Senate Standing Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments

Okay. Are we good? This—okay, the Senate Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments will come to order. We have two bills that we are hearing today, and neither author is here yet, but we do have a quorum. So, let's just establish a quorum.

[Roll Call]

Okay. We've established a quorum, and we are just waiting for our two authors to arrive. And so, we will briefly recess until we have an author here.

We are gonna call Item Number 1, AB 282 by Assemblymember Pellerin, who is here. Welcome, Assembly member, and you may proceed.

Thank you, Chair and members. Just this year in California and Georgia, conspiracy theorists seeking to undermine long ago certified election results seized and attempted to seize ballots and election records. These actions are abhorrent to state autonomy and authority over elections. But the chaos and threat to our elections would have been even more devastating had these bad actors engaged in this conduct before election results had been certified.

AB 282 seeks to prevent the gravest threat to our elections by preventing any attempts to seize ballots, election records, and certified voting technology before elections results are certified.

AB 282 makes clear that interfering with ballots or voting equipment before an election is certified is a serious offense with serious consequences. Specifically, it will make it a felony to seize, cause, or assist in the seizure of ballots, election records, or certified voting technology before election results are certified by the elections official, punishable up to three years in prison. It further prohibits any person with authority from directing someone in their supervision to do the same, punishable by up to four years in prison.

The federal administration and those seeking to spread lies about our democracy continue to call for interference in elections in ways never seen before in our country's history. With increasing threats to the integrity of our state administered elections, California must ensure that every lawfully cast vote can be counted and that the will of the voters is respected.

And we must be a step ahead of any attempts to undermine our elections. So I had someone here oh, yeah. Straight here. To testify in support is Beth Malinowski with the government relations advocate for SEIU California.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Beth Malinowski with SEIU California in proud support of AB282. California is committed to safeguarding the right to vote, a right that is currently under active attack at the federal level. These growing threats highlight what California must act now and to strengthen California law ahead of this year's elections.

Building on prior election safeguarding bills, both AB282 by Senator, Pellerin, and SB 529 by Senator Wahab are an election protection legislative package ensuring Californians have the greatest confidence in our election systems.

As noted by the author, the bill would prevent the disruption of election results certification by establishing this new felony relating to the seizing, assisting, or directing of seizure, election records, ballots, or certified voting technology before election results are certified. In closing, we stand with the legislature in creating new protections and safeguards to guarantee a free and fair election, and with it respectfully ask for your aye vote today.

Great. Is there any additional support for AB282? Please come forward and state your name, organization, if any.

Good afternoon. Ignacio Hernandez on behalf of verified voting in support.

Good afternoon. Jessica Hay with AFSCME California in support.

Great. Any additional support? Seeing none, is there any opposition to AB 282? Any opposition? Okay.

Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the committee. Any questions or comments or motions, colleagues? Mr. Vice Chair.

The summary of this bill states that it'll be prohibited, anyone who seizes or causes or assist in the seizure of a ballot election. So does that mean that there's no exception? Even people who have authority under the judicial warrant with the office the law enforcement officers acting with such an authority that the judicial warrant has been provided? So in other words, anyone under the authority of the judicial warrant come in and for whatever reason, I hope nothing like that that will happen. But now it says, your bill says anyone. No exception.

It would prohibit the seizure of ballots unless there's an agreement with the elections official for chain of custody, for transport, or security.

So if there's a with this kind of authority with the agreement, may I come in? I have a warrant here; then are they accept exempted?

I would not look at the I mean, the warrant does not give you an authority to come in and seize ballots. When I was an elections official, if there was any challenge to the elections on the ballots, they would come to us and be under the security of our system to ensure the ballots are retained in a secure place to, make sure that there's nobody they they never leave the site or the security of the elections official.

So all the work that needs to be done is that there's a recount or any kind of investigation that is done within the elections office under the guidance of the elections official.

I'm not sure what exactly took place in Riverside. Maybe you can explain to me, but I can't imagine that anyone without such an authorization with the judicial warrant will come in and forcibly any civilian will come there or try to seize the record of the ballots.

I think what happened in Riverside was was horrific and that they came in and seized ballots without any control.

Who came in?

The sheriff. The county sheriff.

Without an authorization?

With with breaking the chain of custody, removing ballots from the security of the elections official jeopardizes the integrity of those ballots. And if it were my county when I was a county clerk, I would have chained myself to the door to prohibit anyone coming in to take those ballots outside of my control.

This one I understand is on litigation, this particular case. But I haven't heard and I haven't had any chance to study what took place or why that kind of incident took place in Riverside, but I haven't heard that kind of situation. And this is like it's gonna happen, but our federal agent, the Trump administration, is threatening all the state upcoming ballots. So that is the fear mongering feeling that I read from this bill.

This is a particular one situation we need to enact a bill. That I haven't heard any situation that, that will lead this kind of unlawful seizure of election results in California.

We've been in elections office for over twenty seven years. We absolutely guarded every step along the way of those ballots. And what this bill does is before the results are certified, we absolutely had very strict chain of custody procedures in place. And, yes, there were people who talked about trying to interfere with that process. So maybe you're not aware of situations, but I know that our elections officials are very much on guard.

And we have plenty we've seen plenty of evidence that the president and his allies are willing to break long standing norms and push the limits of the law to pursue their election conspiracy theory. So this bill is absolutely necessary to ensure to give the voters confidence that their vote will be protected.

It's good to hear that election officials have tried to protect that and then also follow the procedures and stop any attempts to interfere of the ballot counting or protection, safety of the ballot records. But, so that's why, no one will attempt such a things, unless there is some reason, valid reason, the court has already recognized and given such a warrant, then the federal agent comes in with the warrant.

So this bill will capture him and try him and fine him $10,000 or whatever that you have met mentioned here. I think that's a $10,000 and three, four years in jail. So you're gonna put that federal agent for whatever reason.

I don't think that will ever happen, but you are assuming it's gonna happen. So, if it passes, state government will have that kind of authority?

But, I mean, I think we're living in very different conditions now. I mean, before 01/06/2021, when a violent mob had stormed the capital, no one had ever anticipated something like that happening. And, I can't think of a time when any president encouraged to do something like this. So this isn't a hypothetical problem, it isn't a conspiracy theory; we have seen the first steps already and we are doing everything in our power to protect the voters of this state.

So Riverside case is that the sheriff, well, for whatever reason, they see the ballot record say if that's on their own act, but not at the Federal Government person Trump's direction. Right?

Ballots should never leave the custody and security of the election party.

I totally agree with that. But here, now you are saying, there'll be no exception. Anyone even with the federal agent with the court warrant will be put to subject, or to penalty that your law your bill is prescribing.

There are procedures in place when there's any kind of challenge to an election where ballots are moved under the custody and security of the elections official. And, yes, there are times as elections officials where we partner with our local law enforcement to provide greater security around the transport of ballots from point a to point b. But there is never a situation where anyone should come in and take voting equipment, take ballots away from the elections office.

What I said was that the protection of the record is a good thing we need to do that. But under on foreseeable instances, if a federal agent comes in with the valid court warrant, are they subject to your bill and will be in the prison and subject of

They are not allowed to seize the ballots.

I said with the court the warrant if they come in.

I think we found in the Riverside County case there was it was a questionable warrant. There is never a reason to take ballots away from the custody and security of the elections official.

So in, the Riverside case, I don't know whether they presented the court warrant or not, but this is, as you said, the hypothetical situation you are trying trying to prevent by your bill. But there's no exception. So no matter who your bill says

Only if the elections official has an agreement with a body to help with the security and transport of the ballots.

So let's suppose you are the election official. I come in with my badge and the warrant and then I have the warrant here. I need to retain the ballot records. What would you do?

I would say absolutely not. We will keep them in the security of our system where we have cameras on those ballots.

You are violating the court order.

Arrest me. Yeah. The court order. Let those ballots and that voting equipment out of my custody, period.

So you are overruling the court order.

This bill is gonna make it so that would not happen again. Make it very clear that no one is allowed to come in and take ballots for any reason. We gotta maintain you gotta understand, we have to maintain that chain of custody. Okay.

I think we're gonna move on. I think we're gonna move on.

This war and that's what you are

I think we're I think we're gonna move on.

You know, the courts interpret the law, the legislature together with the governor decides what the law should be.

Okay. We're gonna move on. So, senator Umberg?

Thank you, Mister Chair. And thank you, Assemblymember Pellerin, for bringing this bill. I suppose there was one bright spot in respect to sheriff Bianco seizing the ballots. It's that it happened earlier so that we could ensure that for the November election that we could make sure that this would not happen.

Again, it's not a hypothetical situation as you point out. This should give the election official a tool to resist, an illegal entry or even one with a purported warrant. By the way, I read the warrant including the supporting affidavits, and I believe that a court of appeal would have quashed maybe even another judge would have quashed that that warrant, but certainly, court of appeal would have quashed whatever instrument was being used to, sensibly seize the ballots.

I'd love to be at it as a co author. It's probably too late, but I most heartily endorse this bill and urge an eye vote.

Thank you. Senator Cervantes.

Thank you. I just wanna make a note here, just given the conversation and the back and forth, that in April, the California Supreme Court did halt the investigation that occurred in Riverside County with sheriff Bianco and what the sheriff was willing to do was unprecedented as was stated by the author and if he was willing to violate every constitutional norm and interfere with our elections what more will he do?

And so I strongly support this bill today before us and will motion at the appropriate time if it hasn't been motioned.

Now is the appropriate time. We have a motion by Senator cervantes. Okay. I before I give the opportunity to close, I support this bill, and I'm recommending an aye vote. What we saw from Sheriff Bianco was just straight up thug behavior, which unfortunately is being normalized in terms of right wing approaches to elections right now, and it's damaging the electoral confidence in what is a very secure and accurate voting system that we have here in California.

This is part of a, national effort, by the president and his coalition to try to create fake uncertainty about California's electoral process and the electoral process in general. We saw this with how they reacted to the county and the Los Angeles mayors race. And it is not only unprecedented, but extremely important for us to, tighten our law and make sure that this, can never happen again in California. And that people who try to do this are gonna be held severely accountable.

So I appreciate your leadership on this bill, and I'm recommending an aye vote.

We have a motion by Senator Cervantes. The motion is, due pass and, we refer to the committee on appropriations, and we'll call the roll. I want to Oh, I'm sorry. My apologies. You can close.

I appreciate your comments and the comments from your colleagues here. And to protect democracy and the security of our elections, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Great. Call the roll.

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

Aye.

Weiner, aye. Choi?

No.

Cervantes, aye. Umberg?

Choi, no. Allen Cervantes?

Aye.

Aye.

Umberg, aye.

Okay. We will, that is three to one. We'll put her on call for Senator Allen. We'll now go to thank you, Assemblymember. We'll now go to item number 2.

SB 1418 by Senator Cervantes. And this is being heard pursuant to Senate rule 2910 D.

You may proceed.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Hear me okay here? We are here today to present Senate Bill 1418. As was stated, we cannot stand by while this administration, President Trump and his administration, and some in our state try to dismantle our democracy piece by piece. That is why earlier this year, the legislature approved and Governor Newsom signed into law my Senate Bill 73, which would bolster California's defenses against interference in our elections.

Senate Bill 1418 is a follow-up to Senate Bill 73 and is sponsored by the California Attorney General, Rob Bonta. As many know and have heard, in March of this year, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco seized more than 600,000 voted ballots from last year's special election in Prop 50 from Riverside County Register of Voters in a sham election, in a sham investigation.

At the time, existing 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 the future investigations or audits. As we know, if the chain of custody is broken, there's no guarantee that those ballots have not been tampered with or altered.

In response, this bill 73 made it a felony to remove voted ballots from the custody of a county registrar. However, in April of this year, a group of press organizations, including CalMatters, specifically petitioned a court to unseal warrant the warrant that was obtained by Sheriff Bianco. They found that in addition to voted ballots, those warrants authorized the seizure of other election records from Riverside County Registrar of Voters.

Unfortunately, those additional records would not be covered by the protections provided under Senate Bill 73, which is why we have 1418 today, which would extend the protections to other forms of election records beyond voted ballots, including voting systems. The same concerns over 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. In extending those provisions, SB 1418 will 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 the relevant county registrar with the same civil remedy that was provided under Senate Bill 73.

We have here today our sponsors of the bill, under Attorney General Rob Bonta, our Deputy Attorney General, Tiffany Brokaw.

Thank you very much. You have two minutes.

Good afternoon. Tiffany Brokaw, Deputy Attorney General in the Office of Legislative Affairs here on behalf of the sponsor Attorney General Rob Bonta, and he'd like to thank Senator Cervantes for carrying this important measure.

SB 1418 protects sensitive election documents and equipment from being from being seized and removed from the physical custody of elections 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 the scope of election related materials that are prohibited from being removed from the custody of a local elections official.

SB 1418 is an important tool to ensure the integrity of our election processes are maintained. And for these reasons, respectfully ask for an aye vote. And I have with me Deputy Attorney General, Malcolm Broodigam, for any questions if he's on our elections team.

Thank you very much. Is there any additional support for SB 1418? Please come forward. Okay. Seeing none, is there any opposition?

Please come forward. Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the committee. Any questions or comments? Okay. Seeing none, you may close.

Thank you, Mister Chair. This bill does have an urgency clause. So if signed into law by Governor Newsom, its provisions will be in place for the November gubernatorial election and beyond. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. Motion on SB 1418?

So moved.

Okay. And that is a motion that the Assembly amendments be concurred, and we will call the roll.

[roll call]

Okay. We'll put that on calls three to one. Wait. And so that concludes our bill presentations. We have two bills on call waiting for Senator Allen to add on.

Okay. We're back from recess, and we will open the roll on Item Number 1, AB 282. Please call the absent member.

[Roll Call]

Okay. The vote is 4-1. That bill is out. And Item 2, SB 1418, please call the absent member.

[Roll Call]

That vote is 4-1. The bill is out. Okay. Thank you. That concludes our business, and with that, we are adjourned.