Senate Standing Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments

The Senate committee on elections and constitutional amendments will come to order. Good morning and welcome. We have 11 measures on our agenda today, and we do not have a quorum yet.

So we will start as a subcommittee and then take motions and vote once we have a quorum. And we do have several items on consent. The proposed consent items are AB 1789 by Assembly Member Boerner, AB 2592 by Assemblymember Pacheco, AB 2655 by Assemblymember Valencia, and AB 2785 by the Assembly Committee on Elections. So we will start with item number one, AB 1116 by Assemblymember Berman. Welcome.

Good morning, Chair Wiener and Senator. AB 1116 would enhance our online actually, it's I'm guessing Vice Chair. Yes. Doctor Choi, good to see you. AB AB 1116 would enhance our online voter registration system by allowing more eligible Californians to use this valuable tool.

For more than a decade, our online voter registration system has enabled Californians with a California DMV issued driver's license or identification card to seamlessly register to vote. The system is not accessible to everyone because it can only accept a voter's signature that is transmitted from the DMV. And as we know, a signature is needed to validate a vote by mail ballot.

As a result, an otherwise eligible applicant who does not have a DMV issued ID must still use a paper form, then mail or drop it off in person. This impacts lower income, young, and elderly residents.

Following the lead of more than a dozen states that have adopted this policy, AB 1116 would allow Californians without a DMV issued ID, but who provide their Social Security number to register to vote online. The applicant would be able, based on parameters established by the Secretary of State, to submit a photo of their signature. And importantly, nothing in AB 1116 would prevent a voter from using a paper voter registration form if that is their preference.

I'm joined joined today by Mike Mosier, senior advisor to the Institute for Responsive Government, and Amy Hamlin from NextGen, and I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Terrific. So you have two witnesses each two minutes, and you may proceed.

Good morning, members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of AB 1116. My name is Michael Mosier, and I am a consultant for the Response of Government Action, a nonpartisan organization of problem solvers that works to make government more accessible and efficient. I'm also the former director of election security and technology at the Pennsylvania Department of State and a former election security expert at the Federal Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency.

AB 1116 upgrades California's online voter registration system so more eligible Californians can register to vote online.

This change will improve voter access and convenience, save money, and increase the accuracy and security of voter registration. It also has the added benefit of using existing infrastructure, minimizing costs, and maximizing value. Currently eligible Californians without a license or ID from the California DMV must register to vote through a paper form submitted by mail or in person. In 2024, California voters submitted approximately 920,000 paper registration forms according to secretary of state data. Paper forms aren't just inconvenient for voters.

They're also labor intensive and costly for election officials. Researchers estimate that processing each paper form costs $4.72 in labor. For 920,000 paper forms, that's $4,300,000 in election official labor in one year alone. AB 1116 solves this problem, enabling eligible Californians without a DNB issued ID to register to vote online. These people provide the exact same information they currently provide on a paper form and provide an image of their signature typically just by uploading a photograph.

This expansion of OVR, known as OVR Plus, enables many more people to register online instead of through a paper form increasing efficiency, accuracy, and security. This has been adopted in 13 states in Washington, DC, and implementation costs have been just several $100,000 I personally led the implementation of OVR Plus in Pennsylvania in 2016. Our implementation was completed in a matter of months, and our launch costs were roughly 300,000. Since launching, we've seen major improvements in voter access and efficiency without any security issues.

In short, AB 1116 is a straightforward way to modernize California's government.

This change can increase voter convenience and access, save money, and enhance accuracy and security, and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Weiner and Members of the Committee. My name is Amy Hamblin, and I am a Policy Advisor with NextGen California. Thank you for the opportunity to speak here today. Across the country, we are seeing a coordinated effort to undermine the hard fought victories that make our democracy better.

From an executive order requiring documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration, to attempts to purge voter rolls, to attempts in litigation threatening the integrity of our voter data systems, all with the same aim, to make voting harder for eligible citizens.

Now more than ever, the country needs California and Californians need California to stand as a beacon of democracy and to strengthen access to the ballot box. That is why I'm here today to express my strong support for AB 1116. This legislation expands online voter registration to all eligible Californians. The current system, as outlined here, currently requires a California DMV issued ID, and we know that not everyone has that.

In fact, by one estimate, over a million eligible Californians do not have a California DMV issued ID.

About half those are people without any government issued ID and half those with an ID from a different state. This fix, the simple fix would allow these one plus million eligible voters to use the last four digits and upload or to submit an electronic image of their signature, A simple fix and a common sense fix.

This common sense update enables more Californians, especially young people, people of color, and people with disabilities to participate in our democracy while drastically reducing paper registration forms, easing workload on county election officials, and minimizing the risk of errors in the data entry process. AB 1116 is a critical step toward ensuring that every eligible Californian has an accessible path to registration regardless of what kind of ID they have. We thank Assemblymember Berman for bringing this forward and we respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you. Is there any additional support? If so, please come forward and state that support.

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

Good morning. Paul Spencer with Disability Rights California in support.

Any additional support? Is there any opposition to AB 1116? Please come forward.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the Kern County Board of Supervisors in respectful opposition, mainly due to the bill allowing individuals to register to vote solely on the last four digits of the Social Security number. To the county, it presents concerns regarding verification and authenticity of voter identity, and the measures in the bill, we believe, do not provide the same level of identity authentication as a government issued ID.

Secondly, Kern County is concerned about the administrative burden and the added cost of the bill that it may cost, place on county elections officials. And lastly, we would just like to align our comments with the secretary of state as outlined in the analysis, and a particular note, those that about the security risk and the prohibitive implementation timeline and the cost as well. Thank you.

Any additional opposition?

Mister Chair and Members, Tim Cromartie on behalf of Secretary of State Shirley Nash Weber. We are not in opposition to the bill. In fact, we're, in sympathy with the concept behind it, but we have significant, and multiple concerns with this legislation. It would require the secretary of state to create a system allowing voter registration applicants to upload, signature images directly to vote count, the statewide voter registration database.

This presents severe technical security and operational challenges that make implementation not only impractical, but potentially dangerous to the integrity of California's election systems.

We cannot support legislation that we believe would compromise election security. The bill would mandate that our VoteCal system accept file uploads directly from the public via the Internet without allocating funding for or addressing the need for appropriate cybersecurity measures. This unprecedented exposure to external image files will open pathways for malicious software uploads and other sophisticated cybersecurity threats that could compromise the integrity of our entire election system.

Our current security posture deliberately limits these types of external connections to trusted government partners like the California Department of Motor Vehicles. The bill also fails to address how to mitigate the substantial risk of malware and viruses being uploaded to the SOS website through the image upload process.

There are no specifications in the legislation for protecting against these threats nor does it contemplate the necessary security infrastructure required to safely accept external files. The proposed changes would compromise these critical protections at a time when election systems face increasingly sophisticated threats from both domestic and foreign actors. The SOS currently has neither an established process for signature validation nor the ability to accept document uploads to our website.

VoteCal, our registration database, was designed to retrieve and append digitized signatures from the DMV database only, not to accept accept external file submissions from the general public. The bill provides no mechanism for remedying this fundamental deficiency.

Finally, the bill fails to define the standards regarding what makes an image acceptable for upload. It requires only a, quote, highly quality high quality digitized image of the person's signature with no specification of technical standards. For those reasons, we cannot support this measure and we caution against, implementation. Thank you.

Any additional opposition? Okay. I'll bring it back to the committee. I would just say that this has an I'm recommending support. It's Bill and I appreciate the office work on it.

I understand anytime we're doing something new and different, an agency could have concerns about it. I have confidence Secretary of State will be able to handle this seeing as how we live in the fourth largest economy in the world and the global capital of technological innovation. So I'd like for I think California should always have a can do attitude about these things. So I do have an Aye recommendation and you may close. I'm sorry, my apologies Senator Choi, I did not see you there.

Okay, Chair. This bill AB-1116 is a very important measure that you are proposing. However, in a wrong direction to my opinion, you may answer later all the questions I would like to raise. What are the intent of the, this bill? In other words, encouraging all those, regardless of what their voter true qualifications, is to encourage them to participate, to register to vote, or is this bill truly try to establish integrity of the voter qualifications?

As far as I know, voter qualification is fundamentally two or three. Number one, most important qualification is you gotta be a citizen of this country. Number two is that you are 18 years old or older. Number third is you are not in jail. Those qualifications need to be met and that we need to validate those qualifications when a person is trying to register.

I try to strengthen this validation of the voter qualifications through my bill last year. Unfortunately, in this committee, it died. But intent is to validate how we can validate the true most important qualification, which is a US citizen. If you look at the paper or online question to register the vote. The one one question right there on the bottom towards the bottom is that are you a US citizen?

No. And says under the penalty of a penalty of perjury a penalty of perjury, yes or no. And you mark either yes or no, and you mail it. And you you right right now, the online registration may have the same form. But once that's submitted, who validates?

That's the the the the check mark. I'm I'm registered not I'm sorry. Not already. I'm a citizen. There's an I don't believe the register of voters locally or the secretary of State will validate whether the applicant is a US citizen. And but now your bill is suggesting even if without any driver's license, which is not the proof of citizenship, the real ID, do you believe that is a proof of a citizen? No. It's not.

Simply, as far as I know, I didn't have to take my passport or put a certificate to get the real ID. It was the proof of residence. You are living in the address you claim you are living and with the utility bills, some of the things, so you have to bring it, and then you get the real ID. That is nothing to do with the proof of citizenship. And the Social Security number, four digits to provide, is that the Social Security number proof of citizenship?

It's not. IRS is interested in collecting taxes from wages. That's the reason just about anybody can apply for Social Security number. And now your bill is encouraging, allowing anyone to apply for to register to vote even without on on online is online. I admire that effort to make it convenient.

Qualified people can register easily even though state of secretary states that some difficulties technical difficulties, and that is a more advanced system that will truly validate the the the person registering is truly the right person and the documentation being uploaded will be will be true statements. But this one, this bill suggested only two things. Affidavit of statement, I I am qualified. So probably two, three lines will will be there. I swear hereby that I'm qualified to vote.

It's the same question, similar question, just like I said, yes or no. And then provide the four digits of Social Security for four digits. So four digits of the statement. I'm sure a lot of four digits will be duplicate to among millions of Social Security numbers. But Social Security number, four digits with your name matching, what does that say?

You you have the Social Security number received. That's about it. It's another it's a validation of your your citizenship. So how are you gonna protect the validity and the integrity of the voter qualifications of three with your with your bill? That's my question.

Well, thank you for the question, and I'll let my witnesses answer in a second. Also, I

The author, when you proposed this I had the intent, you know, even though I hear witnesses supporting, you know, this is a good measure. They are there to support that, but

We if They're there to answer questions also.

Senator, the auth the author can defer any responses.

I understand. You go ahead.

He has the ability he that's his prerogative to do that. So Assembly Member.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Doctor Choi, I do wanna point out there's been some questions about this four digits of Social Security number. That's no different than the existing system. That's exactly what exists on the paper form. The paper form, you provide the last four digits of your Social Security number.

The validation in this bill is exactly how it would be done with a paper form, and the bill does not change or bypass any existing verification procedures. In fact, the online process would exactly mirror the paper based one. So I appreciate your concerns. I don't think you're quite understanding the specifics of the bill, but the bill includes the exact same verification process. There's each application would be subject to the same verification checks and requirements.

And, ultimately, county elections officials will still have the final say when processing an application, that does not adhere to the requirements that they have. So the the bill specifically mirrors the existing process. It just allows for it to be done online. I'll let my witnesses, expand upon that.

I agree. I appreciate the question, and and I would just like to echo those sentiments. This does not change the eligibility of voters in any regard. All this is is simply elevating the channel for voter registration. As you heard from the author, it is, mirroring the paper process.

So all of those long standing verification checks are still intact behind the scenes. You still have the online deterrent with the affirmation language that tell people that, you know, under false penalty, you know, there could be charges potentially. But behind the scenes, the work isn't changing. The channel is pretty much the same as it is coming from the DMV today. It's gonna mirror that similar infrastructure.

And when someone submits that signature online, it would be presented to the counties in a similar manner and stored in a similar manner as it is for online voter registration. So all those online checks are still valid. They can the the secretary of state can still coordinate with the DMV and other agencies to validate that individual, and it's a common practice nationwide for a vast majority of the states that are out there.

They utilize the last four of the Social Security number with date of birth and name to validate an individual's information if they don't provide a state issued ID.

In my own experience in Pennsylvania, we would we faced this scenario, we would submit the information to our DMV, but we'd also submit a parallel request to the DMV that would get passed to the SSA through the DMV, and we would evaluate the response we got from the from our Pennsylvania DMV and then from the Social Security Administration to do a fraud check on that individual to verify that that person is not deceased among other things.

So that workflow does not change. It's as you heard from the author, it's gonna be the same thing. What this does do is this provides additional opportunity to have a more accurate signature on file. We have known in the field that signatures coming over from the DMV aren't always of good quality.

This provides, a more accurate signature, and it provides a more up to date signature on the voter's file, than you would have a point in time check when you're doing a transaction that pulls the signature over from the the state DMV.

So this actually will potentially give you a better quality signature and a more fresh signature to compare against the mail ballot to verify that is the person submitting the documentation.

Great. As far as I'm concerned, as a follow-up Yeah. You're you're recognized, Senator Choi.

Yeah. Either author or witness that is through this process, even paper registration process worries me even though majority of people will be honest when they say they are qualified and they are citizens, are you a citizen, when they mark yes majority. But there are, unfortunately, you know, crooked people who are not honest. And how do we do we prevent them, you know, from registering. And this online will even further promote.

So I didn't hear any reply regarding the valid how we can validate the most important one of the three questions, the qualifications that is the registered registered is citizen of The US.

Thank you for for the follow-up. As you, I believe, noted, you're registering under penalty of perjury. And and to register fraudulently would be a crime. And if you were to do that and you were to be caught, there would be a significant penalty. And so that's what we do is we create disincentives to people behaving badly by making them crimes and by making sure that there's punishment for those crimes.

Now we know, and you know, doctor Choi, because you're a a science based, numbers based individual, that voter fraud is exceedingly rare. I know it gets a lot of national attention because the president and others lie about it, but the reality is that people don't want to fraudulently register to vote and risk going to jail over that. That happens exceedingly rarely. And when it does, like a Republican from Southern California registered their dog, they got caught and they're being punished.

And so that's the system that we have.

This does not change that system. And we will continue to make sure that there are disincentives for people to fraudulently engage in our elections. And when they get caught, they will be appropriately punished for

that. Your positive analysis is encouraging, but I have a different question. I would like to know if anyone can do the voters registered to be analyzed whether they are truly 100% US citizens. Is there any audit process that we can make before this bill can be implemented? No.

And and that's a conspiracy theory. So there is no evidence of any kind of issue with with sort of widespread non citizens voting or voter fraud. This is a conspiracy theory that has been propagated by the president of The United States that led to the January six Surrection.

It's led to conspiracy theories about the just completely made up conspiracy theories about, the recent Los Angeles mayoral election because they're trying to set up a system where they can maybe not see Democrats who are elected to the House of Representatives in November as a means of seizing control of Congress even when they lose an election and, you know, it's it's a conspiracy theory. You may you may answer.

No. I defer to you Mr. Chair. I think you did a great.

Okay. I'm done.

Okay. We do have a quorum now. So why don't we establish quorum and then I'll allow you to close That'd be great. And then we'll entertain a motion. So we'll call the roll for quorum.

[Roll Call]

Okay. We do have a quorum. And Mr. Berman, you may close.

Close. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I do just wanna touch upon some of the concerns that were raised by the secretary of State's office. And as I know the secretary of State, and and her team know, I also am very concerned with election cyber security. That's why I created the office of election cyber Security that is housed in the Secretary of State's office back in 2018.

And and so I think that we absolutely need to make sure that our Secretary of State has the resources and the technical expertise that they need to make sure that our elections are as secure as possible. That's why I wrote that law.

The concern about malicious file submissions is understandable, but there are several standard well established security measures and best practices that are commonly used to prevent abuse, including limiting submissions to specific file types like JPEGs and PNG files, setting strict limits to file size, automated scanning and sanitizing files for malicious content, holding files in temporary storage until they are validated. Additionally, there are numerous templates available from other states.

Pennsylvania's experience, for example, shows that with routine quality and security controls, non security their non signature images are exceedingly rare and virtually eliminated.

As a lot of you probably do, just this past weekend, I used an app on my phone to upload checks to banks and upload my signature on those checks to banks. This is something that's been used for years. The technology is not new and exists to allow a person to upload an image without exposing the system to security threats. I also wanna comment that this bill was intentionally written to give the secretary of State's team discretion to determine the necessary standards that should be used.

That's why a lot of that specificity is not in the bill as I wanna respect the secretary of state and and give her the discretion to identify what she thinks is best for the state of California.

Happy to get more specific if if that's a desire of the secretary of state, but the whole purpose was to give her the discretion to choose the best product. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay. Thank you. And again, this does enjoy a I recommendation. May I have a motion? Senator Cervantes?

Yes. I motion.

Okay. We have a motion with Senator Cervantes and the motion is oh, sorry. I have it right here. Due pass and refer to the committee on appropriations. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. That vote is 2 to 1 and we'll put that on call. Thank you. Thank you very much. Assemblymember.

Okay. Well, I see that Assemblymember Addis is here. Item number 2, AB1539. Welcome.

Good morning. And thank you, chair staff and, advocates that are here today. We're here to present AB 1539, the Protect Our Democracy Act, that would strengthen critical constitutional safeguards by making it a crime under penalty of perjury to place a candidate for president or vice president on the ballot if they are ineligible due to constitutional term limits. We know that the United States Constitution is written to include various protections to ensure that no single individual, wields too much power over our country.

And among excuse me.

Among these protections is the twenty second Amendment that limits presidents to two terms in office. Nonetheless, despite these long standing prohibitions, this president has made repeated references to pursuing a third term, as have, folks around him who have been angling for him to run for a third term.

As mentioned in the committee analysis in March 2025 in an interview with NBC, the president did not rule out pursuing a third term saying that, A lot of people want me to do it, and that, There are methods by which you could do it. Then in October of the same year, President Trump told reporters that he hadn't really thought about running for a third term, but he also refused to rule out running again in 2028.

Additionally, as you may have seen, the president is selling merchandise that says Trump 2028 rewrite the rules.

So this rhetoric in combination with actions taken to undermine our democratic norms, coupled with multiple attempts to supersede the law, pose an unprecedented threat to our country's democracy that we believe should not go unanswered. Whether this president seeks a third term himself or not, we know that he sets the norms for many people for what is acceptable.

We've seen this with his normalizing of sexual assault, attacks on our capital, targeting of the most vulnerable, and so many other behaviors that are really stretching the limits of what is normal in American democracy. Unfortunately, where this president goes, too many others often follow.

So it's time for us to act, and that's why we've introduced AB 1539 that would make it a crime under penalty of perjury for a representative of a political party to attempt to place someone on the ballot for president or vice president who is not qualified to serve due to the constitutional term limits.

This would prevent any party from attempting to subvert the constitution and place, by placing a nominee on the ballot who has already completed their two terms as president. And joining me today is Genesis Gonzales, ledge director for Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis.

Thank you. You have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning, chair and members. Genesis Gonzales, legislative director for Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis. The Lieutenant Governor is proud to sponsor AP fifteen thirty nine and wants to commend the author for introducing this measure. The bill is deeply personal to the Lieutenant Governor.

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

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

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

It simply reinforces the rules we already have and ensures the integrity of California's ballot. The peaceful succession of power has been a cornerstone of our national identity for nearly two fifty years. We can no longer assume it will be respected without vigilance. This bill is about drawing a firm line and reaffirming that our constitution still matters. We respectfully request your support for AB 1539.

Thank you very much. Is there any additional support? Please come forward.

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

Thank you. Any additional support? Seeing none, is there any opposition? If so, please come forward.

Leslie Sawyer. I'm here with the Butte Women, Republican Federated, and, also, I'm the legislative chair for Moms for Liberty, but I am not in that capacity here today for this bill. This bill is nothing more than Trump derangement trying to put nonsensical legislation in front of our populace. We have way too much legislation, way too many bad bills. This is ridiculous.

It is only because of the attempted impeachments that even offer an opportunity for him to joke about or talk about running for a third term. This is nonsensical and should be completely dismissed. Thank you.

Kirsten Southam, I'm a retired educator, public educator for California, and, I would like to also oppose this and say it is nonsensical. There's so many more important things that I think that you all should be doing than having Trump derangement syndrome.

Any additional opposition? Okay. We'll bring it back to the committee. I support this bill. I think it's I I don't think it should be controversial to say that shouldn't be able to run for a third term and we have a president who has repeatedly said or suggested that he might run for a third term.

I think he, at one point, posted something about running for, like, 10 terms or something like that. He, you know, he views himself as, as a king, and he acts as such. And so I think it's perfectly reasonable to make this important clarification in our law, and so I do recommend an aye vote. Yes, Senator Choi.

Thank you. This bill is, as we hear, almost nonsensical and the waste of our time. Now you are asking each state's secretary of state to hear from the representative of what each qualified parties and state that the candidate presidential candidate is qualified. And that's what the summary says. But now your main focus of your oral presentation is this is to prevent the third term of presidential effort to run again.

I mean, that was not in constitution. No one can run under the current constitution. No one is allowed to run for third third term. If, anyone wants to, run for third term, then constitution has to be changed. Just because, a current sitting president might have joked around, what about me?

I'm a great president at the term. He might have said, I didn't hear directly what I heard that the rumors that the world is going around, and obviously, you are taking it very seriously. Even if somebody, let's suppose, he proposes, hey, I would like to run third term. As far as I know, there's a federal election commission is the one who which governs the national candidate qualifications and will judge will rule out any candidates which are not qualified because of a violation of our constitution.

So if your bill passes, obviously, there will be some chances each some some states.

Oh, that's a good idea. And regardless of the constitution, let's allow a person Trump's third term attempt. Let's put it on on the ballot. That kind of a joke phenomena can happen. So why do we how do we know each State's secretary of State has the is the constitutional judge and has the ability to judge truly nonpartisan basis.

You are qualified to run as a president of The United States or not? I mean, this is much serious, much more serious and bigger issue that has to be governed by the central federal level at the federal election commission.

And then once that's determined regardless of each State's secretary of State's party affiliation or your preference personal preference or not, the person has been qualified by the central authority and should be placed in the each State's ballot so that people can can judge through their own personal votes. So this is wasting our time and almost like a joke. I strongly oppose the product basic idea.

Okay. Thank you. You may close.

Thank you so much. I just would say, we do take elections seriously. We're proud of American democracy, and we would hope other states follow California's lead. And I respectfully ask for your Ivo.

Okay. It is Okay. We will have to wait for a motion until we have another member here.

Okay. Thank you.

Since I can't make a motion. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay.

I see that as Assemblymember Jackson is here who has actually why don't we take up the consent agenda first since we established quorum. And again, that is item five, AB 1789. Item nine AB 2592. Item 10 AB 2655. And AB 11 AB 2785. Actually, we don't ... a motion by Senator Choi, and we'll call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. So that is three nothing on the consent agenda. We'll put that on call. And, Senator Cervantes, would you, be willing to make a motion on item to the miss Addis' bill? K. Okay. So the the motion on item two is do pass and refer to the Committee on Public Safety. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. That's on call at two to one. And now we will ask mister Jackson to come up to present items three and four. So we'll start with item three, AB 1562.

Thank you very much, mister chair and committee members. First, I wanna thank the committee and staff for their work, and we'll be accepting their amendments today. AB 1562 aims to bring people closer to their democracy by authorizing counties to randomly select registered voters to serve as poll workers if their county board of supervisors approves such a plan. This approach has been practiced in Nebraska for over seventy years. It offers counties a useful tool to rec recruit poll workers and ensure free and fair elections.

Nebraska's drafted poll workers exhibit a stronger understanding of the election process and report greater confidence in election security. With that, I respectfully ask for an I

vote. Great. Thank you. Do you have any lead witnesses?

No. I don't. My gift to you, mister chair.

Thank you. Assembly member. Is there any support any supportive any supporters of item three AB 1562? Please come forward.

Ruth Sosa on behalf of Power CA Action in support.

Thank you. Any additional support? Okay. Is there any opposition? Please come forward.

Okay. Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the committee. Colleagues, any questions or comments? Okay. Seeing none, and you did say you're accepting the committee.

Yes, I am, Mr. Chair.

Great. Thank you for working with us on that. I think it's a reason bill and and I I think we should try this out and allow counties to do it. So thank you for doing that. And so I will be recommending an aye vote.

And you may close.

We are hearing from counties that some have been short on poor workers, and some counties have expressed interest in utilizing this opportunity. Again, the only way to keep our democracy strong is to keep people closer to it. And this is just one way out of many ways we could be doing it. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. I will entertain a motion item three. It's a motion by Senator Cervantes, and that is do pass as amended. We'll call the roll.

Senators Wiener?

Aye.

Weiner, aye. Choi?

Nothing.

Allen Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes, aye. Umberg?

Okay. That's two nothing. We'll put that on call. And now we'll move to item number 4AB1664.

Thank you very much, mister chair. This is AB 1664. Again, wanna thank committee, staff, as well with assisting us on this bill, and we'll also be accepting committee amendments on this bill as well.

We are this bill would require a local agency, political subdivision, or elections official to provide notice to the secretary of state and the attorney general no later than one day after becoming aware of any warrant, subpoena, or active law enforcement investigation pertaining to any election records or voting systems under their custody or control. Recent events here in California have made clear that existing law does not give state officials adequate notice or legal standing.

To respond quickly when election materials are seized or subpoenaed, This bill addresses that gap. Here with me today to testify is deputy attorney general Tiffany Brokaw and deputy attorney general Malcolm Brodigen to answer any technical questions.

We have two minutes.

Good morning, chair and members. Tiffany Brokaw, Deputy Attorney General in the Office of Legislative Affairs here on behalf of Attorney General Rob Bonta. AB 1664 is designed to improve the tools available to the Attorney General to promptly mitigate any damage associated with the improper search and seizure of election materials. The threat of interference in California's electoral system is increasing. Heightening this threat, local and federal law enforcement have sought to search and seize election materials nationwide.

AB 1664 addresses this threat by requiring notice to the Secretary of State and the Attorney General within one day after a local agency, political subdivision, or elections official becomes aware of any warrant, subpoena, or active law enforcement investigation pertaining to any elections records or voting systems under their custody or control. This ensures that the state can act quickly to mitigate any damage associated with those law enforcement efforts, protect critical election materials, and uphold the rule of law.

AB 1664 also establishes a new channel for the Attorney General to intervene in any related litigation or otherwise seek any appropriate relief from the courts. It is imperative we continue efforts to maintain election integrity and voter confidence, and for these reasons, we respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Great.

Good morning, committee members. Malcolm Brudegum, deputy attorney general in the government law section of the attorney general's office, and

Any additional support?

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

Thank you, mister chair and members. Corey Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriffs Association, here in opposition to AB 1664. The constitution of California gives the attorney general supervisory authority over sheriffs and district attorneys, but not supervisory authority over the judiciary. If pursuant to this bill, the AG were effectively asking a court to nullify a magistrate's discretionary probable cause determination, absent or direct state interest, the attorney general would be expanding supervisory authority into judicial review power the constitution does not grant.

In fact, we're not aware of another circumstance where a prosecutor is given statutory standing to attempt to traverse a search warrant.

There is case law to support this analysis. For example, as it relates to the issuance of a search warrant as a judicial act of the magistrate, a proSecutor cannot be vested with authority to foreclose the exercise of a judicial power and doing so violates the doctrine of separation of powers set forth in Article one Sec, excuse me, article three Section one of the California constitution. And similarly, attorney general cannot dictate the courts a legal result without violating separation of powers principles.

And because this bill introduces the potential for political interference into a process already overseen by judges and peace officers, and to the extent the bill would inappropriately and likely constitutionally impermissibly invite the attorney general to intervene in a process in a manner that runs a foul separation of powers, I'll most respectfully oppose this bill. Thank you.

Any additional opposition? Good morning, chair and committee.

My name is, Lieutenant Julio De Leon. I'm here representing the Riverside County Sheriff's Office and Sheriff Chad Bianco in opposition. Let me begin by stating that our agency supports election integrity, election security, and public confidence in our elections. I am not here to talk about the ongoing investigations as I do not have authority to talk about that in case someone wants to ask me anything about that. Our concern is that AB 1664 is not about election integrity.

However it's about who controls the criminal investigations after a neutral magistrate has already reviewed the evidence and author and authored a search warrant. Under existing law, search warrants are not issued by law enforcement. They are issued by a judge upon finding a probable cause. Courts already provide independent oversight and constitutional safeguards to ensure investigations are lawful.

This bill would require notification to the secretary of state and attorney general within one one day of certain search warrants, opinions, or investigations involving election records, and expressly authorizes those executive branch officials to intervene in related proceedings or challenge those warrants.

Once the court has reviewed the evidence and authorized action should remain within the Judiciary Judiciary Branch and judiciary process. This bill creates a significant separation of powers constitutional problem that provides a mechanism for executive branch officials to insert themselves in to active and criminal investigations that are already under judicial supervision. Bill also applies broadly to any investigation involving election records. For example, cyber cybercrime, public corruptions, theft, tampering, which are all under the general, jurisdiction of local police agencies, not the secretary of state or attorney general.

The bill contains no safeguards for investigations involving confidential informants, whistleblowers, or cooperative witnesses, especially Hobbs, sealed warrants.

Those those investigations often rely on rapidly developing information and in immediate investigative actions are required. Delays created by mandatory notification requirements and potential interventions can jeopardize time sensitive leads and compromise investigative strategies. In closing, existing law already provides substantial protections for election material and election administration. This bill adds just another layer of process, but does not approve the probable cause determination already performed by the courts. Existing judicial oversight already protects election materials while preserving the integrity of criminal investigations.

And for those reasons, we we ask for a no vote today. Thank you.

Any additional opposition?

Leslie Sawyer, California voter, opposed.

Kirsten Southam, California voter, opposed as well.

Any additional opposition? We'll bring it back to the committee. Before we I just wanna clarify one thing. So you're you're here on behalf of Sheriff Bianco? Correct.

And you're here to oppose a bill that grew out of his seizure ballots, but you're not gonna answer any questions about his seizure of those ballots? Is that do I wanna make sure I heard you correctly?

As you know, as an attorney, as am Aye, I am not capable or able to speak on active litigation.

Okay. But it's not just about active litigation. It's about the action of a elected sheriff seizing ballot. So you're just not gonna answer anything about sheriff Bianco's brazen to seizure of ballots. You're not you won't answer anything?

I would not characterize it as that, but no. I am not. Okay. I'm not authorized to speak on that either. Well, you

just characterized it. So you just did say something about it? You just don't wanna answer questions about it?

I can't.

Okay. And the sheriff's association, I just wanna make clear. So so the 58 sheriffs in California are all now aligning with Sheriff Bianco, say we should be able to seize ballots and the state can't do anything about it. Is that what you're saying? I just wanna make sure I understand.

I'm not sure that's the question asked by this bill Yeah. Mister chair.

It certainly is. But but the entire association is is is The

association represents the 58 elected sheriffs of the state, and that's the position of the sheriff's association that represents the 58 elected sheriffs is taken in a post position on the matter before the committee today.

Right. And it but to say this doesn't isn't connected to what happened in Riverside County is sort of odd given that sheriff Bianca's representative is here opposing the bill.

Senator, I didn't make that Yeah. Determination. I didn't mention Riverside County or sheriff Bianca in my testimony. Okay. Okay.

Thank you. Sir.

Okay. With that, any questions or comments, colleagues? Yes. Yes. Senator Cervantes.

Well, I wanna just, point out that this is, so timely to bring this forward after we just passed Senate bill 73 because we know that, the threat of interference is increasing in our state, and we need to make sure that we're giving every tool possible to the attorney general on this to safeguard the integrity and security of our elections. I am proud to, join you in these efforts. Thank you for doing this and leading the way.

Thank you to the attorney general for sponsoring this bill, and I am happy to motion at the appropriate time.

We'll take that, as a motion, and that is a, motion to, to pass as amended and refer to committee on public safety. Any other questions or comments? Okay. So I also wanna thank the author for bringing this bill forward. I think it's quite important.

This is not it simply ensures that our secretary of state and our attorney general, the two officials who are most responsible at the state level for ensuring that our election laws are being followed, that we don't have abuses by anyone, that they are aware when subpoena is served or when a law enforcement action is taken such as the seizure of ballots of the the frankly illegal seizure ballots in particular and have the ability to be part of the court process.

I don't this doesn't give them the power to make a decision over the judiciary. I think that's a complete mischaracterization of the bill. This allows them to be a party and be in court and and to have the ability to make legal arguments and to seek relief. They're not there to tell the judges what to do.

I think judiciary is perfectly capable of of enforcing the law. So I do support the the the bill. And with that, you may close.

Thank you very much. First, I wanna thank the attorney general for his constant leadership on election integrity and a whole host of meaningful things in terms of various other checks and balances that are necessary to safeguard our democratic process.

Also, we'd like to thank my colleague from Riverside for her leadership as well as she continues to lead us in terms of ensuring that there's appropriate checks and balances, especially when we continue to see political acts happening that are counter to our democratic principles that are putting into question the integrity of our electoral process. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Vote. Great. We have a thank you. We have a motion by Senator Cervantes, and we'll call the roll.

Motion is do passed as amended to the Committee on Public Safety. Senators Wiener?

Aye.

Weiner, aye. Choi?

No.

Choi, no. Allen? Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes, aye.

Berg?

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

Thank you.

I see that, Assemblymember or Chair Pellerin is here, who has two bills. And we'll start with item six, AB 1853.

Good morning. So thank you, chair and members. Current law allows a candidate running for a federal, state, or local office to have a candidate statement included in the voter information guide. Candidate statements are limited to a recitation of the candidate's own personal background and qualifications and are prohibited from making reference to any other candidates for office or to another candidate's qualifications, character, or activities.

Despite the state law, the state voter information guide for the June statewide primary election included a gubernatorial candidate statement that did not describe the candidate's background or qualifications, but instead consisted of inflammatory, controversial, and offensive content.

The state voter information guide is an official government publication relied upon by millions of Californians to make informed voting decisions. The inclusion of misleading, inflammatory, irrelevant, or harmful content in a candidate statement undermines voter trust and the integrity of our electoral process. AB 1853 establishes clear and enforceable standards to ensure candidate statements remain factual, relevant, and appropriate for an official state voter information guide while respecting constitutional protections of free speech.

Specifically, AB 1853 limits candidate statements in official state and county voter information guides to inform about a candidate's own education, professional experience, community involvement, and qualifications for office. It will ban attacks, accusations, and characterizations of individuals or groups links to external inappropriate content, false and misleading claims, and content that is hateful, discriminatory, or incites violence.

Additionally, AB 1853 allows elections officials to reject a candidate Finally, the bill permits any voter to seek judicial relief to enforce these requirements and requires a court to give priority to such actions.

We've been working closely with the attorney general's office and the secretary of of state's office on this on this important bill, and we are gonna be taking amendments as it makes its way over to the Judiciary Committee to address some first amendment concerns and also to amend the bill to provide a process for a candidate to cure their statement if there are problems with it. And with me to testify in support today is, Miller Saltzman, who's the director of policy and partnerships with Jewish California.

Thank you. Good morning, chair and members. I'm Miller Saltzman, director of policy and partnerships at Jewish California. Formerly JAPAC, we represent over 40 leading Jewish community organizations across the state and serve our communities as our communities unified voice in Sacramento, advocating on behalf of Jewish concerns and broadly shared values, including work to combat hunger, poverty, and climate change, expand access to health care and support vulnerable communities. Earlier this year, California mailed its official voter information guide to 23,000,000 registered voters.

Tucked inside that state issued document under the seal of California, indistinguishable from every legitimate statement surrounding it, was a candidate statement filled with antisemitic conspiracy theories, white nationalist rhetoric, and links to websites filled with racist, homophobic, and other hateful content. The outcry from our community was immediate and profound. We heard from countless Jewish Californians who felt California was legitimizing and amplifying hateful ideas. Hate speech in a state sponsored document sent to all voters spreads hate and sends a message that this speech is acceptable.

It can lead to a direct increase in the number of hate motivated attacks in our community and other groups at risk of hate motivated violence.

This deep concern is why over 50 Jewish organizations signed on in support of this bill in less than forty eight hours. California has long led the nation in standing up to hate and protecting the dignity of all of its residents. AB 1853 ensures that the state's own democratic infrastructure reflects those values. That the official publications California sends to millions of homes inform voters and strengthen democracy rather than undermine it. This bill is long overdue.

And with that, we urge your aye vote. Thank you.

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

Mister chairman, members, Dan Filizato on behalf of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office in strong support.

Thank you, mister chairman. Cliff Berg here in in addition to a Jewish

for the following organizations in

California, formerly JPAC,

support of this a Jewish California, formerly JPAAC, for the following organizations in support of this legislation.

30 after, Anti Defamation League, Guduth Israel, AJC Los Angeles, AJC Northern California, AJC American Jewish Committee San Diego, Bay Area Jewish Coalition Education and Advocacy, Beverly Hills Synagogue, the Board of Rabbis of Southern California, California Jewish Democrats, Contra Costa Jewish Democrats, Democrats for Israel, Jewish California, liaison for the Federation of San Luis Obispo, JCRC Bay Area, JCRC Jewish Long Beach, Jewish Center for Justice, Jewish Community Action Network, Jewish Federation of Greater Santa Barbara, Jewish Federation of Orange County, Jewish Federation of Palm Springs in the Desert, Jewish Family and Children's Services of San Francisco, The Peninsula, Marin, and Sonoma Counties, Jewish Federation of San Diego, Jewish Family Services of Los Angeles, Jewish Federation of the Greater San Gabriel and Pomona Valleys, Jewish Family Services of Silicon Valley, Jewish Federation of Sacramento, Jewish Federation of the Bay Area, Jewish Federation of Ventura County, Jewish Free Loan Association, Northern California Council of Jewish Democratic Clubs, Northern California Jewish Labor Committee, Oakland Jewish Alliance, Santa Barbara JCRC, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, Mosaic Law Congregation, Jewish Families and Children's Services of Long Beach and Orange County, Jewish Family and Children's Services of East Bay, Jewish War Veterans of the United States and Jewish Silicon Valley urge your support.

Thank you. Any additional support? Seeing none, is there any opposition to the bill? Seeing none, we will bring it back to the committee. Colleagues, any questions or comments?

Senator Joy? Thank you.

I kind of understand that because of the unfortunate incident, one of the gubernatorial candidate made hateful speech against Israel and the Jewish people. You know, freedom of speech is not totally free. You are responsible when you make a statement. You need to stand by and be able to defend personally or legally. And if you stop, even though that principle is very worthy of supporting and and accusing and making a tax on a certain individual or country or certain race.

I find it very rare other than these unfortunate instances. Usually, the candidate statement is in general introduction of himself and herself and what policies he or he or she is standing on, etcetera. But if you make limitations on this candidate statement, we are we meaning the public or the state or registrar of voters

or

or or as the secretary of State will become the judge of that Statement, and it's a beginning of a Statement infringing upon the freedom of speech. How we gonna make that the standard other than the lists that you have made in here? That the basic principle of how we're gonna guard, protect the freedom of speech by dismay if this passes.

So, as I said in my opening, we're gonna be continuing to work on the First Amendment piece of this bill as it makes its way to judiciary. But I can tell you as somebody who served as a chief elections official for twenty seven plus years in a county, there were times when somebody submitted a candidate statement that did contain harmful irrelevant content.

And I challenged them at that on it when it was turned in, and I said this is not complying because the code section one three three zero seven is very clear for nonpartisan offices of what is and is not allowed. And they agreed with me and took out that paragraph so then I could print the statement as and with the content that did reflect their own personal background and qualifications. So I do believe there's a way to do this.

And certainly, if anybody objected to any kind of direction as far as parts of a statement that were not allowed, there is time for them to go to court and get a judge to make an opinion because these cases in election matters are expedited.

But in practical situations, sometimes the such candidate statement is not filed way in advance before the deadline. Sometimes

There's a ten day public inspection period, and during that time is when those processes take place.

Yeah. Some people will file at the last day.

Yes. They do. And and Last minute of last day.

Yeah. If that happens and the candidate objects to the objections of the ruling of the clerk At the registrar's office, then how we're gonna it's a back and forth. So we don't have time.

We actually do because those cases are expedited.

Is there and then how the in practical sense, how we can control that kind of practical issues and also personal judgment. I know there are certain words that would not be allowed and even candidate statement, like incumbent is not allowed. So certain mechanical things, but the content of the candidate statement is a different matter. That's what I'm concerned about.

Well, I mean, the same process takes place with ballot arguments, with ballot designations. All of these things are open to public inspection and challenge, and and there's a time built in for that process. And anybody that does go to court, that is expedited and happens very quickly, usually within twenty four, forty eight hours.

Okay. Thank you. I'll have to oppose.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. I appreciate you putting this bill forward. I know it came up it's a gotten amend because it came up quite recently.

I think we were all just horrified that that there was even an argument that this this this kind of vile hate could be in our official voter guide. And there's a long history of elections officials being able to we don't we don't have to just publish. Just because someone submits it doesn't mean it needs to be published if it doesn't meet the statutory criteria.

You can imagine a just a vast array of just horrific statements that people can make have that have nothing to do with the election or their qualifications. And so I appreciate doing this.

I know that it's a work in progress and you'll continue to ensure that the First Amendment is respected and that the procedure is up to the task in terms of if something is stricken out that people can still have a ballot statement. They just don't have that offending material inside. So I appreciate you putting this forward, and I it does have an eye recommendation. Motion.

Motion by Senator Cervantes to to pass and re refer to the committee on rules where I understand that it'll be referred out to the committee on judiciary.

So we do have a motion and you may close. Senator Humbergh.

And I also applaud the effort. But as you made reference to, mister chair, it it most likely is coming to Judiciary Committee and will continue to work on judiciary. Today, I I won't be voting on the bill, but I will be voting on it and working with you in in judiciary to make sure we accomplish your goals. So Okay.

Thank you. Hopefully, we get it out of this committee without your vote. Well So you can see it.

Okay. Well, I guess we'll cross that bridge

when we come to it.

Alright. Thank

you. Okay. You may close.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Great. We have a motion by Senator Cervantes and we'll call the roll.

Motion is do passed to the committee on rules. Senators Wiener?

Aye.

Weiner, aye. Choi? No. Choi, no. Allen Cervantes?

Aye. Cervantes, aye. Umberg?

No voting.

Okay. The vote is two to one. We will put that on call, and we'll proceed to item seven, AB 1919.

Yes. Thank you. My second bill. In 2022, the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District, known as Metro, worked with communities across its service territory to plan a network of bus services dubbed reimagine metro that would be faster, more frequent, and reliable in areas of high transit demand. Reimagine Metro phase one launched in December 2023, implemented new higher frequency routes from Watsonville to Santa Cruz.

Reimagine Metro Phase two, which began implementation in March 2024 expanded Metro's network of frequent routes and increased ridership by 43%. Reimagine Metro Phase one and two were funded by a one time infusion of $28,300,000 in 2023. This funding will run out in 2026. To prevent service and job cuts after this funding runs out, Metro must secure additional state or local funding. Failure to secure additional funds will impact service to residents of Santa Cruz and Watsonville and will lead to significant Metro employee layoffs.

AB 1919 would add election procedures to address a gap in current law, which fails to outline how a qualified voter initiative for a local jurisdiction without elections procedures like metro may be placed on the ballot. This Central Coast Caucus legislative priority bill simply gives voters in my district the power to decide the future of their transit system while protecting union jobs through a citizen's initiative. And with me to testify in support is Brendan Rypikki?

Rypikki from SYASL Partners representing Santa Cruz Metro and Local twenty three General Chairman Jaime Renteria.

Alright. Thank you very much. You just have two minutes.

Thank you, mister chair. Brendan Rypikki on behalf of Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District. You're sponsoring AB 1919. Wanna thank the author for carrying the measure. Very briefly, just would emphasize that there's a local group of advocates in Santa Cruz County currently pursuing, signatures to sponsor a citizen's initiative.

As the author noted, Metro's authorizing statutes in the public utilities code do not currently include a process for residents to actually place an initiative on the ballot. This bill would merely enshrine those procedures into our authorizing statutes.

your aye vote. Thank you.

Ask for

morning to all. Thank you very much. My name is Jaime Renteria. I'm the general chairperson for Smart Local twenty three. I represent roughly two fifty fixed operators and paracruise transit operators as well.

Good

One more can be said after what miss Pellerin said. We are looking for your help. We're looking for your eye on this matter. This is imperative. Everybody's going through a hard time, especially now with the government that we have right now.

The lower communities are mostly affected. When if if this bill doesn't go through, if we don't make it happen, our lower communities, our our our poor people, if you wanna call it, are gonna be suffering the greatest. Right now, I can tell you from driving a big truck that is hurting financially to to to to fill it up just to go to work. Now if that's my situation, can you imagine everybody else's? Our services have increased over 40%.

When this bill doesn't happen, that's gonna be reduced, and then now we are gonna lose the faith of our community. We strongly, respectfully request for your vote and your right vote on this matter.

Thank you very much.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Yeah. Go ahead.

I'm also a bus operator. I keep forgetting that. They keep reminding me to tell you tell you that. I'm also a bus operator, and I have been here twenty one years serving my community.

Great. Thank you. Additional support. Please come forward.

Morning. Scott Brent, Smart Local twelve o one, and we are in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Jesus Gonzales, Smart Local twenty three in support.

Morning, mister chair, members. Louie Costa with Smart Transportation Division, State Legislative Board in support.

Proud to cosponsor as well. Thank you. Any additional support? Is there any opposition to the bill? Okay.

Seeing none, we'll oh, sorry. Please come forward.

Scott Kaufman, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association in opposition.

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

Okay. Seeing none, can I have a motion? Motion. Okay. Motion by Senator Cervantes, and that will be a do pass and refer to the Committee on Transportation.

I am supporting this bill. First of all, thank you for getting people around by bus. Public transportation is essential for our state in so many levels. And obviously, sometimes we focus on the Big Metropolitan urban areas, the largest cities, but it's important throughout the state. And as you note, there are so many people in not just cities, but in suburbia and rural areas who if the bus doesn't come or it's not coming frequently enough, they can't get to work or to school.

And so this is incredibly important. So with that, you may close.

Yeah. Thank you so much. This is a simple bill to let my people vote. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Great. We will call the roll.

Motion is do passed to the Committee on Transportation. Senators Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. Choi?

No. Choi, no. Allen. Cervantes? Aye.

Cervantes, aye. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye.

Okay. That is three to one. We'll put that on call. And then we have one final bill by by some member Alvarez who I is he Two minutes. Okay.

Why don't we Senator Umberg, why don't we open the roll so you can add on while we're waiting?

Very kind of you, mister chair.

Okay. Okay. So first, we'll open the roll on the consent agenda. Please call the absent members.

[Roll Call]

We'll put that back on call. Item one, AB 1116. Please call the absent members.

https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/hearings#session_year%5B%5D=2025-2026

I'll put that back on call. Item two, AB 1539. Please call the absent members.

[Roll Call]

Put that back on call. Item number three, AB 1562. Please call the absent members.

[Roll Call]

That was 1562. I think you've seen before. Put that back on call. Item four, AB 1664, please call the absent members.

[Roll Call]

K. We'll put that back on call. And you're on he's on everything else. Okay. Welcome, Assemblymember.

We will go to item number eight, AB 2484, and you may present.

Thank you, mister chair, and thank you, members. Wanna thank you all for your, work on this and, the opportunity to present AB 2484. Twenty four eighty four ensures that voters in San Diego have the authority to decide on the future of the public transit system.

First

and foremost, clarify that this bill does not create or impose a tax of any kind. It would allow voters to choose whether to authorize a local transactions and use tax dedicated to funding San Diego Metropolitan Transit System known as MTS through a local ballot initiative. At its core, AB 2484 is about local control, voter's choice, and planning ahead for the future of San Diego's transit system.

It clarifies that voters may propose to and approve a local transactions use tax of up to point 5% that is dedicated to MTS through the initiative process. It also ensures that any voter approved MTS tax is excluded from the existing statutory cap on local sales taxes protecting other local funding priorities.

MTS is not just our local transit provider. It's truly the map backbone of mobility of San Diego County. It serves approximately 3,000,000 residents across 10 cities and unincorporated areas in the county. In fiscal year twenty twenty five, MTS delivered over 81,000,000 trips and has covered more than 95% of its pre pandemic ridership, and it now ranks thirteenth in the nation. It's a system, we're proud of.

I used to serve on the board of MTS. It's growing. It's improving and being used every day, especially by the people who depend on it most. In fact, the statistics are that 78% of riders rely on transit as their primary mode, only mode of transportation. And no more than two thirds use it to get to work or school.

Particularly in my district, I represent the border region, Assembly District 80. MTS has a strong ridership market with almost 80% of MTS ridership in the Southern Part of San Diego. But despite success, MTS is approaching a fiscal cliff. And beginning in 2030, the agency faces structural deficit for more than 120,000,000, driven by rising operating costs, workforce needs, and limited local funding. Just over four years, that gap would exceed half $1,000,000,000.

So if we do not address our public transit infrastructure's growing budget deficit, we risk severely limiting access to people who depend on it for jobs, for education, and essential services in the very communities that rely on it most. Now I'd like to turn it over, for, a presentation by our witness.

Hi. Ezra Chabon with Don and Chabon Strategies on behalf of San Diego, Metropolitan Transportation System. I wanna thank the chair and committee staff for, your time and analysis of the bill and the author for his leadership in this bill that's really critical to the transit future of the San Diego region. The assembly member's comments were exceedingly thorough, so I won't rehash. Suffice it to say, significant reductions in either frequency or routes would be required if there is not a new sustainable funding source.

This bill allows the voters of, San Diego MTS, service territory to decide for themselves whether they want to, invest in those services and, future. I'm happy to answer any, technical questions. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay. Any additional support? Please come forward.

Good morning, mister chair, on behalf of

the city of Chula Vista. Happy to support the bill. Good morning. Shane Gussman on behalf of the Amalgamated Transit Union in support.

Any additional support? Any opposition? Please come forward.

Scott Kaufman, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association in opposition.

Any additional opposition? Seeing no, I'll bring it back to the committee. Any comments or questions? Okay. Seeing none.

Motion by Senator Allen, and that is a do pass and refer to the Committee on Transportation. You may close.

Thank you, mister chair. Thank you, committee members. Yeah. We're trying to get ahead of this, and hopefully, the voters decide to put this on the ballot, and then they decide to vote on this in 2028. So while this won't be happening this year, by doing this bill this year and allowing this to happen to raise that cap, it gives the local community that that option at least to put it on the table.

And hopefully, with your votes today, we can give them that option. Respectfully asked her, I vote. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. We will call the roll.

Motion do pass to the committee on transportation. Senators Wiener?

Aye.

Weiner, aye. Choi? Allen? Aye. Allen, aye.

Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes, aye. Umberg? Aye.

Umberg, aye.

Okay. And again, Senator Sui is not returning. Correct?

He's not returning.

Okay. Great. So item number eight, the vote is four to zero. That bill is out. And that is our final presentation. We will now open the roll on previously voted items. We'll start with the consent agenda. Please call the absent member.

[Roll Call]

Five nothing. The consent agenda is approved. We'll now go to item number one, AB 1116. Please call absent member.

[Roll Call]

Four to one, the bill is out. Item number two, AB 1539. Please call out absent members.

[Roll Call]

Four to one, the bill is out. Item number three, AB 1562, please call absent member.

[Roll Call]

Four nothing, the bill is out. Item number four, AB 1664. Please call absent member.

[Roll Call]

K. It's four to one. The bill is out. And then item number six, AB 1853. Okay. Please call absent member.

[Roll Call]

Okay. So three to one, that bill is out. Item seven, AB 1919, please call the absent member.

[Roll Call]

Four to one. That bill is out. Is that everything? That's all. Okay. So we've completed the agenda. Thank you to everyone who participated. And with that, the committee is adjourned.