Assembly Standing Committee on Elections

Good morning. I'd like to call the 07/01/2026 hearing of the Assembly Elections Committee to order. We'll begin as a subcommittee. If members of this committee are monitoring this hearing, please come to Room 444 of the state capital so that we can establish a quorum. I'd like to welcome everyone who is here in the hearing room today and who's watching the hearing online. For the purpose of this hearing, we are accepting witness testimony in person, and we are also accepting written testimony through the legislature's position letter portal.

That portal can be accessed through the committee's website at aelc.assembly.ca.gov. The committee has 11 measures on its agenda for today. Two bills are proposed for consent. When we hear the bills on the agenda, we will hear from a maximum of two primary witnesses in support and two primary witnesses in opposition of the bill, each with a limit of two minutes. 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 so that we can have effective deliberation and decisions on critical issues facing California. In order to facilitate the committee's business and public participation in today's hearing, we will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings.

Violations of these rules may subject you to removal or other enforcement action. Before we move on to the agenda, I have some additional announcements to make. Since our last hearing, the speaker has made some changes to the makeup of the committee. First, Assembly member Natasha Johnson, who has already been a member of this committee, has been appointed the new vice Chair to replace former Assembly member Jim Gallagher, and we wish him well in his new endeavor. Assembly member Johnson, congratulations. When you come, I will congratulate you in person.

I look forward to continuing to work with her. And second, we're super excited to see our Assembly member Stan Ellis has been appointed to fill the Republican vacancy on the committee. Assembly member Ellis, welcome. We are happy to have you join us here in the Assembly elections committee. With though did you wanna say a few words?

Or Okay. Okay. Okay. I'm gonna get push you on the spot. Okay. With those amendments out of the way, we will now move on to our committee agenda. And we had sign in order. Right? So Yeah.

That's right. So so our first item to be heard this morning is item number seven, by Senator Reyes, SB 1369. You may come on down, and you may begin when you're ready. No problem. So we wanna welcome our vice Chair, Assemblymember Johnson. Congratulations. It's good to have you.

Thank you very much.

And Senator, you may begin when you're ready.

Thank you, madam Chair and committee members for this opportunity to present SB 1369. I would like to begin by accepting the committee amendments, and I want to express my sincere appreciation, especially to the Chair, for the time that she spent with me, and sharing the great knowledge and experience, and making this a better bill. I also want to thank the committee staff for their collaboration and their work on this bill as well.

SB 1369 adopts reasonable common sense reforms to our judicial recall process. The bill requires paid signature gatherers to orally disclose that they are being compensated.

And with the committee amendments, it is all, it also shortens the signature gathering period for judicial recalls from one hundred and sixty days to one hundred and twenty days in counties with more than 50,000 registered voters. California's recall process is an important tool of direct democracy. However, it is increasingly being misused, particularly targeting judges for issuing lawful, yet sometimes unpopular rulings. Unlike other elected officials, judges are prohibited from campaigning or publicly defending the rulings.

While this ethical constraint protects judicial impartiality, it also leaves judges uniquely vulnerable to recall efforts driven by disagreements with their decisions rather than actual misconduct.

When recall efforts are driven by disagreement with the lawful rulings rather than misconduct, it threatens judicial independence. It risks turning court decisions into political calculations instead of decisions based on law and evidence. Additionally, gaps in the current recall process such as the lack of transparency around paid signature gatherers can mislead voters. SB 1369 establishes safeguards for California's judicial recall process while preserving voters' constitutional rights. This bill does not eliminate the right to recall a judge.

It ensures a process is not misused to punish judges for carrying out their constitutional duties. Joining me today in support are Mike Belote on behalf of the California American Board of Trial Advocates, and Saveena Takhar on behalf of consumer attorneys.

Thank you, madam Chair and members. As the Senator indicated, Mike Belote, also speaking on behalf of the California Judges Association today. I too wanted to thank you and both of your consultants for the time you've given us on this. It's a fascinating issue. And on a personal level, it's a privilege to do what we do here, and I take it very, very seriously.

We think there's a problem with judicial recalls and in general, the politicization of the judicial branch. Right now, there are roughly 12 recalls pending in Orange County, three in the Inland Empire, and also moving to Los Angeles. And none of them, in my view, are are premised on any judicial misconduct of any sort. They are political exercises. But the question always arises as we've proceeded with this bill.

What is different about judges? Why should judges be treated differently than other elected officials? And I think there are really two reasons. One, judges are subject to commission on judicial performance, a constitutional body that regulates their conduct and can actually remove them from the bench. No other public official in California is subject to that sort of a commission.

That was created in 1960, almost fifty years after the recall was put in the constitution. And had, the commission existed at that time, the constitution might read differently. Second, it's inherent in judging that 50% of the parties are going to lose a case, and that isn't true of your decisions or those of the executive branch. Your your decisions can often have huge public appeal.

But in litigation, half are gonna lose, and especially in high profile assignments like family law, where child custody and other sensitive issues are raised.

There will be highly disgruntled litigants. We think taken together, challenges, recalls, physical threats, and relatively low pay are gradually disincentivizing people to serve on the bench or to serve in these high profile assignments, which we think...

If you could wrap it up that'd be great.

...justifies the bill. And for that reason, we would ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much. Now you have two minutes.

Good morning, madam Chair, member, Saveena Takhar with the Consumer Attorneys of California. I'll be brief and align my comments with the author and Mister Belote. I'd just like to note that the bill has been narrowed in the Senate Elections Committee. We took amendments, and we greatly appreciate the amendments in this committee too.

I think it helps us thread that needle of making sure the public has a voice, but while also trying to protect the independence of our judges. We urge your aye vote.

Thank you so much. Do we have any people in the room that would like to add on as me too's? Just state your name, organization, and position, please.

Chair, Cliff Costa. Today on behalf of the California Defense Counsel, I've been given authority to also testify in support for the Orange County Bar Association in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Anybody in the room now who would like to, come up as a primary witness in opposition? Seeing none, anybody in the room that would like to just add on as a me too in opposition? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the members. Any questions or comments?

No. We're all speechless. Would you Senator, would you like to close?

Again, I want to thank the Chair and the committee. And when you have a quorum, I'd respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much. So while I, you know, appreciate the time we had to work together on this, and certainly a one size fits all was not a good solution for the state of California when we have counties so diverse from Alpine to Los Angeles.

So, I'm grateful for you taking the amendments that we have offered, and, and therefore, I'm willing to support this bill with an amendment that reduces that circulation period from 160 to 120 days for recall efforts against superior court judges in large counties and while maintaining existing thresholds for other jurisdictions. So at the appropriate time, we'll take a motion and take a vote.

Thank you very much.

Thank you so much. We will now move on to our next author in the room, and that is Senator McNerney. You have item four, SB 900. And you may begin when you're ready.

Well, good morning, Chair Pellerin, Vice Chair Johnson, and distinguished members of the committee. SB 900, which I'm about to present today, strengthens the California existing campaign disclosure rules by making formatting changes to better clarify who is paying for political advertisements. California has passed a number of disclosure rules over the years--ready to mail, TV, social media posts, texts, and so on. These bills have increased visibility into outside spending groups and has led to more transparent political advertising framework for ballot measures and independent expenditure ads.

However, the lengthy disclosures on billboards and other large-print ads take up a lot of space, making them difficult to read and understand, especially given how the committee names can be very, very long. SB 900 will ensure that Californians better understand who's funding these campaigns.

This bill allows advertisers to shorten the length of the required disclosures by reformatting the disclosure messages and improving commonly known abbreviations like CA for California or CO for company. Here to testify is Audrey Ratajczak, on behalf of the California Outdoor Advertising Association, and Trent Lange, president and executive director of California Clean Money Campaign.

You each have two minutes.

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

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

SB 900 offers a balanced, common-sense solution and maintains transparency while improving readability by allowing the use of the standard abbreviations, streamlining repetitive language, and incorporating the FPPC committee ID number to ensure full disclosure remains accessible. We've worked closely with the author and other stakeholders to strike the right balance between transparency and effective communication, and we believe this bill achieves that goal, so we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Trent Lange, president of the California Clean Money Campaign. We're proud to co-sponsor SB 900 and grateful to Senator McNerney for his leadership and the Outdoor Advertising Association's collaboration in this committee's work. We sponsored several bills to ensure clear disclosure of top funders over the years, starting with the California Disclose Act in 2017 then following with bills to perfect disclosure requirements for online ads, petitions, text messages, and social media, but current formatting requirements, as discussed, take up too much space on billboards, banners, and other large-print ads, making the top funders hard to read.

SB 900 builds on last year's AB 950, authored by Assembly Member Solache, by allowing top funder names to be shortened in defined ways with formatting improvements to make them more readable on all print ads. The Chamber has asked for additional clarity on a couple of definitions, most importantly, the threshold between small-print ads where disclosures can be as small as 10 point font because people hold them while they're reading them and larger ads like billboards where disclosures must be at least 5% of the height so they can be read easily.

We don't agree with the 24 inch by 36 inch threshold they proposed because yard signs, window signs, and rally signs would then only require 10 point font, completely unreadable at a distance. Current law is clear that the larger font applies to yard signs. It was always intended to cover window and rally signs too, but we're very happy to work with the Chamber, the author, and the committee to clarify precise thresholds for this and the spacing issue. Overall, it significantly reduces the burdens of print advertisers and makes it much easier for voters to see the top funders, so we respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Wonderful. Anybody else in the room who'd like to add on as a MeToo? State your name, organization, and position, please.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Daniel Conway, on behalf of Common Cause, also in support.

Morning, Chair. Dora Rose, deputy director of League of Women Voters of California, in support, aligning our comments with the California Clean Money. I also have the proxy of Courage California and Money Out Voters In. They are also in support. Thank you.

Are there any primary witnesses in the room in opposition to this bill? Seeing none, anyone in the room that just would like to add as a MeToo in opposition? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to members. Any questions, comments? Wow. I love this committee. Okay. Senator, you may close.

Well, thank you, and I think the committee will see, with this in my next proposal, that I care a lot about way campaigns are financed. We need to make them transparent and find other ways to make them more accessible to the public. The public is now very up in arms about how much money is being spent on campaigns. So with that, I will ask for an aye vote.

Appropriate time, we'll take a motion and a vote, and thank you for bringing this bill forward to make those adjustments to campaign disclosure statements to ensure that those disclosures do not take up too much space on those billboards. These adjustments are reasonable. I wanna encourage the author, though, and the sponsors to continue to work with opposition to see if you can arrive at some amendments that address their concerns as well. And at the appropriate time, we'll take it up for a vote. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Oh, you have another one. That's right. You have Item Number 11: SJR 18. You may proceed.

Well, thank you, Chair Pellerin, again, Vice Chair Johnson, distinguished members of the committee. This bill, I think, is gonna be a little bit more pushed back, but I'll go through it anyway. Senate Joint Resolution 18 sends a message to the federal government that California disagrees with the Supreme Court's infamous Citizens United decision. Additionally, the resolution encourages states to find ways to limit the power of corporations to contribute to political campaigns.

The landmark 1976 Supreme Court case Buckley versus Valeo ruled that limits on independent expenditures are unconstitutional. The Citizens United decision of 2010 ruled that corporations have the same rights as people, including freedom of speech. Together, these two decisions allowed corporations and super PACs and other organizations to spend unlimited amounts of money on campaigns through independent expenditures. Citizens United dark money has flooded all levels of government.

This is called dark money because it is difficult to trace, meaning that even foreign money can come in to election campaigns. OpenSecrets, which tracks campaign expenditures, found that nationwide, outside spending grew from $574 million before Citizens United to over $4.5 billion in 2024. In addition, large tech giants have decided to pour millions of dollars into campaign politics.

In fact, they've announced that they will be spending $100 million in California campaign elections with tech super PACs contributing heavily to primary elections and ballot measures this very year. Additionally, dark money in politics has eroded the public's trust in the government. Today, nine in ten Americans believe there's too much corporate money in politics and eight in ten Americans believe that corporate money in campaigns is bad for democracy.

Getting corporate money out of politics will help rebuild that trust in our institutions and help citizens feel that they have more of a stake in our political system. And I am sitting here alone with no supporting witnesses, and I will yield back to the chair.

Thank you so much. Welcome, too, Assembly Member Bennett. With your attendance now, we'll go ahead and establish a quorum. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call]. We have a quorum.

All right. So now that you've concluded your presentation, do you have any witnesses here in support today?

No primary witnesses.

No primary witness. Anybody in the room that would like to add on as a MeToo, state your name, organization if any, and position.

Thank you. Good morning. Olivia Herrera, intern at Stone Advocacy, on behalf of Consumer Watchdog. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Are there any primary witnesses in opposition to this resolution? So come on down, and you have two minutes.

Let me clarify that this is not in opposition.

Is a Tweener, yes.

A Tweener?

Okay.

Good morning, again, Chair and members. Trent Lange, California Clean Money Campaign. We haven't taken position on SJR 18 yet, but we greatly appreciate the senator for bringing this up. It's really important for this resolution to highlight as it is the need to find ways to address the unlimited spending, especially by corporations unleashed by Citizens United, especially important in light of yesterday's Supreme Court decision allowing unlimited coordination between political parties and candidates.

We haven't taken a position yet because the current language focuses-- only highlights the Montana corporate charter approach, which we are concerned has some significant negatives in how far it goes as currently drafted in Montana. We're hoping that SJR 18 can be amended to not specifically highlight only that but also touch on the other potentially fruitful and viable approaches to addressing Citizens United, like the foreign-influenced corporation ban that's in San Jose and Maine's approach to provide limitations on contributions to super tax.

We've been having fruitful conversations with Senator McNerney's staff and office to address these questions, and look forward to fully supporting it once those are ironed out. We thank him again for his leadership and ask you to move this forward because this is important and we know that this will be good in the end. Thank you.

Appreciate that. Anybody else in the room that'd like to just add on? State your name, organization, and position, please.

Dora Rose, League of Women Voters of California. We have similar concerns to California Clean Money. Thank you.

Anybody else in the room? Anybody else in the room? Seeing none, bring it back to members. Any questions, comments? Questions, comments-- oh. Assembly Member Bennett.

You wanna respond to where they are and where you are in terms of working with them? The tweeners? I wouldn't call them opposition.

Well, I'm certainly open to any productive, constructive ideas on how to make campaign financing more responsive to the public. And I can tell you this. When I'm out there in the campaign, when I mentioned PG&E, I get a lot of cheers, a lot of positives. When I mentioned campaign financing, people go wild. People want something done. They are tired of seeing all this money going to campaigns, candidates bashing each other or having third parties bash each other, and as a result of that, everyone in the public thinks we're a bunch of bums. And that needs to change. This is a tiny little step in that direction, and I hope we can see more in the future.

But the-- I think we all-- even the tweeners feel that way also, and I certainly feel that way exactly like you, which is that money is just corrupting this-- the whole system, but in terms of the ask that they have and they say they're working with you, do you feel like those are things that in the long run you think you can find a way to be supportive, whether it's with this bill or another bill? What thoughts do you have about their particular request?

Well, I mean, there's a lot of ideas out there and I'm certainly open to what their opinions are, and I will work with them. I can guarantee that.

Great. Hey, thank you very much. I'll move the bill.

So we have a motion and a second. Any other comments or questions? Seeing none, Senator, you may close.

Well, I thank the committee for hearing this, and I will ask for their indulgence with a support on this. Thank you.

Thank you. Certainly decades of Supreme Court decisions have significantly limited the ability of Congress and the states to enact meaningful campaign finance reforms. As a result, current legal framework leaves policymakers with few tools to adopt reasonable campaign finance measures that help preserve the public confidence in our elections. So I wanna thank the author for bringing this resolution forward. I'm recommending support. Madam Secretary, we have a motion and a second. Please call the roll.

On SJR 18, the motion is be adopted. [Roll call].

We're gonna put that on call for our absent members. Thank you so much. And now looking around the room, I do not see any other senators, but we're gonna go ahead and take up the consent calendar. So there are two bills on the consent calendar. The committee secretary will please read the items on consent.

[Consent Callendar]

Does any member want to remove any item from consent? Seeing none, do we have a motion? Moved by vice Chair Johnson, seconded by as as Assembly member Ellis. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. We'll go ahead and take a motion on the bills that we heard before we established a quorum. So we heard from Senator Reyes on SB 1369. The author agreed to accept the amendments outlined in comment one of the committee analysis. Is there a motion?

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

So that item will be held on call for our absent members. Our next item that we heard before we had a quorum is from Senator McNerney, SB 900. I'm recommending support. Is there a motion on the bill? Moved by Senate member Johnson, seconded by Stephanie. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Aye.

Stephanie, aye.

That bill's out five zero, but we'll keep the role open for our absent members. And now I'm looking around the room, and we absent senators. So if you are a Senator who has a bill up in Assembly elections in room for there we are. Ask and I shall receive. Welcome, Senator. Is there a bill you'd like to begin with? You have two up today. Three up. Three up. Yes.

Yes. Madam Chair, if I may begin with eleven sixty four today.

You may proceed. Thank you.

Good morning, madam Chair and committee members. Thank you for allowing me to present Senate Bill 1164 today. Before I begin, I wanna refer to the committee to the campaign legal center support letter and state publicly that I concur with its interpretation of Senate Bill 1164.

I also want to make a commitment that as this bill moves forward through the legislative process, I will be adding language to clarify that this bill is an amendment to the California Voting Rights Act of 2001, not a repeal and a replacement of it. However, I do want to also be clear that those amendments will also ensure that we have only one California Voting Rights Act, and correspondingly only one right of action.

I also want to accept the committee suggested amendments as outlined in note number seven on page 10 of the analysis. Finally, I want to thank your committee staff, madam Chair, for their assistance throughout the process with this bill, and I will jump right into what this bill does. As we know, we have seen, democracy in America under attack by this federal administration and his conservative allies in Congress and in the Supreme Court of the United States.

Under the stewardship of Chiefs chief justice Roberts, conservatives on the court have steadily been chipping away at the federal voting rights act of 1965. This has culminated in the court's shameful recent decision in Louisiana versus Calais, which governor Newsom rightfully called the implementation of Jim Crow 2.0.

This means that many of the safeguards against vote dilution, voter suppression, and voter discrimination have been protected, have protected Californians for generations are effectively no longer in place. While we have the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 in law, the CVRA only protects against discriminatory at large election systems. We cannot stand idle by and watch the chief justice and the Supreme Court dismantle our democracy piece by piece.

This bill will codify many of the provisions of the Federal Voting Rights Act as it existed before the Kelly decision into state law. This will ensure that no matter what the Supreme Court does, California voters will continue to have safeguards

against vote dilution, voter

suppression, and other forms of voter discrimination. The bill also provides the California attorney general and individual voters with more tools to enforcing voting rights laws. We cannot allow California to continue to be imperiled by the chaos emanating from DC. Here in the Golden State, we will continue to protect democracy even in the face of Federal Government that sabotages voting rights and continues its descent into authoritarianism.

I do want to note that this is not our intent for the California Voting Rights Act of 2026 to conflict with federal law, including the Supreme Court jurisprudence.

Our mission is to protect voting rights in California in the space between the actions that the Fourteenth Amendment permits of the states and what the Fifteenth Amendment authorizes Congress to do. To that end, we will continue working to ensure that the provisions of the California Voting Rights Act of 2026 are in a strong position to survive future judicial scrutiny.

With me here to testify in support of the bill and sponsors of the bill, the California Democracy Partnership is Ernest Herrera, Western Regional Counsel and supervising attorney with MALDEF and Kristin Nimmers, policy and campaign manager with the California Black Powers Network. We also have Julia Gomez, staff attorney with ACLU of Southern California.

Thank you. And you each have two minutes.

Good morning, committee Chair. I'm Kristin Nimmers, as she said, with the California Black Power Network. We are a coalition that represents over 49 black led and black empowering organizations throughout the state. Formerly, we were known as the Black Census and Redistricting Hub, and we began with a really intentional focus on democracy.

We led work to engage hard to reach black residents during the census, and we led a statewide campaign to engage black communities in the state redistricting process and supported our network in engaging in local redistricting to uplift communities of interest.

For over a decade, our member organizations have been engaging voters year round to provide public education on voting. Through this work, we've seen firsthand the challenges that black voters face to achieve true political power and representation. We have also been called to support and advocate on behalf of communities. Disenfranchisement and voter suppression are not confined to the past. There are even a few recent examples of intentional acts to suppress black votes in political power.

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

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

And although successful, the outcome of that case turned on a narrow legal theory that's not always available in cases like these. These examples confirm that we still face threats of discriminatory redistricting and efforts to pass laws that support, that suppress voter participation.

SB 1164 provides important safeguards against these current threats by strengthening California Voting Rights Act to cover district-based systems, adding a limited preapproval program to prevent repeat violations, providing a cause of action for voter suppression, and directing courts to interpret election laws in favor of protecting voters. Since the passage of the Voting Rights Act, black people and other marginalized voters have made significant strides toward building an inclusive democracy for all. We are at a critical moment in history, and progress is under attack.

California must take action now to protect our democracy.

Thank you so much. Next witness, you have two minutes.

Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Ernest Herrera. I'm the Western Regional Council and a supervising attorney at MALDEF, and I am here in proud support of SB 1164. California has long recognized that the right to vote is not simply the formal right to cast a ballot. It is the right to participate equally and meaningfully in the political process.

Nearly twenty five years ago, California led the country by passing the California Voting Rights Act, the nation's first state voting rights act. That law, which I'm proud to say MALDEF was the principal sponsor for, has been enormously important in addressing at large election systems that prevent Latino and other protected class voters from electing candidates of their choice. California can and must lead again by enacting Senate bill 1164. Federal voting rights law is no longer a reliable protector of equal political opportunity.

For decades, section two of the Federal Voting Rights Act recognized that minority voters can be denied equal participation when district maps or election systems dilute their voting strength.

But recent Supreme Court decisions, including Louisiana versus Calais, have made those claims far more difficult to prove and remedy under federal law. That leaves voters of color vulnerable to discriminatory barriers to equal participation, especially at the local level. SB 1164 addresses that problem in four key ways. First, it expands the CVRA's existing protection against racial vote dilution beyond at large elections to include district maps and election systems that weaken the voting power of protected class voters.

Second, it prohibits voter suppression and discriminatory barriers to the ballot.

Third, it helps prevent repeated repeat voting discrimination by requiring local governments with a recent history of discrimination to preapprove certain voting changes. And fourth, it directs courts to protect voting access and equal political opportunity when applying election laws. The public understands the need for states to step up and protect the promise of democracy. Two thirds of California voters support expanding the CVRA.

Because SB 1164 strengthens California's commitment to equal participation and ensures that communities of color are not silenced by election practices that deny equal political political opportunity, MALDEF respectfully urges an aye vote.

Thank you so much. Anybody in the room that would like to add on as a me too, come to the mic, state your name, organization, if any, and position, please.

Co-sponsor in strong support, member of the California Democracy Partnership. I also have the proxy of other co sponsors including Asian Law Caucus in strong support, Legal Defense Fund in strong support, and the UCLA Voting Rights Project in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Jessica Hay with AFSCME California in support.

Madam Chair, members, Sarah Flocks, California Federation of Labor Unions in support.

Kalwis Lo with the California Community Foundation in support.

Karen Stout with Power California Action in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members. Sydney Fong on behalf of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders for Civic Empowerment, API Force in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members. Symphoni Barbee on behalf of the ACLU Cal Action. Proud cosponsors. Thank you.

Good morning. Trent Lang, California Clean Monday Campaign. Strong support.

Good morning. Good morning. Daniel Conway, on behalf of Common Cause. Strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Tiffany White in SEIU California, co-sponsor in support. Thank you.

Sarah Brennan with the Weideman Group on behalf of NextGen California and PANA in support.

Ramla Sahid with PANA in support.

Thank you. Do we have any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? If so, come on down. You may take a seat, and each of you have two minutes.

Alright.

Good morning, Chair and members. Johnny Pena on behalf of the League of California Cities, respectfully in a position of oppose unless amended. But I just wanna say, appreciate the author, staff, and the sponsors for having discussions already and look forward to ongoing discussions. The city share the goal of protecting our voting rights and ensuring equitable access to the democratic process.

We appreciate the support and intent of SB 1164, but as drafted, the bill creates a system which jurisdictions, there's some uncertainty as to what compliance looks like.

It places cities almost in a perpetual state of uncertainty about their election process, unsure whether their maps or methods of elections or their voter approved governance structures will remain lawful from one year to the next. The bill currently eliminates the existing safe harbor provision for jurisdictions that have already converted to district elections under AB 350, often at voter direction and at significant cost. These cities did exactly what the CVRA required.

And under this bill, they are again enter the pool of potentially being sued and could actually result in several redistricting cycles before the next census in which they'd have to redistrict once more. We believe that there should be some preservation to the current safe harbor process.

There's there's also a double demand letter problem and kind of a timeline problem in the bill.

Basically, we could be acting in good faith to correct, correct the problems, but be sued anyway given the misalignment of the current timelines of of the bill or potentially be sued or get another demand letter at the same time while acting in good faith, having to kind of act in good faith at two different organizations or groups, and trying to fix both of those can certainly complicate the process.

There's also just some lack of the definitions in the bill, which create uncertainty for our cities. We're also

And if you

could wrap up thank you.

Sure. With that, look forward to additional discussions and to work on this bill. Thank you.

Sure,

Thank you. And two minutes, please.

My name is Colin Britton. I represent CALA, California Action for Legislative Accountability. According to the author, SB 1164 is in response to the recent Supreme Court decision, Louisiana versus Calais. What exactly did that decision do? It reinterpreted the Voter Rights Act to protect equal opportunity to vote for all citizens over a preferential treatment for minorities.

That's not bad. That's a unifying decision. It signals that it's time to stop dividing Americans by the color of their skin and consider communities as a whole. Consider all voters as equal, unhyphenated Americans, not members of a political minority class. SB 1164 is not the answer.

It injects into the CVRA two highly subjectible subjective and easily manipulated terms, voter suppression and dilution of the vote. Is not every legally cast vote diluted by a vote cast by an ineligible voter? Think about that. SB 1164 should focus on voting rights of all eligible California voters. Another critical issue is who will objectively arbitrate voter suppression and dilution of the vote.

It's incredibly vague. If the wrong person wins, there must have been suppression of the protected class because they couldn't possibly vote for one of those blankety blanks. Who's to say? The term voter suppression has become an overly used, emotionally charged, and triggering term much like the term racist. It has recklessly been hurled at any and all attempts to secure our elections simply be requiring proof of citizenship or voter ID, common sense steps that 80% of Americans of both parties support.

Democracy is by definition a majority rules.

If you could wrap up, please.

By ignoring the rights of the majority, SB 1164 yields a death blow to that democracy. We urge a no vote to SB 74 and a rewrite. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else in the room that would like to add on as a me too in opposition to this bill? Seeing none, I can bring it back to the members. Any questions, comments?

I'll move the bill.

Okay. Assemblymember Solace.

Thank you, madam Chair. I wanna thank the author. I think this is a very important conversation to have. I appreciate your interest in in working in this space. I'm gonna be happy to support this today.

You know, the Federal Government is weakening our rights to vote. So anything we could do to continue protecting community is important. I appreciate you clarifying some of the concerns that were brought up and your intention. And so I appreciate, obviously, with the work that you're doing in that space. I acknowledge some of the concerns that officers brings as a I'm I'm a local government guy myself, a former council member, so I understand the importance.

Two of my cities dealt with this, Lakewood and and Paramount. So I understand possible concerns, but I do appreciate you clarifying some of the amendments that will be worked in process. So thank you again for for your work in this space. Thank you. Thank you, madam Chair.

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

Thank you, madam Chair. And just, to close, I do wanna mention that my team and I have been discussing, this bill with the right a wide variety of stakeholders. And so we will be working with the sponsors and those stakeholders to address, the concerns, that you heard today as this bill moves forward. And thank you to everyone who is standing up, and safeguarding our essential rights, in our state of California and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much. I just wanna thank our committee team for the analysis they did on this bill. Really appreciate their their hard work. It's certainly been disheartening to watch the US Supreme Court erode the Voting Rights Act protections against discriminatory voting practices. And so I support the efforts to strengthen the California Voting Rights Act laws.

At the same time, we must preserve the gains made under the existing California Voting Rights Act, and I believe that more work is needed to address concerns raised by opponents. Unfortunately, those concerns have come late in this process, and many involve more complex legal concerns that are outside the jurisdiction of this committee and come up came up in the bill after it was heard in judiciary. So you might have some further work to do in those spaces.

But to allow those discussions to continue, I'm prepared to support the bill today with the amendment outlined in comment seven of the analysis and with the understanding that the author has clarified that this bill amends and does not repeal and replace the California Voting Rights Act of 2021 and that you'll continue to work on addressing those concerns.

So depending on the progress made on the bill, hopefully, that it will be in a better position by the time it gets to the Assembly floor so I can continue to support it.

With that, I support the bill today. And madam secretary, we have a motion and a second. Please call the roll. Oh, second. It was by Slatte.

On SB 1164, the motion is do passes amended and re refer to the committee on appropriations. Pellerin? Aye. Pellerin, aye. Johnson?

No. Johnson, no. Bennett?

Aye.

Bennett, aye. Berman El Hawari?

Aye.

El Hawari, aye. Ellis? No. Ellis, no. Solace?

Solace, aye. Stephanie? Aye. Stephanie, aye.

Aye.

That bill's up five to two, but we'll keep the roll open for absent members.

Thank you.

Which bill would you like to go to next? $13.60. Okay. Great.

So thank you, Madam Chair. We are here to present the-- this is the second part of the Civil Rights Act of 2026. Before I begin, I wanna say that, along with our sponsors, my team and I are having productive discussions with CACEO. I know that we all share the important goal of improved language access in our elections. I do understand that the process of achieving that dream can pose some logistical challenges.

To that end, I am committed to continuing working with CACEO on a proposed framework that would phase out over time the use of precinct-by-precinct determinations that are required by current law. This would be replaced with a new tier of coverage that uses county-level determinations to provide language assistance services that are not as comprehensive as Section 203 but includes translated voteable ballots. This would be in addition to the language access services provided by the bill in print.

We hope to reach an agreement on that front soon. I want to also commit to working with the Secretary of State on their concerns as well, just to note. SB 1360 will improve language access to lawfully registered voters who self-identify as limited English-proficient by increasing the availability of translated election materials. A pillar of California strength is a vibrant diversity of its population. The Golden State has the highest percentage of households, 43.3% that are proficient in a language other than English.

This translates to 3.2 million eligible California voters or 12.3% of the state's electorate who self-identify as LEP according to the latest American community survey, and in Berkeley IGS poll, 70% of California voters support providing language access to voters with limited English proficiency. Federal law, specifically Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, mandates the provisions of comprehensive language assistance to the provisions of translated voter registration forms, ballots, and other election related material.

Unfortunately, the scope of Section 203 is limited. It only covers Spanish, Asian languages, and native languages. Currently, there is no language assistance required under federal law for LEP voters who speak non-covered languages, including Arabic, Armenian, Russian, Ukrainian, or Somali. The health of our democracy depends on ensuring that lawfully registered California voters can exercise their right to vote, regardless of whether they are proficient in English.

Unfortunately, Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is set to expire in 2032 unless Congress acts to reauthorizes it. This bill would ensure that Californians continue to enjoy the language access assistance provided by Section 203 by codifying those provisions from federal law into state law. However, the bill would also expand on Section 203 by expanding the potential languages covered by state law.

Beyond the languages covered by the current section, this bill would provide the same level of language assistance if 5,000 voting-age citizens in a county speak that given language. This is less than the threshold of 10,000 currently required by Section 203. The languages covered by SB 1360 would be based on the language determination made by the Secretary of State every five years.

For instance, in my home county of Riverside, Chinese languages, Tagalog, Vietnamese would be covered under Senate Bill 1360. This bill will bring us close to fulfilling the dream of an inclusive democracy in California that makes voting accessible even if a voter is not proficient in English. Today we have the sponsors of the bill, and here to testify, the California Democracy Partnership who can self-identify.

Great. And you each have two minutes.

Good morning, Chair Pellerin and members of the committee. I'm Julia Gomez, senior staff attorney with the ACLU of Southern California, in strong support of SB 1360, another critical piece of the CBRE of 2026 bill package. Language access protections are an essential part of the federal Voting Rights Act and a key piece of state voting rights acts that have been enacted since 2021 in other states like New York, Connecticut, and Virginia.

Congress amended the Voting Rights Act in 1975 to add Section 203, which guarantees that all election materials, including votable ballots that are available in English, will be translated for limited English-proficient voters. California's large Spanish-speaking population and the advocacy of then Congressman Edward R. Roybal of Los Angeles were influential in the formation of Section 203.

Congress deemed its protections necessary to enforce the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments after finding that language minority communities, quote, had been effectively excluded from participation in the electoral process. Millions of Californians rely on Section 203's protections but they are both inadequate and under threat. California now has the opportunity to join other states in expanding upon the promise of Section 203. There are four critical parts of the bill.

First, it ensures voters who currently receive all voting materials in their language under Section 203 don't lose those protections due to the expiration of Section 203 in 2032 or lack of enforcement by the current administration. Second, the bill expands protections to all languages. That means that sizable communities that speak languages like Arabic and Somali will be eligible for coverage if they meet the population thresholds.

Third, the bill lowers that numeric threshold for coverage from 10,000 to 5,000 adult limited English-proficient citizens in the county. And finally, the bill establishes a petition process so that communities underrepresented or invisible in census data can demonstrate their need for language assistance. Combined, these provisions would bring California in line with what other state voting rights acts have done to open our democracy to eligible voters whose first language is not English. And they will result in increased language service--

If you could wrap up, that'd be great. Thanks.

Great. So we urge you to vote yes on this important piece of legislation. Thank you.

And two minutes, please.

Good morning, honorable Chair and members of the committee. My name is Ramla Sahid. I'm the Executive Director of PANA, the Partnership for the Advancement of New Americans. We are a policy and organizing hub that advocates for the full economic, social, and civic inclusion of refugees and displaced populations in the San Diego region and across California. We are proud to support and co-sponsor SB 1360 because California must expand language access beyond the language currently covered under federal law.

Our democracy cannot work or function for everyone if too many communities are still left out. California is one of the most diverse states. There are significant refugee and immigrant populations that speak languages that are simply not covered by Section 203. California should expand the definition to include all languages, and that would mean that thousands of Abidji speaking voters would finally be allowed to register and vote in their language.

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

The equal right to vote was and has always been a struggle since the founding of this country. We have always fought to expand access to the vote, and today, we see those rights being challenged and rolled back. States like California have a choice in that. California can play a powerful role in this moment to ensure that benefits of Section 203 are not-- the benefits of Section 203 are a right available to all. We cannot let LEP status become the new literacy test. I repeat, we cannot let LEP status become the new literacy test.

And if you could wrap up, please?

One elder in our community told us voting should be just me, myself, and I. This is what this bill is about--dignity, independence, and voice. We urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Anybody else in the room that would like to add on as a MeToo, state your name, organization if any, and position, please.

Happy to. Karen Stout, here on behalf of Power California Action, in support. Thank you.

Kristin Nimmers, on behalf of California Black Power Network, co-sponsor as well, in support.

Good morning. Sydney Fong, on behalf of API FORCE, co-sponsor in support.

Dora Rose, deputy director, League of Women Voters of California, co-sponsor in support, also proxy support for other co-sponsors, including Asian Law Caucus, Legal Defense Fund, and the UCLA Voting Rights Project. Thank you.

Good morning. Jessica Hay with AFSCME California in support.

Tiffany Whiten, SEIU California, co-sponsors in support. Thank you.

Sara Flocks, California Federation of Labor Unions, in support.

Symphoni Barbee, on behalf of the ACLU Cal Action, in strong support, co-sponsors. Thank you.

Kalwis Lo with the California Community Foundation, in support.

Sarah Brennan with the Weideman Group, on behalf of the California Democracy Partnership and NextGen California, in support.

Trent Lange, California Clean Money Campaign, in strong support.

Daniel Conway with Common Cause, a proud co-sponsor, and also Disability Rights California. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Are there any primary witnesses in the room in opposition to this bill? If so, come on down. And you have two minutes.

Good morning, Chair Pellerin. My name is Kristin Connelly, on behalf of the California Association of Clerks and Elections Officials. I just wanna start and just thank the author for your kind comments about your engagement with our organization. We have-- you know, we really do care deeply about all of the goals shared by the author and the advocates in this space and work tirelessly to make voting meaningful for all voters in California, especially those who have language access needs.

Again, we're deeply committed to expanding meaningful access for voters with language needs. Counties across California invest significant resources to provide accurate translations, trained bilingual staff, and high-quality voter materials. We share the goal, again, of serving every voter well. At the same time, we must ensure that any expansion of language requirements is equitable, data-driven, and workable for counties of all sizes. For these reasons, CACEO must respectfully continue to oppose SB 1360 unless it's further amended.

First, California already operates under two different language determination systems, as has been discussed, the federal Voting Rights Act and California Election Code 14201. This bill would introduce a third without resolving the inequities in existing law. The precinct-based model in 14211 relies on census block data that must be imputed to precinct boundaries that don't align.

This mismatch has produced inconsistent and sometimes counterintuitive results, where languages with larger limited English-proficient communities are dropped while others with only a handful of speakers in a single precinct are added. Counties simply cannot plan effectively under a system this volatile. CACEO strongly recommends moving to a countywide standard.

Second, we urge the legislature to align the California threshold with the federal Voting Rights Act's 5% or 10% citizen voting age population standard because it's well-established, nationally recognized, and would provide clarity and fairness while allowing expansion to additional languages statewide. Third--

And if you could wrap up, please?

Oh. We'd like to see some-- we're concerned about the lack of clear determination standard with the petition process, and again, we appreciate Senator Cervantes's sincere and extensive engagement with us. At the heart of this is we need meaningful resources to do all this work. We hope to find some common ground where we can work together and come to a solution during the recess. Thank you.

Anybody else in the room that would like to add on as a MeToo? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the committee. Any questions or comments? No? My-- Assembly Member Bennett.

I appreciate that there are some challenges, particularly the precinct level language, and I appreciate the fact that you're working on those, but overall, the concepts that you're supporting are essential for democracy to work well, and so I hope that we can continue to have this positive communication and movement so that we can make this workable because that's what-- that's the ultimate goal. If it's not workable, it won't serve our purposes and stuff. So, I'll move the bill.

Thank you. Thank you. Got a motion and a second. Any other questions or comments from committee members? Seeing none. Senator, you may close.

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair, and yes, we will continue to have those discussions and conversations as we move forward, and again, this bill will take the necessary step to include voices of everyone. We believe that is how our democracy is stronger, and in California, we will continue to lead the nation to include every voice of eligible voters, and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much. I certainly applaud the author's goal to decrease barriers and make elections more accessible to those with language needs. However, I am very concerned that the bill adds more state language assistance requirements without making the reasonable and equitable corresponding changes to current state language requirements. So, I hear your concerns loud and clear.

Additionally, the timeline concern's suggested amendments raised by the Secretary of State seem reasonable as well, so I wanna add my encouragement to the author to continue to work with our county elections officials and Secretary of State to address these outstanding issues, and I'll be watching how the bill evolves, and we'll hopefully-- we'll address all these concerns by the time it comes to our floor. And so with that, I will recommend support with your commitment to continue that work. Thank you. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. We have a motion and a second.

On SB 1360, the motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call].

The bill's out; five to zero. We'll keep the roll open for our absent member.

Thank you. And then we've got one more bill. Gonna do a hat trick today. That's SB 1418: Item Eight.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Yes. 1418. Thank you, madam Chair. As we know, California election systems, as was mentioned, are under attack in our state. And we earlier this year, the legislature approved and the governor, signed Senate bill 73 into law, which bolstered California's defenses against interference in our elections in a time for the June second statewide primary election.

Senate bill 1418 is a follow-up to SB 73 and is sponsored by the California attorney general, Rob Bonta. In March of this year, Riverside County sheriff seized more than 600,000 voted ballots from last year's special election on prop 50 from the Riverside County Registrar Of Voters in the sham investigation driven by extremist conservative conspiracy groups.

At the time, existing state law was clear that after the certification of election results, the chain of custody of voted ballots must remain intact even if there is an ongoing investigation, meaning that those ballots must remain in the custody of the relevant county registrar. This is to protect the evidentiary value of those ballots for future investigations or audits. Once the chain of custody is broken, there is no guarantee that those ballots have been tampered or altered.

This can no longer they can no longer be used for future litigation or challenges. In response, Senate Bill 73 made it a felony to remove voted ballots from the custody of county registrars and also provided the State, secretary of State, the attorney general, and relevant county registrar with a civil remedy against the seizure of those voted ballots from county registrar. However, in April, a group of press organizations, including CalMatters, successfully petitioned a court to unseal the warrants of sheriff Bianco that sheriff Bianco obtained.

They found that in addition to voted ballots, those warrants authorized the seizure of other election records from the Riverside County Register of Voters. Unfortunately, these additional records would not be covered by the protection provided by SB 73.

This bill's 1418 would extend the protections of Senate bill 73 to other forms of election records beyond voted ballots, including voting systems. The same concerns over a chain of custody extend to these records as well. The chain of custody must be maintained to protect their evidentiary value for future investigations or audits. And then extending those provisions, Senate Bill 1418 would make it a felony to remove additional forms of election records, including voting systems from the custody of a county registrar.

It would also provide the secretary of State, attorney general, and other relevant county registrars with the same civil remedy that was provided in Senate bill 73.

This bill will also have an urgency clause added so that if signed into law by the governor, its provisions will be in place for the November gubernatorial election and beyond. With me to testify, in support and sponsors of the bill with attorney general Rob Bonta's office is deputy attorney general Tiffany Brokaw.

You have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members. Tiffany Brokaw, deputy attorney general here on behalf of attorney general Rob Bonta. And we're proud to cospons to sponsor SB 1418. We thank Senator Cervantes for carrying this important piece of legislation.

SB 1418 protects sensitive election documents and equipment for being seized and removed from the physical custody of election officials. California law currently provides protections for voted ballots by narrowly limiting their use and by requiring that elections officials always maintain physical custody over the voted ballots. However, election administration increasingly relies on a broader range of records, equipment, and certified voting technologies that may be necessary to investigate allegations of election misconduct, resolve election contests, or preserve evidence during criminal prosecution of an election crime.

SB 1418 would address these concerns by expanding an existing prohibition in state law on removing voted ballots from the custody of local elections officials to any record or document that must be preserved by elections officials under law, certified voting technologies and allot electronic data, and any other election material or equipment necessary to conduction an election. SB 1418 is an important tool to ensure the integrity of our electoral processes are maintained.

And for these reasons, we respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much. Two minutes?

Good morning, Chair and members. Deputy attorney general Malcolm Brudegum. Just here to answer any technical questions about the bill.

Welcome. Thank you. Any, anybody in the room that would like to add on as a me too? Seeing none. Or do we have primary witnesses in opposition to this bill?

Seeing none, any me twos wanna add on? Nope. Bring it back to the committee. Any questions or comments? Senate member Bennett?

Really valuable bill To lose custody of the ballots invites all kinds of potential challenges. So I strongly support the bill, and I'll make the motion.

Thank you. Wonderful. We have a motion and a second. Any other comments or questions? Seeing none, Senator, you may close.

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Appreciate that, and I greatly appreciate your work to to build on your SB 73 to ensure that election materials and voting systems are kept in the custody of elections officials. That is incredibly important. As a former elections official, we need to maintain that custody to ensure fair and accurate elections. I understand that you're continuing to work with the secretary of state on some amendments that would provide greater clarity in the bill, so thank you for that.

And if you'll take me as a coauthor, I'd be honored to coauthor the bill.

Absolutely. And with the motion to move and second, we'll go ahead and take take the role.

On SB 1418, the motion is do passed and re referred to the committee on appropriations. Pellerin? Aye. Pellerin, aye. Johnson?

No. Johnson, no. Bennett?

Aye.

Bennett, aye. Burman? El Hawari? Aye. El Hawari, aye.

Ellis? No. Ellis, no. Solace?

Aye.

Solace, aye. Stephanie?

Aye.

Stephanie,

aye. That bill's out five to zero, but

we'll keep the roll I'm sorry. Five to two, and we'll keep the roll open for our absent member. Speaking of which, where is the selling member, Furman? Come on down to 444. Although we're short senators.

Right? Okay. While we're waiting for senators, we're gonna go ahead and lift the call on item 11, which is SJR 18 by Senator McNerney. The current vote is three to two with the Chair voting aye. Secretary, please call the absent members.

[Roll Call]

So that is out five to two, but we'll continue to keep it open for our absent member. I'm now gonna lift the call on item number seven, SB 1360 d nine by Senator Reyes. The current vote is three to two with the Chair voting aye. Secretary, please call the absent members. Berman Elhawari?

[Roll Call]

That bill is out five to two, and we'll keep it open for our absent member. And that's all I got. Right? On this one. Okay. We have a Senator on their way. We'll wait for them. Okay. We're gonna add on to the consent calendar as well. So madam secretary, please call the absent members.

[Roll Call]

We're gonna go ahead and, item four, SB 900. Madam secretary, please call the roll for absent members.

[Roll Call]

So my understanding is that Senator Umberg is on his way, so we'll just go ahead and pause and wait for him. So We can talk about soccer.

I think I think normal protocol is the Chair is supposed to entertain us with jokes.

Good.

Thank you so much.

Alright. We have Senator Umberg in the house. Welcome.

Thank you. Am I yet?

And you're not yet. We're still waiting for Alan as well. But you have two bills

I do.

Up today. Right? Yes. Yes. Which one would you like to begin with?

Let's do SB 46 first.

Okay. That's item one, and begin when you're ready.

Alright. Thank you very much. Good morning, madam Chair and members. I wanna thank you, madam Chair, and the, long term, very talented consultant that you had, Mister Ethan Jones. I take some credit for him and your help on making sure that this bill is a bill that will pass both constitutional muster as well as become effective.

Senate bill 46 amends the California Elections Code to ensure that California secretary of State has the legal authority to remove constitutionally ineligible candidates for president and vice president from California's primary and general election ballot. Having our political candidates meet basic constitutional requirements should be an obvious prerequisite for placing them on the ballot. Sadly, everybody does not believe that if you've already served two terms as president, you cannot serve a third term.

And when some people say they can serve a third term as outrageous as it might be. I mean, that's almost as outrageous as saying someone who's born in The United States is not actually a citizen.

You have to believe them. So president Trump for the last five years has maintained that a third presidential run is possible. This morning when I was doomscrolling, I saw I said that again just very recently. This is a clear violation of the twenty second amendment, which has existed for seventy five years, and it's really clear and unambiguous.

However, in the off chance that it's not quite as clear as I think it is, the president this bill ensures the secretary of State will not put, anyone on the ballot if they've already served two terms as president of The United States.

And with me to testify here is Mister John Hill with Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. Mister Hill's come all the way from Philadelphia to educate us today.

Welcome to California, and you have two minutes.

Thank you. Glad to be here. Good morning. Thanks, Senator Umberg, Chair Pellerin, vice Chair Johnson, and other esteemed members of the committee. My name is John Hill.

I'm a senior counsel at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington or CREW, which is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to ethics, transparency, and accountability in government. I'm testifying today in support of pending legislation that will make a technical and procedural change to the California Elections Code to give the California Secretary of State unambiguous authority to remove constitutionally ineligible candidates from the ballot, for president following an investigation and in accordance with due process, similar to the process in several other states.

Secretaries of state are integral to our election system. They offer admin often administer both state and federal elections and include their responsibilities include regulating ballot access to maintain the integrity of the electoral system by barring individuals who are not eligible to run or run for or hold office. Secretaries of state routinely exercise this responsibility to remove ineligible candidates from the ballot, including presidential candidates who do not meet constitutional qualifications.

These powers are crucial because if a state allows a constitutionally ineligible candidate to remain on the ballot, a major party candidate for president could be an 18 year old or an individual born overseas, leaving voters without a meaningful electoral choice because the party's candidate could never constitutionally take office. Unfortunately, in California, the authority of the state to remove constitutionally ineligible candidates from the ballot is in question.

This body, through a technical change to the state's electoral laws, can guarantee that the secretary of state has the power to ensure that the state's presidential ballot is consistent with the law and the constitution of The United States.

To that end, the proposed statute carefully balances the secretary's oath to the constitution to give them the responsibility to refuse to certify the name of a constitutionally ineligible candidate from the ballot with the candidate's due process rights by setting up expedited procedures to adjudicate any disputes and making the rules of the road clear.

Moreover, should the secretary include that further investigation is needed to determine if a candidate is constitutionally eligible or not, the statute allows them to refer the matter to the attorney general and assigns any investigatory responsibilities to the AG's office consistent with their constitutional And if you

could wrap up.

Sure. This way, when California voters cast their ballots, they can be confident that their votes will count.

Beautiful. Thank you. Anybody else in the room that would like to add on as a me too? You can come up to the mic. State your name, organization, and position, please.

Good morning, madam Chair. Daniel Conway, here in strong support on behalf of Common Cause California and Disability Rights California. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody in the room that would like to come up as a primary witness in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Anyone who just wants to come to the mic and state your name in opposition? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the members.

Any questions or comments? No? Second. Alright. We have a motion and a second.

No other questions or comments. Senator, you may close.

Thank you. I wish this bill were not necessary. Urgent I vote. Thank you, Mister Hill, for coming out.

Appreciate that. Certainly, the twenty second amendment to the US constitution is clear that no person can be elected to the office of president more than twice. Unfortunately, president Trump and his allies have repeatedly floated the idea of running for a third term in 2028. Under those circumstances, this is a reasonable bill to affirm the limits found in our United States constitution. I wanna thank the author for your recent amendments to ensure that the bill can be implemented consistently with California's election calendar.

And with that, I'm recommending support. Madam secretary, we have a motion and a second. Right? Yeah. You may call the roll.

On SB 46, the motion is do passed and re referred to the committee on appropriations. Pellerin? Aye. Pellerin, Aye. Johnson?

No. Johnson, no. Bennett? Bennett, Aye. Berman.

El Hawari? Aye. El Hawari, aye. Ellis?

No.

Ellis, no. Solace? Aye. El Hawari, aye. Stephanie?

Aye. Stephanie, aye.

That bill's out five to two, but we'll keep the roll open for our absent member.

Thank you.

You now have a second bill, item three SB 884. You may begin when ready.

Thank you again, madam Chair and Nicole Becker, for your assistance on this bill. I wish this bill were not necessary either. But, in the election this year, it is critically important that it be conducted with transparency and with integrity. Sadly, we recently had an event here in California where a local sheriff seized ballots, which destroys the chain of custody and is totally disruptive to the process.

What SB 884 does is it says that law enforcement, in essence, can't interfere with one's right to vote.

And so we've established a perimeter of a 100 feet and with discretion of extending it to 200 feet where law enforcement can certainly enforce laws that relate to crimes against persons and property, but not other crimes within that 100 or 200 foot radius. It also, in the event that, someone monkeys with the mail system, provides for perhaps additional days if if someone in authority should say that the postal service should delay, for example, delivering ballots.

The purpose of this bill is to make sure that every California citizen who is eligible to vote has an opportunity to vote. The world has come full circle. I am so much chagrined to even be doing this bill.

The catalyst for me coming into electoral life was, an event that happened in 1988 where there were folks dressed as police officers, posted in polling places, asking people for proof of citizenship. They were rent a cops. They weren't real police officers. But that was a time when Orange County was a very different place, and and I was a federal prosecutor and outraged by that behavior and ultimately ran for that very seat. So with that, I urge and I vote.

I am my witness. Thank you.

And just to clarify, you are taking all the amendments outlined that basically keep the postmark plus as we have it with seven days.

Very well reasoned amendments proposed by committee.

The League of Women Voters of California in very strong support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay. Anybody like to come up to the mic and express your support for this bill? State your name, organization, and position.

Sydney Fong with APS Pacific Empowerment and strong support. Thank you.

Good morning, TRIM members. Karen Stout here on behalf of Unidos. Yes. In support. Thank you.

Daniel Conway here on behalf of Common Cause of California and Disability Rights California. Thank you for your leadership, sir.

Calisto with the California Community Foundation in support.

Do we have any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Please come on up. And you have two minutes.

Thank you, madam Chair and members. Corey Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriffs Association, respectfully in opposition to SB 884. Bill contains several provisions, as you know, with which we take no issue. That said, the limitation on arrest proposed by the bill is worthy of our opposition because it impedes local peace officers from enforcing state and local law.

SB 884 creates a buffer zone that when polls are open, effectively becomes a safe haven where suspects cannot be arrested for various crimes like driving under the influence, indecent exposure, disorderly conduct, or even drug sales, if only for a few hours on a few days per year.

More problematic though is what the bill truly appears to truly accomplish, which is to put state and local peace officers in the untenable position of having to stop federal agents from carrying out their duties and attempting to use a new new state law to shield local state and local officers from obstructing federal affairs.

Again, we're not commenting on the propriety of what federal agents may or may not be doing vis a vis elections, but the legislature should not direct California public servants to attempt to impede federal employees from enforcing federal law. And doing so puts our deputy sheriffs, police officers in a spot where they're setting the stage for a constitutional collision with the California peace officers who would squarely face the consequences.

So for those reasons and also registering the opposition of the California Police Chiefs Association who couldn't be here at this moment, we respectfully ask for your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Anybody else in the room that like to add on, in opposition? State your name, organization, position.

Not in opposition any longer. Kristen Connolly on behalf of the California Association and Clerk of Clerks and Elections officials with the amendments taken today. We have moved our position from opposed to neutral on August. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Anybody else in the room? Seeing none, bring it back to the dias. Any questions, comments from members? Assembly member Stephanie.

Thank you, Chair. And I just wanna thank Senator Umber for bringing this forward and ask you or give you a chance to respond because I know as a former federal prosecutor, I'm a former prosecutor myself. I know that you and I both wouldn't never take actions to impede law enforcement activities. So, obviously, the intent of this bill is to preserve, you know, our elections. And so I would just love to give you a chance to respond to the opposition.

And, again, thank you for your good work on this.

So thank you. Well, you're exactly right, Assembly member. So

in

in as to, you know, certain crimes, if there's an assault, clearly, that's already written into the bill that police officers can arrest. If there's a drug transaction, we'll make sure we amend the bill. So if there's an open notorious drug transaction, that that they can enforce the law. But this applies both to state and federal officers. So, for example, if local officials came in and decided to seize the ballots, that would be against the law if enacted, through this bill.

So the intent is to deal with both state and local as well as federal officials who may be trying to impede the election. I have tremendous both respect and confidence in law enforcement to act with appropriate discretion and diligence in terms of enforcing this law. I don't expect that we fist fights that would break out, but I do expect that that local officials would properly report if there are federal officials that are inside the 100 meter radius impacting voters.

Polling locations are for a finite time and at a fixed location. So if, you know, somebody, for example, there's a warrant for someone's failure to pay taxes, I they they can only hang out there for a few hours.

They can only hang out there for a few hours, and then they have to leave the location. So I I I don't think there'd be a serious impediment. I don't think the crime rate would be impacted in California if, for example, the the tax offender, hid out there for a few hours before actually leaving the location. We'll certainly work with law enforcement to make sure we tighten it down in terms of crimes.

Nobody wants someone to have safe haven in for a few hours for a a crime that impacts public safety in the short term or property damage.

So thank you.

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

Well, thank you very much. I urge and I vote, but just as a matter of personal privilege, I am so pleased to see the folks here that were here over twenty two years ago when I sat in that very Chair in my office was across the hall. I'm glad to see that the Chair the Chair has been upgraded since since I served as Chair here. Yeah. Well, I'm talking about the person so much.

Yeah. Right. Right. As opposed to the furniture. But but this committee has done phenomenal work over the last few decades, and I've been very, very proud to play a small role in that phenomenal work.

And you should be rightfully proud of your excellent staff. And with that, I again urge an aye vote.

I am absolutely, and thank you so much. And and I remember that incident in 1988 when the armed guards were staged in front of polling sites in Orange County, and it was was pretty frightening.

And and as a former elections officials, I know we work constantly with our local law enforcement, our local police departments, and sheriffs to let them know where all of our voting locations are in case there are any instances of irregularities so they know how to protect the vote and voters when they go to exercise their their right.

So I appreciate the author's effort to address the elections officials' concerns related to the vote by mail ballot drop locations and your willingness to delete the extended vote by mail receipt deadline. I'm recommending support with those amendments as well as the others outlined in the committee analysis.

And with that, we have a motion. Did we have we have a motion by Stephanie, I think? We don't.

Oh, okay. Motion by Stephanie, seconded by Bennett. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

On SB 884, the motion is do passed as amended, and we refer to the committee on appropriations. Pellerin? Aye. Pellerin, aye, Johnson? No.

Johnson, no Bennett. Aye. Bennett, I Berman. El Hawari El Hawari, Aye. Ellis?

No. Ellis, no. Salaace. El Hawari, Aye. Stephanie?

Stephanie, Aye.

Aye.

That bill's out five to two, but we'll keep the roll open for our absent member. If you see Berman in the hall, tell him to Tell him to come Thank you so much. Actually, we're looking for Allen too. So can you track him down for me?

Thanks. Okay. I will. May I approach the the guys?

Alright. Our understanding is that Senator Allen is tied up in committee, so So Assemblymember Bennett has graciously offered to present his bill, SB 715, item two, on his behalf. And the Senator has approved that authorization. So with that, With that, we have a staff person here with talking points. Oh, yes.

We do. Okay.

We have the author statement actually in my summary here.

There we go. Okay. Alright. Assemblymember Bennett, you may proceed when you're ready.

That was speedy delivery. Right? Chair and members, the name of candidates for elected office oh, I'm here on behalf of of Senator Allen presenting his bill, and appreciate the fact that the Chair has, an eye recommendation for this bill. So I think this should be easy. The names of candidates for elected office appear on the ballot alongside a ballot designation that the candidate has chosen to describe their current occupation or employment to inform voters of their professional background.

Under existing law, the secretary of State must transmit the certified list of candidates along with their ballot designations to county election officials for sixty eight sixty eight days before the election. The secretary of State also provides a list to all candidates seventy three days before the election, which affords candidates the opportunity to issue challenges against any voters. With the existing deadlines, candidates have only five days to review designations and file legal challenges before the list is officially certified on the sixty eighth day before an election.

Additionally, the deadline for the list to be provided to the candidates always falls on a Saturday, which further limits the ability to process challenges during traditional business hours. SB 715 addresses this issue by moving a deadline for providing the list of candidates to seventy eight days before the election.

This five day extension gives candidates a more reasonable opportunity to identify inaccuracies and pursue challenges. I understand the secretary of state has concerns about altering, this deadline and that it may cause timing issues for their staff as they perform the critical work of conducting our elections. I'm committed to continuing conversations with secretary of staff to potentially find ways to mitigate timing and the workload impacts, so respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Well done. Thank you, Assemblymember Bennett. Anybody in the room wishing to come on as support any primary witnesses in support? Anybody wanna come to mic? Any opposition?

Primary or mic? Seeing none. Any questions from members? We have a motion.

Second.

Second. We have a motion by vice Chair Johnson, seconded by Ellis. No other questions or comments. Would you like to close?

I'm sure the Senator greatly appreciates the bipartisan support for the bill.

Yes. Thank you so much. And it's it's great that he's gonna be continuing to work with the secretary of state. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

On SB 715, the motion is do passed and re refer to committee on appropriations. Pellerin? Aye. Pellerin, aye. Johnson?

Aye. Johnson, aye. Bennett? Aye. Bennett, aye.

Berman, El Hawari?

El Hawari, aye. Ellis? Aye. Ellis, aye. Celace?

Aye.

Aye. Celace, aye. Stephanie? Aye. Stephanie, aye.

Seven to zero. So that bill is out seven to zero. We'll keep the roll open for our absent member. Before everybody leaves, I just wanna say it's been such an honor and privilege to serve as the Chair of this Committee. This is our last committee meeting for this session, and it's been lovely working with our vice Chair Johnson.

Wonderful to have Assemblymember Ellis on board. We're gonna miss you in your future endeavors. And just wanna thank all of you for your passion for democracy. I think we all agree that democracy is precious. It needs to be protected and fought for.

And a big shout out to our incredible team, Laurie, our secretary, Nicole, and Ethan. So that's and we will now wait for Assembly member Berman. Danny Berman, come on to 444.

Great job, Gail. Thank you

Always for you, Assemblymember Berman. Good to see you. We're gonna go ahead and add you on to the various bills.

So Mister Berman, on consent. Yeah. Aye. Aye, Berman, on consent. Okay. We're moving on. SB 46, Mister Berman. Aye. Berman, aye. S B715, Mister Berman. Aye. Berman, aye. S B884, Berman. Aye. Berman, aye. S B900. Aye. Berman, Aye. S b 1164. Berman. Aye. Berman, Aye. S P 1360. Aye. Berman, Aye. S P 1369. Aye. Berman, Aye. S P 1418. Berman Aye. And finally, on SJR18. Berman Aye. Thank you. Yes.

And with that, our elections committee meeting is adjourned.