the voting location, and specify that provisions of the bill that restrict a person from providing access to voting equipment applies to all certified voting technology as that term is defined in the Elections Code. So can you confirm that those are the amendments?

That is correct, Madam Chair.

Thank you. You may proceed.

Currently, attacks are being undertaken not just by President Trump and his Administration, but also by some officials in our state, including Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco. We cannot stand idle by while the MAGA movement throughout our country tries to dismantle our democracy piece by piece. This is why last year, this committee and this Legislature approved my Senate Bill 851, which bolstered California's defenses against interference in our elections in time for the November 4th Statewide Special Election.

Senate Bill 73 builds upon the work of SB 851 by further building on our defenses. In case you are under any delusion that our democracy is under attack, remember that last summer, President Trump made false statements declaring that many of the legitimate voting machines used in our country, including in California, are inaccurate.

Indeed, in January, the New York Times released an interview. They did what President Trump during that interview. The president says that he regrets not ordering the National Guard to seize voting machines and swing states in the days after the 2020 election. In January of this year, the FBI also executed a warrant to seize ballots from the 2020 presidential election from the Fulton County, Georgia election office.

In March, Maricopa County, Arizona election officials were served a subpoena from the FBI for records relating to the 2020 presidential election. In January, and again in March, Steve Bannon suggested that the president would deploy ICE at voting locations during this year's midterm elections.

In March, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco seized more than 600,000 voted ballots from last year's Special Election on Proposition 50 from the Riverside County Registrar of Voters in a sham investigation driven by extremist conservative conspiracy groups. Existing state law is clear that after the certification of election results, the chain of custody for voted ballots must remain intact.

To protect the evidentiary use of those ballots, existing law is clear that these ballots should not be taken from the custody of the relevant county registrar under any circumstances, even when an investigation is being conducted. For instance, for the evidentiary purposes, the ballot seized by Sheriff Bianco are spoiled forever.

They are spoiled because the chain of custody was broken, even though they have since been returned to the Riverside County Registrar of Voters after a court ordered to stop Bianco sham of an investigation. They can no longer be used for future litigation or challenges. And do not for one moment think that just because the courts have ordered the ballots return means that Bianco is done.

In April, he told the press that he would gladly, gladly seize ballots again, including the ballots from the June Primary where he is on the ballot. As the old Maya Angelou quote goes, when someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time. The MAGA movement is already telling us what their plans are for the midterm elections that are taking place this year.

They're willing to violate every constitutional norm we possess to interfere with our elections and shape the results to their liking. This is where SB 73 comes in. We are here today to enshrine in state law many of the norms and traditions that protect our democracy-- that have protected our democracy for so long. They're no longer being respected or followed by.

SB 73 would extend the criminal penalty from SB 851 against hiring or arranging for local, state, or federal law enforcement officers from being deployed at voting locations or a county election office to military personnel.

To protect the chain of custody of voted ballots, SB 73 would also make it a felony to violate existing state law and take those ballots from the custody of a county registrar. It would also allow the Secretary of State, Attorney General, and the relevant county registrar to seek civil remedies for the same action.

The bill will also prohibit any individual from allowing law enforcement agencies from assessing, modifying, or taking possession of voting machines or voter rosters without a court order. As we stated, they are coming for us now. This is why SB 73 has an urgency clause so that if signed into law by Governor Newsom, these protections will be in place for the June Statewide Primary Election and beyond.

If we lose our democracy, we lose not only a piece of what makes us fundamentally American, but also our best defenses to safeguard the freedoms that we all hold so dear. We cannot let that happen. We have a chance to act now and to protect ourselves against the threats we see forming in front of our very own eyes. Colleagues, I respectfully ask for an aye vote on SB 73. We have witnesses and our co-sponsors of the bill here to testify who could self-identify.

Great. And you each have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair Pellerin and members. My name is Sydney Fang. I'm the Policy Director at Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders for Civic Empowerment, AAPI Force, and we are here to speak in support of SB 73 today. We are a statewide network of grassroots AA and PI organizations that are focused on expanding democracy.

Our direct voter outreach and communications campaigns reach tens of thousands of voters across the state in 16 counties and in 12 AA and PI languages. According to a recent Berkeley IGS Poll, two-thirds of California's registered voters believe that U.S. democracy is under attack.

Voters-- a majority of voters in every age and every ethnic group share this belief, and voters are rightly concerned about the attacks and the attempts to suppress our votes, including the Trump regime's threats to send immigration enforcement to the polls, the restrictive voter ID initiative, as well as the seizure of ballots in Riverside and Georgia. This is fascism at work.

SB 73 fortifies the protections of our voters by expanding the existing prohibition of armed persons at polling places to include nonuniform personnel, ensuring that the 20% of the electorate that do vote in person, many of whom rely on language access and disability access requirements at polling places, can remain safe while doing so.

SB 73 further protects our elections infrastructure by safeguarding voter lists, ballots, and voting machines, all of which have been demanded by the Trump regime and his enablers. This bill is an important measure to meet the moment and to fortify our democracy. We urge you to vote yes on SB 73. Thank you.

You have two minutes.

Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Monica Madrid. I'm a State Policy Advocate with the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, CHIRLA. I'm here as a proud co-sponsor of SB 73. As we enter into another election cycle, immigrant communities across California are experiencing a growing climate of fear and intimidation.

Families are hearing federal calls to send immigration enforcement to polling places while at the same time watching the expansion of DHS detention enforcement infrastructure across the country. For many voters, especially mixed-status families and newly naturalized citizens, these threats are not abstract. They create a real fear that around whether it is safe to participate in democracy at all. No voter should have to wonder if casting a ballot could place themselves or their loved ones at risk.

SB 75-- or SB 73 closes a dangerous loophole in current law by clarifying that the prohibition on armed officials at polling places also extends to nonuniform armed personnel. In today's political climate, intimidation does not always come in the form of a marked uniform. The presence of armed individuals near polling places can have a chilling effect over voter participation.

SB 73 further empowers the state to protect election administration from interference of law enforcement. This is particularly important given incidents like Sheriff Chad Bianco, seizure of ballots in Riverside County, which raised serious concerns about interference in our democratic process and undermine public trust in our elections and law enforcement.

California should continue leading with a clear message. Every eligible voter deserves to participate in our democracy free from fear, intimidation, and government interference. We respectfully ask for your aye vote on SB 73. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other people in the room that wanna register their support for the bill? Just come up to the mic, state your name, organization, if any, and your position.

Good morning. Savannah Jorgensen with the League of Women Voters of California, in support.

Hi. Daniel Conway, on behalf of Common Cause of California, also in support.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? If so, come on up. And you have two minutes.

My name is Colleen Britton. I represent CALA. California stands for California Action for Legislative Accountability. The stated purpose of SB 73 is to build protection against federal interference in our elections. The intent is preemptive protection from investigation into our elections.

Why the urgent concern? Could it be that our Secretary of State refuses to share voter roles with the DOJ to assist in removing ineligible voters prior to the midterm elections or that ballots have already been seized for investigative purposes in Arizona, Georgia, and Riverside County? Last year, SB 851 repealed California's 2014 election standards, which exceeded official EAC guidelines and instead adopted our current election standards, which only meet the bare minimums of the HAVA.

SB 851 also removed the requirement that the Secretary of State notify and submit reports to the EAC in case of any defect, fault, or failure of the system or any part of the system. There is no accountability. Is today's version of SB 73 another rant against law enforcement or a sign of investigation apprehension?

Among other things, SB 73 prohibits law enforcement from gaining access to taking possession of rosters' voters list, voter systems, device software, and source code. What else is hidden? Californians deserve proven accuracy in our election systems. If it takes federal investigation, so be it. Federal agencies have every right and duty to inspect voting systems used in federal elections to ensure compliance with federal laws. We welcome federal intervention to ensure honest, transparent California elections, and we urge a no vote on SB 73.

Thank you. Anyone else in the room that would like to come to the mic and register your opposition to the bill? If so, come up. State your name, organization, if any, and your position.

Lee Mentaberry with CALA. I vehemently oppose this bill.

Seeing no one else, I'll bring it back to committee. Any questions or comments? Vice Chair Gallagher.

I did-- first, I had a question about the committee amendments. I think you mentioned there's one that deals with challenges to signatures. Is it-- was that part of the original bill or is that-- and is that changing existing law? What is that amendment exactly?

If I could have Ethan explain that, please, that'd be great.

Yeah. Yeah. There is a provision of the bill that-- in the bill now that change-- that prohibits vote-by-mail observers from challenging signatures. The specific amendment which is discussed in the committee analysis is-- as the bill is currently drafted, that provision only applies to challenging signatures on signature cure forms that voters complete if their vote-by-mail ballot didn't have a signature or the signature did not compare.

It doesn't, as currently drafted, apply to the comparison of signatures from the vote-by-mail ballot itself to the voter's registration record. That, based on conversations with the author's office, was a drafting error, and so for consistency purposes that it would just make that consistent across the board that the same policy applies regardless of which document the signature is being compared from.

Yeah. I mean, is it existing law right now that you can challenge the signature requirement?

Madam Chair, I could answer that. Most counties in our state already prohibit vote-by-mail observers from making challenges, but it's not uniformed across our state, and so, just want to answer that question. Yes.

So it's not a state law? Like, different counties have different policies?

It is not universal, but we are working-- many of the county registrars have worked closely with the Secretary of State on these regulations that prohibit that. So it is a prohibition.

And observers can be there to challenge processes and procedures. So-- and they could be there to observe, but they're not hanging over a terminal watching all the personal data of each voter and then challenging things that they feel that they see.

Yeah. So I just wanted to-- so there isn't a state prohibition on challenging a signature requirement right now?

No, there--

There's not a state prohibition on challenging a ballot based on the signature not matching?

The-- yeah. The law allows observers to challenge whether processes are being followed. It does not explicitly speak to challenging a election worker's determination about whether two signatures compare.

Right. And now under current amendment to this bill, it would be a prohibition when it comes to cured ballots. Is that correct?

The language of the bill as currently in print applies to signature comparisons from cure forms. The committee amendment, which is discussed in the analysis, would make that also applicable to comparisons of signatures from the vote-by-mail ballot envelope as well.

And so, prohibit those challenges across the board?

Correct.

It's creating uniformity across the state.

Okay.

So, I mean, part of this is, like-- so we're responding to this action that happened after the election, right? I mean, the election already occurred. The election has been certified, right? And then the sheriff, based on discrepancies, you know, ordered that the ballots be-- you know, took possession of the ballots and was gonna do a recount. So in that scenario, like, how was the election interfered with?

It was a fraudulent thing in the first place of what Sheriff Bianco did.

Yeah, but I mean, like, how was the election-- do you-- are you contending that Prop 50-- the election was somehow interfered with by this action?

Well, could I speak to that? The code provides a six-month retention period where ballots are secured in the event that there's any legal challenge. And I think the main concern is the chain of custody. So absolutely those materials need to be available for scrutiny and recount, but they must always remain in the possession of the elections official under their guarded security measures.

Sure. But, again, the contention here is that democracy is under attack. And so I'm-- my question is, like, how did this action interfere with the Prop 50 election? Are you saying that Prop 50 somehow was-- people were intimidated during that election?

Well, I think it calls into question whether those ballots were tampered with or changed or things taken away, so it causes concern about the integrity of those sealed boxes of voting materials.

Madam Chair.

Right, but then--

And then if--

Okay.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and through the Chair, if I may add, I think there are many of us, including-- based off of what we've seen happen in my own county, if I may add, there is not a lot of faith in the stability of what is happening under this current Administration, and so we need to do what we can to protect our voters and the integrity of our elections, and, again, what this bill is doing is ensuring as well that we do not have ICE deployed at voting locations throughout the state ahead of this year's election.

Okay. Well, we've had several elections nationally now. In fact, we had elections yesterday, right, in different parts of the country. Do you have an example of any time that ICE was deployed to a polling center? Any example?

Through the Chair, I gave my examples of what has happened across our country and what Trump has stated directly.

That's not my question. Like, we just had elections. We've had many special elections. I mean, do you have an example of when law enforcement, ICE, anyone has been deployed to a polling center and intimidated voters?

There have been cases of that happening in the State of California, and we have passed legislation--

Where?

In Orange County. There was a case, and I think it was during the Curt Pringle contest, and legislation laws were passed to prevent uniformed guards being deployed to polling sites.

Are you bringing up an election of Curt Pringle, like, back in the late 80s?

We-- what I'm saying is that that's one that comes to mind and-- you know, but there have been instances where armed guards have been deployed to polling sites and there are now threats of that happening. So this is why this author is putting forth legislation to ensure that that does not happen again and get worse.

Well, I appreciate that example, but I'm, like, more confused because the whole premise behind the bill is that MAGA is interfering with elections, and you're bringing up an-- you know, an election when Donald Trump was not even close to president. And so, again, I don't-- there's no examples of this actually happening.

There might be some. Well-- our witness, go ahead.

Yes. Madam Chair, if I can address this as well? There was actually in a special election happening in Saint Paul, Minnesota when the ICE occupation was happening. And so this is-- this is a very recent example on top of what the Trump-- what Trump has said about deploying ICE to airports as a test run for the election.

Let me follow-up that question with-- I mean, do you think it's a problem that we're redistricting districts? I mean, this is the expert, right? They were redistricting districts across the nation on a partisan basis. Is that a threat to democracy?

That's not the bill before us today.

Let's stick to the provisions of this bill for this hearing.

I mean, if she has an answer.

Do you have an answer?

This bill is not legislating that topic.

Okay. Well-- but it is talking about Prop 50, right? Like, we had a Prop 50 election. This is--

It's-- it's--

This is in response to-- so, Sheriff Bianco, right? He seized ballots related to the Prop 50 election, correct?

Correct.

After the fact, after the vote happened. I assume no one in this room or no one at this dais is contending that Prop 50, you know, was an invalid election. Is that correct?

There's been no lawsuit to that effect. No.

Yeah. I mean-- and so-- and, actually, maybe the only people who might say, hey, that was an invalid election are maybe Republicans, you know, who feel like they were discriminated against, you know, by that redistricting, right? So am-- or am I right that you're kinda helping protect people who might wanna challenge that by preserving those ballots? Is that the real reason?

The ballot should never leave the custody of the elections official. There are very strict chain of custody guardrails in elections to ensure that ballots are not just hanging out in people's different offices and being opened and scrutinized and looked at and things getting misplaced. The care and consideration of securing ballots is of the utmost priority for all elections officials.

So having them leave the custody of an elections official for some investigation that this person was doing is a complete violation of everything that elections officials hold near and dear to ensure the integrity of our elections and preserve those ballots for any type of legal scrutiny that needs to occur so everything is intact and not tampered with.

Understood. That is important. That is important. But let's say that there was some fraud in an election, right. Hypothetically. Let's say, like, somebody's dog voted in an election, right? Well, actually, that did happen in Orange County, twice. But-- and that's recently, not from 1980. But let's say some fraud did happen. How then do you investigate the fraud? How does somebody go about do that?

If I may, Madam Chair, the Secretary of State has actually addressed this in many committee hearings, including in informational hearings that we've had, at least during Senate elections. For those that may not be aware, there have been numerous studies that have been conducted showing that voter fraud is exceedingly rare in our country.

In fact, President Trump set up a commission during his first term, and the commission disbanded the work on that because they couldn't find any credible evidence of widespread voter fraud, and whether or not your party likes to admit it, at the end of the day here, federal agents do not have impunity to violate our state law to advance the president's political agenda or pursue his agenda. So this is why we are here today: to safeguard our elections in the State of California.

And I think we had other questions, so can we move on to some other members? Or do you have other pressing--

I'll just end on this-- no. I mean, look. I think you haven't established that this is even an issue. In fact, the election you're citing, you don't even contend that there was voter intimidation. You don't even contend that there was armed officers intimidating voters. In fact, it was a vote to help your party get more seats to rig the election to make sure that your party got more congressional seats. So who's playing games with democracy here? It sure as hell is not my party. It's your's.

All right. We have other questions here. Assembly Member Addis.

I'd love to be added as a co-author. If you're take-- if you're taking co-authors, I'd love to be added as a co-author. I think it's a great bill. I'd be happy to move the bill.

Absolutely.

Any other questions or comments? Assembly Member Elhawary.

I just really appreciate the work that you're doing to protect our communities, to protect our elections process, to ensure we're doing everything we can to be prepared, to be preventative, given the threats on our democracy from the person who continues to threaten our democracy, literally the single greatest threat to our democracy.

Seeing no other questions or comments from committee members, Senator, you may close.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll keep it short. Certainly appreciate all the work and effort that has gone into this bill, and working with all the stakeholders to get it right and have a proper balance, and really appreciate and will gladly add any co-authors as this bill moves forward. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, and I wanna thank the members of this committee for thoughtful discussion of the bill, and I appreciate the stakeholders who have taken time to engage and provide feedback. Thank you to Senator Cervantes for your efforts to address potential threats to our elections. I really admire your leadership on this issue, so thank you very much. I do have serious concerns about making changes to our election laws in the middle of an election, particularly with the June election is already underway.

And under normal circumstances, I would be concerned about altering election rules less than a month before an election, but these are not normal times, and we are facing unprecedented threats to our elections, and those threats require extraordinary response. And I remain concerned that the process for this bill has had limited opportunities for stakeholder engagement then we've had much hours of deliberation, and really trying to get this bill refined with the language.

And I appreciate you taking the amendments, and I just wanna clarify that those amendments will be taken in the next committee, which is going to Public Safety. And-- but I certainly do not wanna stand in the way of something that is so critically important to preserve our democracy and give voters faith in our elections, and I'm recommending support of this bill today. So, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

On SB 73, the motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Public Safety. [Roll call].

Thank you.

That bill's out five to one. We're gonna keep the roll open for our absent member and we'll hang out here for a few minutes.

Yeah. Okay. All right. We have our absent member here, so Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call]. Thank you.

So SB 73 is out with a vote of six to one, and with that, our meeting is adjourned.