Senate Standing Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments

Meeting as a subcommittee so we can save time. And I see Assemblymember Pellerin is present. And that's AB 2255. When you are ready, I will listen and proceed.

So good morning, Vice Chair and Member. I'm here to present 2255. Candidates often begin fundraising well in advance of an election to ensure they have sufficient resources to communicate with voters. However, most campaign spending usually occurs during the weeks leading up to the election. AB 2255 requires additional detail about the purpose of large campaign expenditures made at times when a candidate is not appearing on the ballot at the next election and is likely to be engaged in significant campaign activity.

This additional disclosure will improve transparency and ensure appropriate oversight of the state's campaign finance laws. AB 2255 is sponsored by the Fair Political Practices Commission, is supported by the League of Women Voters of California, and has no opposition. And with me to testify today is Lindsay Nakano with the Fair Political Practices Commission.

Thank you. Good morning, Mister vice Chair and member. Lindsay Nakano here on behalf of the FPPC as a sponsor of AB 2255. Under existing law, descriptions of payments and campaign reports are permitted to be brief and general. As noted in the committee analysis, campaign committees are permitted to describe payments using standardized standardized expenditure codes such as, for example, PRT for print ads or WED for for various IT costs.

Subject to certain exceptions, AB 2255 would require additional detail to be reported about large expenditures to a single source in periods where the candidate will not be on the ballot in the next election and are not running for reelection.

For each qualifying expenditure, the committee would be required to disclose a description of any consideration for which the expenditure was made, including the specific political, legislative, or or governmental purpose of the payment, and if applicable, the relationship of the person or portable sub vendor to the candidate or the candidate's campaign or office holder staff. This added transparency will help build public trust and confidence that candidates are making permissible expenditures in years where a candidate has an open campaign committee for a more distant election.

Thank you for your time and consideration of this bill.

Okay. Yeah. What do you only one witness?

Just the one. Yes.

Yeah. Anyone #MeToo supporters? Any opposition witness? Okay. No one.

Anyone in the committee has a question? Yeah. Okay. We'll wait until the court is established to take the motions and the vote on it and leave it open for the votes. In the meantime, if FCC is sponsoring the bill, it must be very detailed, accurate, and sounds like it's a supportable bill.

Thank you.

Thank you. At the appropriate time, I request your Aye vote. Thank you so much.

Is that it? No more?

That was it.

You can present all of it.

Yeah. Now you're gonna be bored.

Oh, okay. Alright. Have a nice day.

You too.

Okay. Any Assembly Member here to present? Okay. We'll have a recess, until, next Assembly Member arrives.

Okay. We're back from recess, and, Assemblymember Soria is here, to present item number 12, AB 2753. Welcome, Assemblymember, and you may present your bill.

Good morning, Chair and Members. We know, public trust is foundational in our democracy. AB 2753 strengthens that trust by prohibiting registered sex offenders from running for four or holding local or state elected office. Today, California already prohibits individuals convicted of serious public corruption crimes from running for office because we recognize that some offenses are fundamentally inconsistent with holding positions of public trust. This bill is not about expanding the sex offender registry.

It is about protecting public trust in elected office. Trust that they have the interest of their community at heart and the trust that they reflect the values of their constituents and trust that they will serve and protect the residents they represent. Earlier this year, my community in Fresno learned that our election laws did not prohibit a sex offender for running for local office. When Renee Campos, a registered sex offender, announced his intention to run for Fresno City Council.

Our community was shocked and outraged and baffled that a registered sex offender could run for office.

This case exposed a gap in our election laws and it forced us to ask ourselves whether someone who is a registered sex offender should be entrusted with elected office. AB 2753 answers the question very simply. It's a no. I do appreciate the concerns raised in the committee analysis regarding the history of California sex offender registry and the LGBTQ community. While California has evolved significantly over the decades, I also recognize that there are still legitimate concerns about how portions of the registry operated historically.

Those concerns deserve continued discussion and reforms where appropriate. However, that is not the issue before us today. This bill is not trying to revisit the history of the registry nor expand it. It simply relies on the registry as it exists today. To address some of the committee's concerns outlined in the analysis, I will be amending the bill so that only individuals who are currently required to register as sex offenders would be prohibited from running for running for or serving in state or local elected office.

If someone is lawfully removed from the registry under existing law, they would no longer be subject to this prohibition. So I believe the amendment I did take I did take at the consideration of this committee narrows the bill while still maintaining the bill's core purpose, ensuring individuals who are currently registered sex offenders are not serving in positions of public trust. AB 2753 helps protect the integrity of our democratic institutions by giving confidence that those who serve them haven't violated the public trust.

Here with me today to testify in support of 2753 is Nelson Esparza, President of the Fresno City Council.

Thank you very much. Before we, go to your witness, just to be clear, so you are not accepting the committee amendment in the analysis. Is that correct?

Not in its entirety. We're addressing just, limiting to those that are currently.

Right. Okay. So by I mean, so and correct me if I'm wrong in saying this, that your the so the committee analysis contains an amendment, to, limit the bill to tier three sex offender sex offenders who are which is lifetime registration.

You're indicating that you're not taking that, but instead, all sex offenders tiers one, two, and three, will be prohibited from running for office during the time that they are on the sex offender registry, which is minimum ten years for tier one, minimum twenty years for tier two, lifetime for tier three.

That's correct.

Okay. Thank you. You may you may proceed. You have two minutes.

Good morning, chairman. My name is Nelson Esparza. I serve on the Fresno City Council, as the president and was a cosponsor of our council resolution number 2026-41 in support of AB 2753. This issue is deeply, personal to me because in Fresno, we did not have to consider, this as a hypothetical. The registered sex offender at the center of this matter announced this candidacy to succeed me when I term out next January.

In 2018, this individual was convicted of possession of child sexual abuse material. And, again, earlier this year, he announced his candidacy for Fresno City Council, in my district. What followed was weeks of disruption and distraction, that pulled our city's focus away from the work that matters the most. Instead of addressing Fresno's issues, our city was consumed by the reality that a registered sex offender was actively running for office. This individual hosted a press conference at Runnham Elementary School and drew national coverage.

My office received dozens of calls from our residents asking how this could be allowed. And AB 2753 closes this loophole. I do believe and trust the will of judgment of voters, but running for office is a very intentional act in Fresno. And we had a registered sex offender actively trying to engage at the doors, posing, very serious concerns in our community. I trust voters, but I also believe they should not have to unwillingly interact with sex offenders, in the first place.

Lastly, I will say that I firmly believe in rehabilitation and second chances, but accountability does not disappear. And when someone commits a serious offense, especially one that violates another person, much less a child, That decision carries lasting consequences. AB 2753 is a responsible action to add being a registered sex offender as a disqualifier for public office.

In Fresno, we saw in a short time frame how our residents reacted at the mere prospect of a sex offender running for office, and I do not wish that upon any other community in our great state. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Are there any additional witness or anyone in support of the bill beyond the lead witness? Okay. Seeing none, is there any opposition to this bill? If so, please come forward.

Okay. We'll bring it back to the committee. We have not established a quorum, yet. We will do that as soon as, we have a third, member here. Senator Choi, did you have any questions or comments?

Oh, yeah. I appreciate your content or intent of the bill. It is a very serious issue, sex offenders of all different kinds running for elected official positions. Another bill that I'll be dealing with later will be AB2691 is very similar, but the three d amendment process at the it excludes certain categorical sex offenders. So what I'm hearing from you is that your yours is any kind of a sex sexual offenders or registered sex offenders will be barred from

Yes. Well, they're that's that's correct, Senator Choi. While they're on the registry, they would be banned from seeking public office, Okay. Local and state.

Sounds good. They're very supportive. Yeah. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. Great. So Assemblymember, you and I have had a a number of different conversations about, this bill, and I respect where you're coming from. And I know I must have been I can imagine why it was very jarring that this that this happened.

I question whether anyone on the sex offender registry politically could ever be elected to office, but putting that, aside, as I've indicated to you, without the amendment, contained in the analysis, I will be voting no on on this bill and recommending that the, that the committee vote, no.

You know, we've done a lot of work in the California. It's hard to overstate, how, extreme and broken the California sex offender registry, was. One in 400 Californians was as of 2017 when we started fixing it. One in four hundred Californians was on the sex offender registry. Sex offender registry.

I'll repeat that again. One in four hundred Californians was on the sex offender registry because we were one of only four states in the country, where you, once you got on the sex offender registry, there was almost never a way to get off of the registry. So whether you were a sexually violent predator, or whether you were a gay guy who had sex in a park or in a car and got arrested, like, for example, Bayard Rustin, did back in the nineteen fifties.

Martin Luther King's right hand, was arrested in a park, for having sex in a car and had to register. You were on for life.

2017, we finally, with the support of of a broad coalition, including law enforcement, we tiered the registry so that the the we had three tiers. Tier three, you're on for life. And then as I mentioned, Tier two, you can petition to get off after twenty years. Tier One, after ten years, you're not guaranteed to get off, but you can at least petition. And we began to to really make the sex offender registry, the tool that it is supposed to be.

It is not a form of punishment. Sex offender registry is not punishment. It is a tool for law enforcement to be able to monitor people who may potentially cause a risk. And when we use the sex offender registry as a proxy for anything else, we get into, problems.

The way this bill was drafted and the way it passed out of the Assembly would have gone back, and the way the bill is in print today, anyone who is ever at any moment in time, whether today or seventy years ago, would be precluded for running for office for life.

I appreciate that the author has acknowledged that the bill does need to change, but the amendment that the author has suggested will still sweep in anyone on the registry for any reason in all three tiers, and, that's just not something that I can support. So I respect our disagreement. I have enormous respect, admiration for the author, who represents her district well, and, but that is where I am. And so, with that, you may you may close.

Thank you, Mister Chair. You know, I just wanna, again, make it very clear, that the bill that is in front of us does not create any new crimes. It does not expand the sex offender registry nor does it change who must register. That is not what the bill is focused on. It simply says that if California currently requires someone to register as a sex offender, they should not be entrusted with the honor of elected office.

And so, obviously, my community and I feel very strongly about these types of individuals seeking to run for elected office and we do believe that we must draw the line there. And so with that, I respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Thank you very much, Assemblymember. And once we establish a quorum, we will entertain a motion. So thank you. Thank you for coming today. Okay.

I see that Assemblymember Addis has joined us. And, she'll be presenting item number 11, AB 2691.

Thank you so much, Chair and Members. I know you have a very long day, so I'm gonna tighten up, my testimony and then, have my witnesses sort of share from their perspective. But the gist is I'm here to present AB 2691, the Public Trust Protection Act, which would expand the list of felony convictions that disqualify someone for running for or holding state or elected excuse me. State or local elected office to include the most severe cases of sexual assault and sex trafficking.

And I just I wanna thank the Chair and staff for working so closely with us to get this bill, to the place that it's in today.

So I would I think I'll turn it over to my witnesses, and then happy to answer any other questions if, if you have any.

Great. Thank you for coming.

We have and, just our witnesses are Dorothy Small, survivor and advocate, and Mitch Steiger, whom you know, legislative advocate for CFT.

Great. You each have two minutes. Thank you.

Okay. Good morning, Chair and Members of the committee. My name is Dorothy Small, and I'm a registered retired registered nurse, former advocate with the survivors of those abused by priest, and a survivor of childhood and adult sexual abuse perpetrated by persons in trusted positions of power and authority. I am here to strongly urge you to vote yes on AB 22691. Reporting offenders is never a simple administrative task.

It forces survivors to relive their worst moments. Beyond any legal challenges by reporting offenders, a survivor dismantles their own life before skeptics who often blame the victims. Reporting offenders is emotionally exhausting and ends up compounding the trauma. Many victims choose to remain silent. There's a high incidence of reoffending, placing a person in public office where the power of the office is combined with ample supply is putting the trusting and vulnerable public in harm's way.

Sexual assault is about power. If a person running for public office advertises and it's known that they were previously convicted of sexual assault or trafficking, not only is it highly triggering to victims, but it tells the community that the ambitions of the offender is valued over the victim's safety. AB 2691 provides an essential boundary by preventing convicted individuals of sexual assault or human trafficking from holding public office.

It would ensure that survivors do not have to fight abusers for a voice in local government. It also prevents abusers from weaponizing and exploiting their positions of trust for personal gain.

Police protect survivors, public trust, and the integrity of the offices sought. Public safety must come first over personal ambition. Please vote yes on AB 2691, and thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you, Mister Chairs, Senator Choi, and staff. Mitch Steiger with CFT, Educators and Classified Professionals in support of this bill. The author and previous witness really covered it well. We would also really emphasize that from the education worker perspective, when you consider the the power dynamic involved in the crimes at issue in this bill, it's especially relevant to some of the, offices that we pay close attention to, namely school boards.

Where when you look at what school boards do, the individual members have great power over both, student expulsion appeals as well as worker disciplinary proceedings.

And so when you combine someone who's been convicted of committing crimes like this with the very direct and real power they have over specific individuals, we think it's a real recipe for disaster. We very much agree with the comments regarding the previous bill, and we wanna be very careful in how we expand these restrictions in law.

But we think there's a pretty clear nexus here between the crimes in this bill and the potential for serious abuse should an individual who commits this sort of activity be in charge over individual people in those situations. Also wanted to flag that for some of these school board elections, they tend to be fairly down ballot elections. Often there's not an opponent.

And so just relying on this information to be public, obviously, the candidate's very unlikely to disclose it. They may not even have an opponent that's gonna disclose it. It's very likely that this could be something the voters never even hear about. So someone could quietly work their way into this office and have that potential for abuse there. Something we're very concerned about.

We think it's a great bill, and we urge your support. Thank you.

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

Good morning. Jack Werson from Nossman on behalf of the County of Monterey in support.

K. Any additional support? Seeing none, is there any opposition to the bill? Please come forward. And are you so do we have I wanna make sure, are you the two lead witnesses then?

I know I am.

Okay. So two minutes each, please. Yeah. Right.

Chair, Members, my name is Greg Burt with the California Family Council representing tens of thousands of constituents and more than 2,000 churches across California. When we read the June 24 amendment to AB 2691, our honest reaction was that it could not be real. We assumed we'd misread it. We sat in our office and tried to imagine how anyone could stand up and defend it. So I'm here today genuinely hoping someone will tell us why crimes against children are being carved out of this.

Let me be clear about what we support. Barring people convicted of felony, sexual assault, and human trafficking from holding public office is good policy is good policy. We want to support the bill. But the amendments, we were told this committee Chair demanded exempt convictions for felony, sodomy, oral copulation, and sexual penetration against children. So here is where the bill now stands.

A person convicted of felony sexual assault against an adult would be barred from public office. A person convicted of the same act against a minor would not be. Adult victim, you're disqualified. Child victim, you may run for school board. No one has offered a rationale.

The committee's own analysis does not offer one. The bill passed the Assembly force 67 to zero before this amendment existed. The unanimous vote was a clean bill. Other states put children first. Utah permanently bars anyone convicted of grievous sexual assault against a child from serving on a school board.

This amendment moves California in the opposite direction. It protects child victims least, exactly where the protection is needed most. We are ready to become strong supporters the moment these three exemptions are removed. Until then, we urge a no vote, and we're still waiting for a clear justification. Thank you.

Good afternoon, honorable senators, Chair. My name is David Bullock of the SFV Alliance. Among our many concerns is out of law, order, and protecting kids. We do find sexual assault to be repugnant. When this legislation originally came out, we took a neutral position on it.

While on one hand we liked the intentions, we feel that elections are the place for the voters to decide who is worthy to serve them and who is not. It is something that usually works itself out. We also felt what the author's prestige among her colleagues that the legislation would have no trouble passing.

Unfortunately, with the recent added amendments making the crime of if I read it right, rape and anal socks sex with a minor exempt, it is now in contradiction with what it seems to be the attempt of the author. I'm baffled with this current legislation.

I don't know how anybody thinks these exemptions would be acceptable with its prior intentions. If these amendments came from outside of the author's bill, Assemblymember, I'm truly sorry that this was done to your bill. If the person who came up with those amendments is in this room, I want to say shame on you. I've been mistaken in the past, and if I'm wrong on my analysis, I would love to hear why.

I'm requesting either the author or the committee Members please explain why these current amendments are a good idea, why you felt they needed to be added on.

At this moment, we at the SFE Alliance must oppose this bill at its current's understanding of it and urgently request the committee members to also impose it are removed. Thank you.

Any additional

sorry. Any additional opposition, please come forward? Seeing none, we'll bring it back, to the committee.

I have a question. As we previously communicated, I thought the bill would have rightly excluded a broad category of sexual predators from elected office in California. But as we hear from the opponents, amendments are the problem. Last week narrowed the scope of the bill, and it now, for some inexplicable reason, excludes heinous crimes like sodomy of a minor or sexual penetration of a minor. So my question is this.

Why should someone who engage in sexual acts with minors should be able to run for local or local or state office, for that matter, national office?

Thank you so much for the question, Senator. I think, my witness's testimony speaks for itself in terms of, the harms of the kinds of crimes that we're focused on in this bill, bill that would protect the public trust of survivors and would make sure that survivors are really in the lead. So happy to continue working with the committee or others if there are other kinds of crimes folks feel need to be addressed.

But at the moment, I feel like we have a really important bill that is nation leading that will uplift survivors and enhance public trust here in California.

The previous bill we heard, the AB 2753 also in broad sense to prohibit sexual offenders registered in the sexual offender registry shall be banned. So it is in general. But yours excluded certain specific categories. That is really troubling. I cannot, in good conscience, support this bill.

The initial version of the bill, which I strongly supported, would have removed the people convicted of sexual assaults and the human trafficking from the ballot. This was a special in your bill. Human trafficking case was included. That was a little bit broader and very supportable. Unfortunately, recent amendments for significantly watered down the bill and now in and, explicably exempts a certain number of serious crimes that the definition of sexual assault.

The last version exempts the following crimes from the definition of a sexual assault under this bill. The bill analysis says penal penal code two eighty six, which is sodomy on a minor penal code two eighty seven, oral copulation on minor, penal code eight ninety seven, sexual penetration on a minor. These are all focusing on minor sexual assault that will be exempted.

This is a heinous problem that I cannot understand why this kind of exclusions have been made for these reasons as a as a result of amendments. Someone who engaged in these heinous crimes would not be barred from seeking state or local office in California.

Until the most recent amendments, I supported this bill, but I now believe that this bill must be opposed because of the absurd message that it sends, namely that it's okay to have pedophiles and child groomers in elected office until highness crimes involving minors are restored in the definition of a sexual assault under this bill, I would not be able to, in good conscience, support this bill.

Thank you. Let me just you know, I have to say I've been around politics a long time, and every time I think I've seen the height of cynicism in politics, some there are people who managed to set a new world record in political cynicism. I wanna be clear. The people who are opposing this bill, which is there were no felonies in any of the amendments removed out. No felonies.

And the folks who are opposing it and, respectfully, the Vice Chair have never brought forward a bill to restrict anyone from running on office from from from running for office. In 2026, in 2025, in 2024, '23, and we'll go back years and decades, they have never come forward and said this crime or that crime should make you ineligible to run for office.

And so the author comes forward and says, we're going to take a set of a set of crimes, of sexual crimes, sexual assault crimes, human trafficking, and we're going to say that those people are not eligible to run for office. And instead of saying, okay, we're going to make those people ineligible, and then you can introduce whatever bill you wanna introduce in the future if you think there are other crimes.

It's like, well, you didn't include enough crimes, including crimes that are misdemeanors or otherwise not felonies.

You didn't include enough crimes, so I'm gonna oppose your bill. That's not opposition on the merits. That is pure politics and pure political cynicism, and I'm just calling that out. So the author, I appreciate your work on this. I think that this is a solid bill, and it has my support, and I'll be voting for it today.

So with that, you may close.

Thank you so much, Senator. I appreciate the discussion, and I'll just I'll just reemphasize that, California is nation leading and even considering doing something like this for survivors. I think we're showing how much we value the voices of survivors and the experiences of survivors who are really at the center of this legislation. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. As noted, we do not have a quorum, so we will entertain a motion as soon as we establish a quorum. Thank you all for coming today. And we will continue with do we have are there any authors on their way? No?

Okay. We will go back into recess until we have another author.

Good morning, Senator.

Okay. We are going to come back from recess. We're good? Good. Okay.

Great. We're back from recess. Welcome, Assemblymember Berman. You have So many. Four bills, in addition to the one that's on consent.

So we will start with item one, AB 686. And I in a few minutes, I have to step out, and so the vice Chair will take the GAVO wall amount, and then I'll be back, and you'll probably still be going by the time I get back. Thank you, Chair. You may proceed.

Appreciate you. Deepfakes are extremely convincing, fabricated photos, videos, and audio recordings of someone appearing to say or do something they did not. The ability to attribute speech and conduct to a political candidate that is false and that never happened makes deepfakes a powerful and dangerous tool in the arsenal of those that wanna wage mis and disinformation campaigns.

That is why the legislature passed my AB 730 back in 2019 to prohibit the distribution of deepfakes and other manipulated media within sixty days of an election unless the image or recording includes a disclosure stating that it is manipulated. However, this law will sunset in 2027.

AB 686 would extend the sunset to 01/01/2031. Not sure why we're not eliminating the sunset, but that'll be a different conversation with my team later. Keeping the law intact for an additional four years. This will ensure that California law continues to dissuade the creation and distribution of nefarious election related deep fakes and other manipulated content.

I ask for an aye vote.

Great. And do you have any witnesses?

I don't think so. You all have...

Is there anyone in support of AB 686? If so, please come forward. Seeing none, is there any opposition to AB 686? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the committee. Mr. Vice Chair, any questions or comments?

Okay. So we have not yet established a quorum. We will make a motion once we do so. So we'll move past item one, to item number two, AB 1130.

What are these little white phones for? Is that right? That is very old school. AB 11:30, social media and the growing this is a fun one. Social media and the growing influencer industry have drastically changed the election space.

Not only impacting how voters consume the news, but also how campaigns attempt to reach voters. Under the political reform act, if a campaign committee pays a third party individual to post content, whether it is supporting or opposing the candidate or a ballot measure, the paid individual must include a disclaimer stating that they were paid in connection to the post.

While campaigns are required to notify the individual of their responsibility to include a disclosure within the paid post, there is no liability for anyone for failure to include the disclosure. This leads the third party individual with no incentive to comply with the law, and can result in voters being misled by the paid content. AB 1130 would increase transparency for social media content that has been paid for by a campaign committee and improve compliance with current law.

Failure to include a disclaimer may result in penalties under the political reform act for both the campaign committee and for the third party individual. AB 1130 would also improve transparency around campaign expenditures by requiring campaigns to disclose in their filings if funds were specifically used for social media posts. Ultimately, AB 1130 would ensure that voters are not misled by content that looks authentic when it's really the equivalent of a paid advertisement. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

And with me today is Lindsay Nakano, senior legislative counsel for the Fair Political Practices Commission.

Thank you, Assemblymember. Good morning, Chair and member. Lindsay Nicanno here on behalf of the Fair Political Practices Commission in support. The Political Reform Act requires disclaimer statements to be placed on campaign advertisements that generally provide information to the public about which individuals or groups are behind campaign messaging that seeks to influence voting choices. As technology evolves, the methods for communicating with voters expand, and it's prudent to examine how the law should be updated to adapt to those changes.

To that end, the legislature passed SB 7678 in 2023, sponsored by the commission, which imposed a new concurrent disclaimer requirement on content posted on the Internet that supports or posts as a candidate or ballot measure when the poster, such as a social media influencer, was paid by a committee in connection with that post. AB 1130 further strengthens that disclaimer requirement by imposing liability on the person who posted the content and the committee that paid them.

This will incentivize compliance and authorize the commission to pursue appropriate administrative enforcement actions in cases of noncompliance. The bill also requires more detail to be reported on campaign reports about these expenditures, which will enable the public and others to better identify these payments. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Is there any additional support for AB 1130? Please come forward. Seeing none, is there any opposition? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the committee.

Mister Vice Chair.

Yeah. I have a simple question that is for all social media that is either supporting or opposing either email or any kind of a like a Facebook, any social media will have to have a disclaimer paid for by. That's what you mean. Right? And do you have, in this bill, any certain type size or how many letters minimum or anything like that?

Yeah. I appreciate the question. We'll defer to to my witness for for specifics, but it it if you were being paid by a campaign, you would have to disclose in the in the post that this was that you were paid by a campaign to make that post. And I don't know existing law. This is strengthening a Senator Umbricht law from a couple years ago, and I think that law maybe had those specifics.

Yeah. I I thought already we had that the disclaimer requirement law, but how this bill is different. Go ahead.

So these, communications wouldn't necessarily qualify as a campaign advertisement, but they are communications that are put out there by a third party person, like an influencer or somebody any person on Twitter or Instagram or Facebook who wants to create a message that supports or opposes a candidate or ballot measure and who was paid to do so by a committee. So it's not coming from the committee. It's coming from a third party who was paid by the committee to deliver that message.

So this is a little bit different, and it builds on the the bill that was passed a couple years ago. Regarding the font size and things like that, there in existing law, there's a requirement that it is readily legible to an average viewer.

So not as precise as some of the other requirements regarding campaign advertisements, but there's a general requirement that it's it is legible to the average viewer.

So you raise a good point, and maybe that's something that we should look at is, you know, take a look at whether or not we need to get more specific. Posting on social media, you are constrained to to how big you can make things. Like, the platform kind of dictates the size and font, I think, that you use. But it's an interesting point that you raised that we'll take a look at for whether or not, you know, there's more definition that we could put.

Yeah. I'm comparing that when you mentioned as a social media, that excludes radio. Right? TV is included. Right?

What TV is included under this is really geared geared at social media influencers, and so they are the ones who are who who they they

Because the followers. The same law applies. And the radio, they, so to speak, disclaim pitfall by so fast. It's it's a waste of time. Nobody can understand the pitfall.

I I couldn't tell what what what they are saying. And but what they are attempting is meeting the requirement, the law requirement, the disclaimer. That's what they are doing. But especially on social media, the space is also limited. They can print it very small.

Nobody can read, and they met the requirements if you don't stipulate a certain legible size of what's legible is subject to, you know, behold of the eyes.

Yeah. Great. Thank you. So that appreciate it. And we will now move to item four AB 2281, and I'm going to step out.

So, Mister vice Chair, if you would be willing to conduct the hearing until I return, I would appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you.

You have an, bill number three, Mister Rita. Bill number three, AB 2153.

That's on consent.

Oh, that's that's a okay. That's already consent. Yep. And next one is bill number four. It's AB 2281.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Let me start by saying I'll be accepting the committee amendments as described in the analysis. I was proud to author legislation in 2018 to establish the Office of Election Cybersecurity within the Secretary of State's office. This office is responsible for coordinating efforts to address to address cyber threats and monitoring election mis and disinformation. Additionally, local and state elections officials have relied on federal resources and support to improve the security of their election systems.

Unfortunately, the Trump administration has cut critical funding in coordination that helped states guard against threats to our elections. In response, this bill, AB 2281, would direct the office of election cybersecurity to assess if additional resources are necessary to replace the loss of federal cybersecurity support. This will ensure that California officials continue to have the information and tools necessary to defend our democracy from cyber attacks.

AB 2281 would also strengthen the office of election cybersecurity by authorizing the office to consult with academic researchers, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Do you have any, support witness?

I do not. You're looking at him.

Any any anyone in the audience support state? Okay. Any opposition witness? Any other mid two opponents? Okay.

Any members? Oh, that's only me.

That kind of day.

Okay. Can you define what you mean by this Alexa cybersecurity, meaning that is a false advertising is included in there or somebody altering the content of that? What can you define that? What what you mean by the cybersecurity?

Well, there's the there's the cybersecurity piece, which is making sure that our counties are utilizing best practices to make sure that their election systems are are safe from outside interference, And and wanted to make sure that because California, we have 58 counties. Some are big and they have a lot of resources and on their team they have a lot of expertise. Some counties are very small.

And and so to be the the the idea behind the office of election cybersecurity was to create a conduit between the the 58 counties and the Department of Homeland Security, because at the time the Department of Homeland Security was was providing a lot of funding around election cybersecurity issues. Unfortunately, the Trump administration has gutted a lot of that function of the Department of Homeland Security.

And so this bill would say, hey, for our office of for our state office of election cybersecurity, for for, you know, some of the efforts, that used to be done by the Federal Government, do you need more resources now to undertake those, operations and and provide those that guidance and services to our counties? So that's one issue. Then there's the issue of mis and disinformation, and and I believe that it has to do specifically with the time, place, and manner of voting, which is illegal.

That's a different bill that I did a long time ago, to make it a misdemeanor to intentionally mislead people and post content that that misleads around the time, place, and manner of voting. So if you intentionally say election day is on Wednesday, November 4, when you know that it's on Tuesday, November 3, and you do that to try to trick people and essentially disenfranchise those people, that is illegal in California.

And and so then this the the original bill that created the Office of Election Cybersecurity tasked the Office of Elections Cybersecurity with monitoring social media and working with the social media companies. Right? Developing relationships with the key contacts within those companies so that if there's that type of illegal content that is posted, that it gets removed as quickly as possible. And so that's the sort of mis and disinformation kinda tasks of the office.

Okay. Thank you for your defining the terminology. Do you have any closing statement?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote when you get a quorum.

Okay. When we have enough members, in the committee, then, we'll go through that. Thank you.

Agree.

Oh, you have one more?

Last one.

Okay. Bill number 522504. Go ahead. 2604. 2604.

I'm sorry. How are you?

Good. How are you?

Good. Hey.

see you.

Good to

This chair's not all about great.

No. And they're squeaky and awkward and the whole thing. Thank you, Chair. During my tenure in the legislature, we have taken numerous steps to ensure that voting in California is secure and accessible, and that our vote by mail process is both. Unfortunately, missing or mismatching signatures still result in far too many invalidated vote by mail ballots.

In order to streamline the process to correct signature issues and process ballots faster, AB 2604 would have the Secretary of State implement a statewide system that counties could use to allow California voters to cure their vote by mail ballot electronically. AB 2604 builds upon legislation that I authored in 2023 that authorized county elections officials to offer this option, and several counties have found the resources already to contract for this option.

And by several counties, I believe it's over 20, and I believe they serve over half of the registered voters in California. Contra Costa County offers this option and has noted that it was particularly appealing to younger voters, which is the demographic most likely to have a signature issue. And we are, because we don't teach them how to write in school, but that's a separate issue.

And we are following the lead of Colorado and Nevada, both of which allow voters to use text or similar technology. I'm pleased to be joined today by Kim Alexander of the California Voter Foundation, and Ben Gipps with Protect Democracy United, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay. You have two witnesses, two minutes each person.

Thank you, Vice Chair Choi. Good morning. My name is Ben Gipps, and I am an impact specialist at Protect Democracy United, a proud cosponsor of AB 2604. This bill, as you heard, promotes electronic signature curing, which is an important safeguard to the right to vote for Californians. Each election, millions of Californians cast a vote by mail ballot, and each election, tens of thousands of those voters have their ballot rejected.

If all goes to plan, the voter receives a notice that their ballot has been rejected, and they have a chance to remedy the issue, typically by returning a signed statement by mail in a process commonly known as signature curing. However, all too often, this process does not go to plan. Voters miss the notice informing them of the issue with their ballot. They don't get around to resolving the issue, or something else goes wrong in this multi-step process.

AB 2604 offers a way to meaningfully improve this experience for voters by allowing them to cure their signatures using a smartphone rather than through the mail.

This reduces delays in the curing process and helps voters feel sure that they have taken the necessary steps to make their voice heard. Several counties in California already use this technology successfully, and we have heard interest from many others. Additionally, as you heard, states like Colorado and Nevada have successfully implemented this option statewide. It is a widely trusted and secure option for this important process of signature curing. Expanding this program is a common sense move.

At Protect Democracy United, we also see it as a particularly timely response to recent bad faith attacks on the legitimacy of California elections. By streamlining a time consuming process and introducing a user friendly option to voters, we can help Californians feel confident in the election even after the unfortunate experience of having a ballot rejected. Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee today, and I respectfully urge an aye vote.

Okay. Thank you. A second one with this?

Yes. Good morning, Vice Chair Choi and members. I'm Kim Alexander with the California Voter Foundation, and we are cosponsors of AB 2604. Missing and mismatched signatures are a leading cause for ballot rejection that particularly impacts young voters.

A Center for Inclusive Democracy study of the 2024 election found that while the statewide ballot rejection rate was 0.9%, for young voters age 18 to 24, more than three times the statewide rate, 3.3%, had their ballots rejected, with nonmatching signatures the top reason.

Young voters face unique challenges when voting by mail. They are not accustomed to using the mail or making a signature, and they are new to voting. Ensuring that our young voters cast ballots successfully when they vote for the first time will encourage them to keep voting. Given mail delivery, we need to provide voters with additional and more timely signature curing methods.

Giving Californians, especially our younger voters, the ability to use their smartphones to cure a ballot envelope signature provides voters with a simple and timely way to submit a ballot signature to their county election office and have their ballot counted rather than rejected. This curing method is already working securely and successfully in 22 California counties that are currently utilizing it.

Voters whose signatures are challenged are notified by their local election office and typically provided a QR code that they can scan that leads to a secure portal where they provide personal data matched with their voter registration record to verify their identity, and then use their finger or a stylus to make a signature on their device's screen, which is then submitted through the portal and available to election officials for immediate comparison and curing.

At a CACO panel last December, several counties expressed interest in employing this curing method for their voters. AB 2604 is supported by numerous labor unions, voting rights, and voting access groups, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

Okay. Anyone in the audience, sir, in support?

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

Anybody else? Any opposition witness? Okay.

But don't go far. You have two minutes.

Thank you.

Good morning, Senators. My name is Nakesha Robinson, and I'm with the Help America Vote Act and the Office of Voting Systems Technology Assessment. In 2017, election systems nationwide received the designation as critical infrastructure. As such, it is imperative that the technology addressed in this bill be regulated. The Secretary of State is the chief elections official in the State of California and has the authority to test and regulate most technology used in California elections.

As a matter of policy, we've consistently and successfully asserted this authority ever since. This technology should not be an exception. What does critical infrastructure mean? Critical infrastructure in election specific categories includes the procedures to enable voters to register, cast votes, and have their votes counted and reported. The Secretary of State also regulates voting systems, the tabulation systems, ballot marking devices, remote accessible vote by mail systems, electronic poll books, election management systems, and ballot printing technologies.

As the supporters mentioned earlier, this technology is being currently used by a majority of counties. So why try to regulate this down? The core of the problem is the initial signatures themselves. Automated verification, human verification, also unregulated. And the topic of this bill is signature curing based technology.

If there are no standards, regulations, best practices around the inception point, the remainder of the process becomes a let's wait and see what happens. Our elections are far too important, now more than ever, to leave technology to chance. We should be implementing standards and testing that continue to ensure that California's election infrastructure is safe, secure, accessible, and most important, accurate. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other opposing person can come up and state their position? Okay. If not, then we are back to the committee. We are discussing AB 2604.

Do you have any questions?

No. No. Not yet. Okay. Okay.

I have a question. This is a very serious question. Signature verification is always problematic because it delays a lot of election result accounting, and the counties are doing it when they determine certain signatures are not identical to their determination. I don't know whether each county has their standard. Certain observers are arguing that it is the same or not. It's a very subjective judgment. And finally, my understanding is that at least the county I come from, Orange County, notifies the questionable voter.

I don't know what means they are using, by mail or telephone, to verify and to cure their signature. That delays, I mean, every state is laughing at our state's delayed vote counting up to thirty eight days. As I remember, the Secretary of State will have to certify the ballots. So during that time, much of the time is verifying these wrong signatures and curing the questionable signatures. So if this passes, what is the difference?

Currently, the system in place, each county and the Secretary of State will authorize the county elected officials a system that allows the voter to access electronic signature curing. So that means, if you can specify, the county election officer will send me a text or a phone call. Hey, we have a problem. Can you sign and take a picture and then send it back to us?

Is that the procedure you are suggesting?

Yeah. Thank you for the question, and a couple of points that you raised. So I'll let my witnesses fill in the gaps that I'm sure I'll have. But there are multiple different ways that a county might reach out to a voter to let them know that there was a missing or mismatching signature on their vote by mail envelope.

One of the ways that they do that, which I want to do a public plug for and encourage everyone to sign up for, is the Where's My Ballot tracking system, which is a system that I created with a bill back in 2018 or so. Full disclosure, I copied it from Colorado. They were doing it there first. But we try to create as easy a way as possible for the county elections officials to notify voters.

And then what this will do is this will say that the county can provide a voter with either a website link or a QR code that then sends them to a secure portal, where they can confirm their identity, and that they did in fact vote, and then they can use a stylus or their finger to provide a signature on the screen that can then be compared to the voter file.

And for example, in Los Angeles County, recent data shows that about 30% of the signature cures in Los Angeles happen using this technology. And to your point of counting ballots faster, this will help us count ballots faster. Because instead of getting something in the mail, and then having to sign it, and then send it back via mail, all of which takes a lot of time, this will help you do that immediately.

And so, you know, I really think that this bill and this technology helps get the goal that you want, which is, and that I want, which is counting ballots faster, for what it's worth.

I had the bill last year to create standards around counting our ballots faster, because I agree with you that it's important. And so, the signature verification process is a part of how we make sure that our voting processes are secure and accurate. If you're interested in ways to change that and make that easier for voters, that's something that I'd be open to as well. But that's not quite in this bill. But I think this bill really accomplishes some of the problems and concerns that you raised.

Without your bill, currently, counties are not allowed to communicate what's in the ballot electronically. They have to physically appear to show their valid signature.

Thank you for the question. So right now, counties can, because of a bill I did in 2023 or 2024, counties can do this themselves. And the goal of this bill is for the state to enter into a contract and then provide that service to the counties. Because right now, there are about 30 counties that don't do it, about 20 that do. And so, you know, we want to make this technology available for all the voters of California.

Okay. Senator Cervantes has a question.

So not necessarily a question, but a comment. I just want to thank the author for working on this. I think that we can overcome some technological challenges. And instead of saying what is not possible, I think we can figure out what is possible, even with some of the concerns that were stated earlier. I certainly understand that we need to be doing more to address this, and just want to thank you for your committed work on this.

Thank you, Senator.

And could I add a response to your earlier question, Senator Choi, about the standards around signature verification, which is also a really important question. There are extensive regulations in California established through the Secretary of State's office that direct counties how to go about verifying signatures, how to make sure that signatures that are challenged by lower level staff are reviewed by senior staff. We worked on those regulations. There are also laws that govern that as well.

So we do have very robust guardrails in place to make sure that there is standardization and to help counties undertake that process.

Thank you for that clarification. Would you like to close?

Thank you, Vice Chair. I appreciate the concerns that are raised. You know, obviously and absolutely, we'll continue having conversations with folks. My concern is going backwards, and wanting to avoid doing that. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay. Is that your last bill today?

Yes, sir.

Okay. You are dismissed. And then we'll wait until we have a quorum and take the motion and vote only. We'll leave it open.

to number 10 now. Number 10. So we're on reason Okay. Now we'll move on to final number 10, AB 2573. Assemblymember Sharp Collins, if you are ready.

Goddamn. This Chair is

short. Alright.

Good morning.

It's still morning. Yes. Good morning, Chair and senators.

Good morning.

I will be accepting the committee amendments, and I am pleased to present Assembly bill 2573, a measures that strengthens and clarify California's confidential voter registration program for candidates and elected officials. Last year, I authored 1392 to expand California's confidential voter registration program to include eligible elected officials and candidates at the federal, state, and local levels. As counties began implementing AB 1392, they did encounter some practical and administrative questions.

Without clear statewide standards, there has been variation in how eligibility is determined, how confidentiality is processed, and how long it, how long it lasts, and how it it is maintained when when a official or candidate moves between counties. Assembly bill 2573 is a target it's a target technical measure that builds on AB 1392 by resolving those implementation challenges and ensuring the program works as attended across all counties.

This bill clarifies eligibility by by confirming that both elected and appointed officials at the federal, state, and local levels may qualify for confidential voter status. It also it it also allows immediate family members residing in the same household of elected officials to be included in confidentiality protections, recognizing that threats to public officials often extend to their families. It also establishes a clear process for for transferring confidential status when an official or candidate relocates to a New County, ensuring continuity of that protection.

In addition, AB 2573 sets consistent timelines for how long long confidential status remain in effect for candidates and for elected officials after they leave office. It also clarifies how participation in programs interacts with voting procedures, maintaining access to secure alternatives such as vote by mail and ballot drop off while while preserving the integrity of the process.

The bill continues to include exemptions that allow journalists to verify information, maintaining appropriate transparency, and I'm committed to working on determining the best method for candidates and elected officials to be able to vote in person without compromising their safety. At its core, this measure strengthens our democracy by allowing individuals to serve without unnecessary exposure to personal risk while preserving secure and reliable access to the ballot.

With that, I do respectfully ask for your aye vote, but here to testify and support today is Tim Comradi, deputy of legislative affairs for secretary of state doctor Shirley Weber. Mister Cromartie.

Thank you, Assemblymember. Mister Chair and members, Tim Cromartie on behalf of secretary of state Shirley and Weber. Secretary is pleased to sponsor this measure, which is a detailed cleanup of last year's AB 1392 seeking to protect confidential information of elected officials and candidates contained in their voter registration files. AB 2573 addresses a number of deficiencies in the original legislation. You have heard from the Assembly member in detail what those changes are, but I will highlight just a few of them.

It includes providing for a mandatory opt in process for those who want protection of confidential voter status, clarifying the definition of family member, and a recent amendment, clarifying that all voter registration in an individual's in an individual's name is covered by the statute, including such information in the possession of local elected officials that predates the individual's confidential voter status. We have worked with the counties for several months to refine this measure and address the needs of county officials for smooth implementation.

This improved framework will protect the confidential information of elected officials and candidates alike, and urgent necessity in a time of heightened threats and harassment of public officials. We thank Assemblymember Collins for her leadership and perseverance in bringing this measure forward.

The stars are aligned, then we have a quorum. So let's let's establish quorum.

Senators Wiener?

I present.

Wiener present. Choi?

Yeah.

Choi here. Allen Cervantes? Here. Cervantes here. Berg.

Okay. We have a quorum. Thank you for your presentation. Is there any additional support? Please come forward.

Clark, I'm Mercado on behalf of the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials in support. Thank you.

Any additional support? Any opposition? Okay. Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the committee. Colleagues, any yes, Senator Cervantes?

Yes. I just want to mention that I did have a conversation with the author, issuing my concerns given some of the challenges we saw just in this primary election with colleagues who weren't able to vote in person. So thank you for your opening statement and your commitment to working on these issues. With that, I will support the bill today.

You're welcome. Thank you.

Okay. Anything else? Anyone else? Okay. Seeing none.

I this does have an aye recommendation and a motion by Senator Cervantes. And we will oh, you may close. I'm sorry.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Assemblymember. We will call the roll on item 10 AB 2573.

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

Aye.

Wiener, aye. Choi?

Aye.

Choi, aye. Allen? Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes, aye.

Umbrick?

Okay. That is on call. Three to nothing.

Thank you so much.

Thank you. Okay. We will now.... well, actually okay. Yes. So item 14, AGR 31 by Assemblymember Bryan.

You may come forward.

Thank you, Mister Chair and colleagues. I will be brief because I know we all have a lot today to do. I'm gonna represent AGR 31, a bill that urges a resolution that urges Congress to restore the provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that the Supreme Court has actively struck down. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Is there any support for item 14? Seeing none, is there any opposition? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the committee. Any a motion by Senator Cervantes.

Any comments or questions? Seeing none, we will call the roll.

Motion is be adopted. [Roll Call]

Okay. We'll put that on call. I see that Senator Arreguin is here.

May I begin?

Yes.

Okay. Well, good morning, Mr. Chair.

And Sorry. This is SB 830, item number 15. You may proceed.

Once again, thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee for the opportunity to present SB 830. This bill will make minor clarifying changes to the election administration duties and procedures related to Senate Bill 63, including designating a name for the ballot measure and allow for different arguments per county to consider the geographic funding differences. This is consistent with previous Multi County measures in the San Francisco Bay Area, such as regional measure three, which the legislature authorized in 2017.

With the passage of SB 63 last year, which was jointly authored by myself and the Chair, the legislature authorized a fourteen year regional public transit sales tax measure on the November 2026 ballot. This measure will provide critical emergency funding to stabilize our Bay Area transit operators.

Important to note that this Bill, SB 830, does not change in any way. The funding amounts or the accountability measures that were in SB 63, this is simply an election administration bill. This bill is no opposition and support from variety of labor, climate, and business groups. And with me to testify in support of the bill is Steve Hansen representing Spur.

Good morning, Chair Wiener and members. My name is Steve Hansen here on behalf of Spur in support of SB 830. SB 830 is a narrow and urgent elections cleanup bill for the five county regional transit measure authorized by SB 63. It does not change the substance of SB 63, the expenditure plan, or the accountability requirements.

What it does is give local elections officials clarity, a uniform ballot title, clear placement on the ballot, and the ability for each county to use ballot arguments that accurately reflect how the measure works locally.

That matters because the measure has different tax rates, different eligible expenditures by county. Voters deserve accurate county specific information before they cast ballots. Public transit is essential infrastructure for the barriers of workers, families, students, seniors, people with disabilities, and economy. SB 830 gives voters clarity and gives election officials the certainty they need for November. We were respectfully ask for your aye vote.

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

Steven Stenzler with Brownstein on behalf of the Bay Area Council as a proud sponsor and in strong support. Thank you.

Jesse Cuevas on behalf of Bay Area Rapid Transit or BART in support. Thank you.

Any additional support? Seeing none, any opposition? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the committee. Do we have a motion? Motion by Senator Cervantes.

Any converse any questions, comments? Seeing none, you may close.

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Great. Thank you, and I appreciate you doing this and has my full support. We'll call the roll.

Motion is that the Assembly amendments be concurred in. [Roll Call]

K. We'll put that on call. Thank you. Thank you. We might as well take motion.

Oh, okay. Okay. Well yeah. They're walking here now. Oh, okay.

Number three, the consent calendar. So

Can we take care of consent calendar?

Oh, we just well, they're they're on their way, so why don't we do it all once they get here in a minute? Are you in a rush? Are you in

a rush?

Because I think they're gonna they're walking over now. But I we can do it. We can go through it if you need to leave.

Yep. I mean, that would be helpful.

Yes. Yeah. Why don't we do that? Okay. We'll start with, the consent, calendar, which is items three, five actually, not not five.

I'm sorry. Three, six, seven, eight, and 13. Do a motion. Okay. Motion by Senator Cervantes.

We will call the roll.

Senators Wiener?

Aye.

Wiener, aye, Choi? Aye. Choi, aye. Allen Cervantes? Aye.

Cervantes, aye. Umberg?

Okay. We'll put that on call. We'll now go back to item, one. Do we have a motion?

A motion.

Move by Senator Cervantes. Please call the roll.

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

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

Aye.

Aye. Cervantes, aye. Umberg?

We'll put her on call. Item two, AB 1130. Please call the a motion by Senator Cervantes. Please call the roll.

Motion is do passed to the Committee on Appropriations. Senators Wiener?

Aye.

Wiener, aye, Choi?

Choi, aye, Allen. Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes, aye, Umberg?

Aye.

Put her on call. We'll now go to item number four, AB 2281. Do we have a motion? By Senator Cervantes? Please call the roll.

Motion is do passed as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. Senators Wiener? Aye. Weiner, aye, Choi? No.

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

Enberg?

Put on call. Item five, AB 2604. Motion by Senator Cervantes. Please call the roll.

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

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

Aye.

Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes, aye. Umberg?

I will put that on call. Item number nine, AB 2255, a motion by Senator Cervantes. Please call the roll.

Motion is do passed to the committee on appropriations. Senators Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. Choi?

Aye.

Choi, aye. Allen Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes, aye.

Item number 11, AB 20 AB 2691. Please call do we have a motion? I have a motion. Motion by Senator Cervantes. Please call the roll.

Motion is do passed. Senators Wiener?

Aye.

Senator Wiener, aye. Choi?

Which one?

Twenty six ninety one. Item 11.

Twenty six ninety one is known.

Troy, no. Alan Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes, Aye. Umberg?

Go put that on call. And then, finally, item 12, AB 2753 by Assemblymember Soria.

You're not

Oh, motion? Motion. Okay. Oh, motion by Senator Choi. We'll call the roll.

Motion is do passed. Senator Wiener? No. Weiner, no. Choi?

Aye.

Choi, aye. Allen? Cervantes? Umbrick? Cervantes is right.

Cervantes, Aye.

K. We'll put that on call. That's everything for Senator Cervantes, I believe?

Yes. That is everything.

Great. Thank you. And we'll open the role as soon as, senators Umberg and Allen return. Or no. Okay.

Why don't we, recess, hopefully briefly?

Why don't we, recess, hopefully briefly?

Okay. We're good. We're back from recess. Senator Allen is here, and we will open the roll so he can add on.

Let's start with the consent agenda. Please call the absent members.

[Roll Call]

Okay. Put it back on call. Item one, AB 686. Please call absent members.

[Roll Call]

Put it back on call. Item number four, AB 2281. Please call the absent member.

[Roll Call]

Oh, I apologize. Let's go back. My apologies. Item number two, AB 1130. Please call absent members.

[Roll Call]

Okay. We'll put it back on call. Item four, AB 2281. Please call absent members.

[Roll Call]

Okay. Put it back on call. Item five, AB 2604. Please call absent members.

[Roll Call]

Put it back on call. We'll now go to item number nine, AB 2255. Please call absent members.

[Roll Call]

Okay. We'll put that back on call. Item 10, AB 2573. Please call absent members.

[Roll Call]

Put it back on call. Item number 11, AB 2691.

[Roll Call]

Okay. Put it back on call. Item 12, AB 2753, Soria. Please call absent members.

[Roll Call]

Okay. Put it back on call. And then, item 14, AJR 31. Please call absent members.

[Roll Call]

Okay. Put it back on call. And then finally, item 15, SB 830. Please call absent members.

[Roll Call]

Okay. Thank you, Senator Allen.

Thank you. All right. You too, man.

We'll go back in recess until Senator Umberg arrives. That is five. Five. Five, nothing. That bill is out.

Item number four, AB 2281. Please call the absent member.

[Roll Call]

Four to one. That bill is out. Item number five, AB 2604.

Okay. So those votes are voided, and then he is revoting?

I'm just saying, are we voiding the vote? No. No. I'm just saying he voted already.

So we're saying we are just eliminating those votes and he's voting from scratch. Okay.

You're kidding. What? We were just kidding the first go-round.

So, yeah. Okay. Great.

If he doesn't change his vote, then it's moot anyway. So, and he's allowed to change his vote if he wants to. So, okay. We're going to start from the top. The consent agenda, please call the absent member.

[Roll Call]

Okay. Five, nothing. The consent agenda is approved. Item one, AB 686. Please call the absent member.

[Roll Call]

Four to one, the bill is out. Item number two, AB 1130. Please call the absent member.

[Roll Call]

Five, nothing. The bill is out. Item number four, AB 2281. Please call the absent member.

[Roll Call]

Four to one. The bill is out. Item number five, AB 2604. Please call the absent member.

[Roll Call]

Four to one. The bill is out. Now item number nine, AB 2255. Please call the absent member.

[Roll Call]

Five, nothing. The bill is out. Item number 10, AB 2573. Please call the absent member.

[Roll Call]

Five, nothing. The bill is out. Item 11, AB 2691. Please call the absent member.

[Roll Call]

Okay. Four to one. The bill is out. Item number 12, AB 2753, Soria. Please call the absent member.

[Roll Call]

Okay. So that is

That failed.

Two to one. AB 2753, the final vote is two to one. That measure fails.

Without objection, reconsideration is granted. We'll now move to item number 13, or excuse me, item 14, AJR 31.

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

Okay. Four to one. That measure is out. And then finally, item 15, SB 830. Call the absent member.

[Roll Call]

Okay. Four, nothing, that bill is out. Is that everything?

That's it. Thank you.

Okay. That completes our agenda. I appreciate all of our staff and members of the public and authors and so forth for joining us today. And with that, we are adjourned. Oh, and I wait.

We were going to celebrate our departing members, but we'll probably have another hearing at some point, and we want more people to be here. So I don't think this will be your last hearing, Senator Umberg.

Grateful for that. Me leaving.

We were going to celebrate you leaving. Yes. Exactly.

You've been a great generator of elections bills.

Yeah. Well, I've enjoyed I chaired the committee both in the Assembly and in the Senate, and I've been really privileged to be part of the committee for, lo, these many years. So thank you. All right.

Yeah. Okay. Thank you. With that, we are adjourned.