Elections — 2026-04-21 (partial)

Thank you. The Senate Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments will come to order. Good morning, everyone. We have 13 measures on our agenda today, and let's establish a quorum. Senators Weiner? Present. Weiner present. Choi?

Choi here. Allen?

Humberg?

Humberg here. Okay, we have a quorum. Thank you. We'll take up first our consent calendar, proposed consent items. There are seven of them. File item six, which is SB 1389, DALI. File item seven, which is SCA 4, Archuleta. File item nine, SB 1418, Cervantes. File item 10, SB 1429, a committee bill. File item 11, SB 1430, a committee bill. File item 12, SB 1431, a committee bill, and file item 13, SB 1432, a committee bill. I have a motion on the consent calendar. Motion by the vice chair, and let's call the roll. Senators Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. Choi?

Choi, aye.

Cervantes?

Aye.

Okay, we'll put that 3-0. We'll put that on call. And we have two items on special order of business. We will start with SB 884 by Senator Umberg.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Connie Chan on behalf of California State Treasurer Fiona Ma in support.

Morning, Chair members. Elmer Lizardo with the California Federation of Labor Unions in support.

Good morning, Carlos Lopez with the California School Employees Association in support.

Good morning, Chair Weiner, members of the committee. My name is Kristen Braun-Connelly. I'm the elected clerk recorder and registrar of voters for Contra Costa County. I'm here in my capacity as one of three co-chairs of the California Association of Clerks and Elections Officials. And I appreciate the opportunity to speak today on behalf of our association across California and respectful opposition to SB 884. But I just want to say I very much appreciate working with Senator Umberg and how we might improve the bill and appreciate your comment that it's an open, you know, it's still an open book or work in progress, excuse me. And I also want to acknowledge and thank the author for removing the requirement in earlier amendments that the Voters' Choice Act counties open vote centers 20 days before Elections Day. This addressed many of our concerns in terms of it being an unworkable provision. But major concerns remain, and they significantly affect the feasibility and safety of election administration in every California county. I understand there are amendments being taken on the expansion of the electioneering boundary from 100 to 200 feet And while intended to strengthen voter protections this change introduces serious practical and enforcement challenges A 200-foot boundary frequently extends beyond the property controlled by the county at that location and crossing into public sidewalks, neighboring businesses, and private parking lots. Counties cannot enforce electioneering rules on property they do not control. And I appreciate the opportunity to understand the amendments that are coming and happy to elaborate. But of primary concern, SB 884 would require counties to substantially increase the number of ballot drop boxes. Counties are fully committed to secure and accessible ballot return options. But adding large numbers of additional drop boxes, especially on a compressed timeline, poses major logistical, staffing, and financial challenges. Every box must be cited, permitted, installed, secured, maintained, and serviced throughout the election period. Some counties already travel long rural routes or operate with limited staff. Others face shortages of secure public facilities. Increasing these requirements statewide and having them be the same between VCA counties and polling place counties without data demonstrating the need and without ongoing funding risks creating obligations that counties simply cannot meet. When temporary funding expires, counties would be left with the responsibility of removing and storing hundreds of newly mandated boxes. I do want to highlight what this would mean for a few counties. This would mean 130 new drop boxes for Los Angeles County, 62 for Orange County, 70 for San Bernardino County, and 20 more for us in Contra Costa. California already maintains one of the nation's most robust and ballot drop-off infrastructures. Any expansion should be evidence-based, locally tailored, and fully funded. Election administrators share the author's commitment to voter access and election security, but SB 884 still imposes significant operational burdens that do not align with voter behavior, available resources, or practical realities on the ground. Finally, it's important to say it's E-42 in our parlance. We're just 42 days out from June 2nd. It's too late to impact any changes for this election. I think it's important to say that out loud. We would already be on a compressed timeline to do something for November, but I just want everyone to understand what it means to successfully administer an election. For these reasons, CA CEO must respectfully remain in opposition. We stand ready to work with the authors on amendments that support voters while remaining feasible, sustainable, and safe for election workers and the public. Again, I appreciate Senator Umberg's commitment this morning that the bill is a work in progress. Thank you for your time this morning. I'm happy to answer questions.

Thank you. I understand clearly what you are trying to do with this, but I have opposite opinion and agree with the opposition witnesses. One of them is that the 200 extension of ballot box and no law enforcement activities allowed, and the judicial jurisdiction of the land by extending 200 feet, I can understand the county positions the dilemma there will be and at the same time it raises a question With the 100 feet boundary already set literally how it will make a difference 100 versus 200 and that is creating more confusion, and it's not extending 200 feet from 100. is not going to change any attitude of law enforcement. That's my opinion. Number two is that last year I introduced several bills related to election integrity issues. One of them was to make a ballot result to be counted in a shorter time than currently it is in California. I don't remember, but exactly about 38 days from the election date, the secretary shall verify and confirm the election results. And then I, now my bill was to allow the mail ballots to arrive by the election date rather than was it seven days after currently. and now this is trying to extend even further so that delays. The voting is not only rights but the privilege of the voters. So they should also bear their responsibility, obligation to meet the election regulations and be sure that they will, If they choose to mail it by U.S. mail, they know on reliability of the U.S. mail and they can mail it in advance five days before, seven days before, so that the ballot will arrive on that day. And then also they have options to bring their ballots to the ballot boxes and then also the voting booth. and then also the voting booth. So there are a number of ways that the voter can easily make sure that their ballots will arrive by the voting date rather than extending. By extending, do you think that will increase the voter participation? So I don't think so. Seven days and simply extending to 10 days. So I think our California election voting law is too lenient and inefficient. So we need to work on these problems to make it more efficient. So based on that, that's my opinion and you will have your opinions. So I don't expect your reply, but you are free to answer to that. So based upon this, my beliefs, I don't think I can support this bill today.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair, for working with us on this bill. Thank you, Senator Cervantes, for your dedication to the same issue. And thank you to the registrars. I have worked with registrars for many, many years, and I think that the overwhelming majority share the same commitment that we do here, is to making sure that everyone who is eligible to vote has access to the polls in a way that is free and fair. And I will continue to work with you. I understand that there are some logistical challenges, and we will do our best to make sure that those logistical challenges are feasible. That's point number one. Point number two, just to address my neighbor's, Senator Choi's concern about the 200 feet versus the 100 feet, I think that the chair addressed that. That's at the discretion of the county supervisors. So in other words, if supervisors think that somehow this is going to create either chaos or some other unwanted impact, the board of supervisors, not us, but the board of supervisors can make that decision as to whether they want to extend it or not This does reflect and your comments Senator Choi is whether it a right or a privilege or whatever it may be does reflect sort of the clash of values The clash of values is that I believe that the administration is trying to restrict the ability to vote. It's trying to restrict the access to the polls, and we, I think, collectively are trying to make sure that everyone who is eligible to vote has an opportunity to vote and that their vote is counted. I also agree that should the president not have basically and his allies not have said, hey, listen, we're going to make sure we put ICE, for example, in polling places, that perhaps this wouldn't be necessary. And I also agree that in terms of the Postal Service, if the president hadn't said, hey, listen, we're going to monkey around with the Postal Service, then maybe this wouldn't be necessary. But there are, when the president says those things, his allies say those things, sometimes I think that's odd. But they come to be. They come to pass. And so I think we have to take that very seriously, and we have to act in accordance. And for those reasons, I ask for an aye vote.

No.

Aye.

Aye.

See you later.

Thank you. committing to the amendments that my team, the sponsors, and the committee have worked on to clarify the information required. A notification letter sent to local governments pursuant to page five of the committee analysis. I also want to thank the staff for all their work and their assistance on this bill. I want to refer to the committee to the Campaign Legal Center support letter and state publicly that I concur with its interpretation of SB 1164. As was stated by our colleague previously, democracy in America is under attack by Trump and his conservative allies in Congress, and it is in the Supreme Court as well in the United States. As we know, we now find so many of the voting rights protections that we have relied on for decades hanging in the balance. Conservatives on the court have steadily been chipping away at the Federal Voting Rights Act of 1965. This year, it is expected the Supreme Court of the United States will issue a decision which could likely result in much of what is left of VRA. This means that many of the safeguards against voter suppression, voter discrimination, and that we have really relied on in California for generations may no longer be in place. While we have the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 in law the CVRA only protects against discrimination at large election systems If the court acts to overturn what is left of the Federal Voting Rights Act, state law will be insufficient to protect California voters. This is where SB 1164 comes into play, which is part of the California Voting Rights Act of 2026. SB 1164 will codify many of the provisions of the Federal Voting Rights Act into state law. It will ensure that no matter what the Supreme Court does, California voters will continue to have safeguards against vote dilution, voter suppression, voter discrimination. The bill also provides the California Attorney General and individual voters with more tools to enforce voting rights laws. We cannot allow California to continue to be imperiled by the chaos emanating from Washington, D.C. Here in the Golden State, we will continue to protect our democracy. Today, with me to testify on behalf of the bill, we have our sponsors, California Democracy Partnership. We have Adam Leos, Senior Counsel with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and Kristen Nimmers, Policy and Campaign Managers with California Black Power Network. We also have Julia Gomez, staff attorney with ACLU Southern California to help answer any questions.

and I'm thrilled to testify here today in strong support of SB 1164, which is a key piece of the California Voting Rights Act of 2026 legislative package. Since LDF's founding by Thurgood Marshall, we have worked to empower black voters, including through enforcing the Federal Voting Rights Act. And as the Supreme Court has undercut the VRA, LDF has prioritized state voting rights acts. Nearly 25 years ago, California led the country by passing the nation's first state VRA. Since that time, seven states have enacted state VRAs, and just last week, an eighth went to the governor's desk in Maryland. Nearly all of the laws that have been inspired by your work here in California provide a broader range of anti-discrimination protections than the existing CVRA of 2001. State VRAs are powerful, practical, and popular solutions to voting discrimination. 78% of voters across the country support a state VRA in their own state, and two-thirds of California voters support expanding the CVRA. And despite California's progressive reputation, as the previous witness explained, voters of color still face discriminatory barriers to equal participation in elections, especially at the local level. SB 1164 would address voting discrimination in four important ways. First, the bill expands the CBRA's existing prohibition of racial vote dilution beyond at-large elections, protecting against any district map or election system that weakens or silences the voices and voting power of communities based on race. Second, it prohibits voter suppression, confronting discriminatory barriers to the ballot. Third, the bill stops repeat discrimination before it occurs by requiring pre-approval of certain voting changes for local governments with a recent history of discrimination. And fourth, the bill requires courts to exercise discretion in favor of voting access and equity. As the current administration turns the federal government from a bulwark against discrimination into a direct threat to black voters, California needs a stronger VRA now more than ever. We urge the committee to advance SB 1164 and put California back on the forefront of voting rights. Thank you so much, and I'm happy to answer questions.

Good morning, Chair Wiener and members. Symphony Barbee on behalf of the ACLU CalAction, proud co-sponsor.

Savannah Jorgensen with the League of Women Voters of California, also enthusiastic co-sponsors of this landmark bill to strengthen California's voting rights. Also registering a proxy Me Too in support for Next Gen California. Sarah Brennan with the Weidemann Group on behalf of PANA in strong support. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, members, Terry Brennan on behalf of SEIU California in support. Nina Long from AAPI's Pacific Empowerment in support.

Carlos Lopez on behalf of the California School of Labor. Employees Association in support.

Seeing none, is there any opposition to the bill? Please come forward.

Thank you. Any additional opposition? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the committee. Any questions or comments, colleagues? Senator Choi?

Sure, Senator, thank you for the question. Yeah, so protected classes in this bill refers to any voter across the state who might have their vote suppressed or diluted based on race. So yes, you, sir, would be part of a protected class. Any voter can be part of a protected class as part of this bill. It's a race-neutral bill. To your question about specific examples, so you mentioned a couple of the different kinds of threats to the right to vote that the bill addresses. So starting with vote dilution, what that means, sir, is that you might be able to go and cast your ballot but because of the election system, your vote might not be weighted equally, and you might not have the opportunity to elect a candidate of choice.

It might be counted technically, but it might be overwhelmed or drowned out by other voters in the jurisdiction. And so we have lots of examples of this.

So when we have a situation where voter preferences break down consistently along racial lines, this is known as racially polarized voting, in that circumstance, that can interact with certain election systems, like at-large systems, for example, to ensure that folks who are minorities in a certain community are never able to have their preferences realized. So you could go and cast your ballot over and over again, but you're never going to be able to effectively elect a candidate of your choice because the majority is going to overwhelm your vote consistently all the time. And that's because of the way that the election system is structured. And so this is part of what this bill is protecting against, is to make sure that election systems are not structured to consistently silence voices in communities because their votes and voices are drowned out. That's the vote dilution portion of the bill. This actually, part of it already exists in California Law, sir. There's a prohibition against vote dilution that is specifically directed at large What this bill does is expand that to also protect against unfair districts that are discriminatory because populations of people of color or other voters are cracked or packed into certain districts in a way that also similarly drowns out their voices. So that's the first piece you asked about. The second piece you mentioned is voter suppression. And for that, those are discriminatory barriers to the ballot. So on the first example, you get to cast your vote, but it might not be equally weighted. These are examples of things that make it difficult or impossible for you to cast the vote in the first place. And so my colleague gave some examples of that happening around the state already. We've seen, for example, in Siskiyou County with Hmong voters having barriers to the ballot. We've seen attempts to reduce election electronic poll work, poll books, which can create long lines in certain parts of the state. So if there are certain practices that reduce opportunities to vote in a way that is disparate and discriminatory and has a material disparity impact on protected class voters, that is actionable under this bill. And maybe my colleague can offer some more specific examples. Yes, I think something additional to add on the redistricting piece is I also brought up the LA example. And in that example, they were specifically talking about how to pull and put black communities, historically black communities in Los Angeles, in particular districts where their votes would be outweighed. And so that's some of the pieces that he's talking about in terms of redistricting. Another example I gave is in Huntington Beach when they tried to create a voter ID law and the burdens that that would cost for voters of color Voters of color statistically do not have IDs at the same rate as other folks and requiring an ID can sometimes operate similarly as a poll tax which we know historically disenfranchised black folks intentionally. And so these are some of the examples where rules can be created that create new barriers to being able to register, to being able to show up and cast your vote, which should be counted.

Okay, thank you. So I support the bill. One thing that you and I have talked about is in terms of the lawsuits against cities to force them to go to district elections, which sometimes I think are go over the top. The goal of this bill is not to make it easier for cities to be sued to force them to redistrict. We want to keep the status quo. or we want to not make it easier. And I also just a question. This is the first I hearing of the concern from the city of Santa Monica about pending litigation I personally it makes sense to me not to mess with pending litigation but if you would like to comment on that now you may I don't want to put you on the spot because this is just coming up for the first time.

Okay, yeah, I mean, my initial reaction to it is it seems to make sense not to impact pending. litigation, but perhaps we could just have further conversations about that.

Yeah.

Yeah, and that makes a lot of sense. Okay. Great. With that, you may close.

Okay. The pearls of a small committee. I don't know that we're, are you, we need a motion. Nope. Okay. We're going to have to take up a motion when we have either Senator Allen or Senator Umberg back, because I can't make a motion as chair. So we should probably reconsider that rule. Okay, thank you very much, Senator. I've been an advocate for that. Yes, I know. Okay, I see that Senator McNerney is here for item number 3, SB 900. You may present.

You may proceed. You each have two minutes.

Good morning. Good morning, Chair and members. Trent Lang, President of the California Clean Money Campaign, we're proud to co-sponsor SB 900 and are grateful for Senator McNerney's leadership, the Outdoor Advertising Association's collaboration and this committee's work. We've sponsored several bills to improve disclosure of top funders at Belt Measure and independent expenditure ads over the years, starting with AB 249, the California Disclose Act, in 2017, then following with bills to perfect the disclosure requirements for other types of ads, including online ads, petitions, and text messages. But the current formatting requirements take up too much space on billboards, as has been described, banners, and other large print ads, making the top funders too hard to read. SB 900 solves this problem by allowing top funder names to be shortened in defined ways. Good examples are currently they have to show PG&E Corporation and affiliated entities. That would be shortened to PG&E. California Labor Federation could be shortened to CA Labor Fed. And it's important to note that these changes are voluntary. Advertisers can use them or not. It also allows the current independent expenditure disclaimer to be shortened from 15 words, which is way too long, to just not paid for by a candidate. Much simpler and easier for people to read. Also has several formatting improvements for print ads, such as requiring the top funders to be bold in a consistent place at the bottom of the ads. With these improvements, voters will get shorter but clearer and more accessible disclosures. It's also important that SB 900 increases the number of top funders to be disclosed on political mailers from three to five. We chose three for the rest of the disclosed ad because voters can't read more than three on TV or billboards, but mailers offer plenty of space and time for five, as San Francisco has shown. So we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Savannah Jorgensen with the League of Women Voters of California in support, also registering Me Too's in support on behalf of Courage California and Money Out voters in.

Any questions or comments? Senator Choi?

I'll let the supporting witnesses answer these questions.

You're referring mainly for ballot measures?

will make any difference in the voter preference, whether to support or not to support? Not the issue, but who gave the money, who was funded?

Choice. Choice. C-H-O-Y, good choice. That help me remember I don know about I don speak for everyone but when I see a political ad I like to look at the bottom and see where it from And that tells me a lot about the candidate, who is supporting the candidate, and it gives me a clue as to whether I find the ad credible or something that I can support. Now, I'm probably not the only one in California that does that and feels that way, So I think just as if we can help more people understand where campaign money is coming from, I think the voters are going to be able to make more informed choices. If that's the case, the acronyms you are suggesting, how many people will recognize what the acronyms that you will be using in the future in the billboard?

Thank you.

If this is like a radio advertising, do they have to name all five?

Just two?

So if this bill passes up to five, it's only written mailers?

That sounds better. Okay, thank you.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

I'll make a motion. Okay. A motion to move as amended to appropriations.

Aye.

Last but not least, right? So first I am presenting SB 1225 SB 1225 transfers the responsibility for preparing ballot titles and summaries for proposed initiatives and referenda from the Attorney General's office to the Legislative Analyst's office. California's initiative process is a vital component of our system of direct democracy. To function effectively, it requires a nonpartisan entity to draft clear, accurate, and impartial budget ballot language. When ballot language is prepared within a partisan office, it becomes vulnerable to politicization. Excuse me for tripping on that. This can result in wording that can be misleading or perhaps incomplete, perhaps creating confusion, but if particularly slanted, creating mistrust in the system, which I have heard from people on several occasions. California has seen multiple instances where ballot titles and summaries have been criticized as biased or incomplete. A couple notable examples. In 1978, Proposition 13, written by Republican Attorney General Evel Younger, failed to include in the ballot title and summary that the initiative would raise the threshold for the legislature to approve a tax increase from a simple majority to a two-thirds vote, which was one of the key arguments against it. In 1996, Republican Attorney General Dan Lundgren wrote the title and summary for Proposition 209, also known as the California Civil Rights Initiative, which banned affirmative action in universities. The title nor summary mentioned the words affirmative action. Instead, it used the more loaded term preferential treatment. Proposition 22 in 2020 exempted Uber, Lyft, and the like using non-employee workers from AB5, which requires them to make their drivers payroll workers. The measure required the companies to provide contract workers with some employee-like benefits. The original title by AG Becerra's office was Changes Employment Classification Rules for App-Based Transportation and Delivery Workers. But the final title was Exempts App-Based Transportation and Delivery Companies from Providing Employee Benefits to Certain Drivers and Delivery Workers. The first was accurate, while the second was clearly biased against it. Largely unbeknownst to voters, A.G. Becerra had also engaged in a lawsuit against Uber and Lyft over worker classification issues months before the election. To strengthen public trust and ensure impartiality, SB 1225 places this responsibility with the Legislative Analyst's Office. The LAO already plays a central nonpartisan role in the initiative process by providing impartial analyses on each measure, always, I would add, excellently written, a fiscal impact summary, Yes and no argument summaries and ballot labels used in county voting materials. Assigning the title and summary function to the LAO builds on its existing responsibilities and reinforces the integrity of the process. Preserving the credibility of California's initiative system is essential. SB 1225 is a straightforward step to promote transparency, accuracy, and public confidence. My witnesses here are Ryan Woolsey, here to act as a technical witness on behalf of the LAO's Legislative Analyst's Office, and Savannah Jorgensen on behalf of the League of Women Voters. I respectfully ask your aye vote, and I will hand this over to my witness.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm Ryan Woolsey with the Legislative Analyst's Office. I currently serve as the office's initiative and ballot coordinator. The LAO does not have a position on the bill. As the Senator mentioned, we're here just to provide some context on how these responsibilities would fit in with what we're already doing. As the Senator mentioned, we prepare analysis and descriptions of what ballot measures would do for the Voter Information Guide and also for the ballot label. In the course of preparing those materials we do extensive research we meet with proponents and opponents to try to get as broad a perspective as we can on the potential impacts of the measure. Our primary goal and all of this is to assist voters with making their decision and we maintain a strong commitment to impartiality throughout the process. As As for the core responsibility of developing the title and summary, we've said before on similar legislation that this is something that we believe we are able to do. There are some administrative responsibilities that would come with this legislation that we currently are not equipped to carry out. For example, we would become responsible for receiving initiatives and processing the fee the proponents are required to submit. We have a very lean administrative organization, and we would need additional resources to do that. But again, as to the substance of the task of preparing the title and summary, we believe this is something that we could do. But just to be clear, the LAO, even though you're sitting here with support witnesses, the LAO is not supporting the bill. Correct. We are neither supporting nor opposing. We have no position. They are neutral. Yes. It is technical support.

No, I'm saying technical to the committee today.

Thank you.

Daniel Conway on behalf of California Common Cause. Just want to thank the senator for his longtime leadership on this issue.

Hello, Chair and members. Elmer Lazardi here with the California Federation of Labor Unions. Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak on this bill. We are opposed to SB 1225 and, by extension, the companion measure, SCA 3, which would remove the Attorney General's current duty of providing a title and summary for proposed initiative or a referendum measures and instead give this duty to the legislative analyst's office. Currently, the state's attorney general is entrusted with this duty to ensure both a democratic and finally efficient process. First, the current system reflects our democratic values because the attorney general is elected by the voters. Challenges to the title and summary of a proposed initiative or referendum can hold the attorney general accountable not only in court but also at the ballot box. Challengers to any initiative are likely also voters who can further express their opinion by voting for or against that attorney general. The current system is also financially efficient because the entity which defends the title and summary in court is also the entity which has authored the language. Under the proposed law, the title and summary would be provided by the LAO, but any subsequent lawsuit would still be defended by the AG's office. This change would create an additional unnecessary layer of bureaucracy since the need to draft legally defensible and neutral language already creates a working accountability mechanism. Drafting titles and summaries for proposed initiatives and referendums is a serious and important duty, and it must be transparent to ensure public trust in the process. Shifting the duty to the unelected LAO would eliminate our current system, which we argue continues to serve our state well. Thank you so much, and for these reasons, we must oppose and respectfully ask for a no vote.

Mr. Chair and Senators, Terry Brennan on behalf of SEIU California. We've been on the winning and losing side of a lot of these conversations, as the senator illuminated. We still support keeping it the way it is. The legal team at the Attorney General's office is well-equipped to do this and has done a fine job.

Leah Griffin with the American Federation of State County Municipal Employees in opposition.

Michael Young with the California Teachers Association also opposed

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. The arguments against it is that the attorney general is elected, the alleged analyst is not. It imposes, comment was made, it imposes an additional layer of bureaucracy. And that the attorney general is well equipped to carry on the duties as they have been. I won't dispute the fact that the AG is elected, but that is also the reason to support my bill rather than oppose it. I don't deny that the AG is well equipped, but to say that the ledger analyst would need a new team denies the already significant responsibility and involvement the LAO has in initiatives. they in fact write the detailed analyses, to move from the detailed analyses to a short statement that summarizes those analyses. I'd be hard pressed to understand how that would create the necessity of an entire new team. And that speaks to the issue of an additional layer of bureaucracy. It would not. As was stated, there are a few things that the LAO believes that they might have to perform. Though in terms of resource need, my opinion is that would be extremely small. And I think it's important to point out that number one, the bill itself is bipartisan. Senator Umberg is a joint author, Senator Allen is a co-author. And two times, two times this bill has passed unanimously or nearly so out of this very committee. The bill dies in what I call the killing fields of the suspense file of the appropriations process. So I never know entirely why, but in terms of the policy, Again it is passed out of this committee unanimously or virtually so two times So I respectfully ask an aye vote even of the chair Thank you very much

Weiner, no.

Allen?

No.

Umberg?

Umberg, aye.

So moved.

I'll be brief on this bill, and I mean it. I often say the phrase I'll be brief is always followed by anything but brevity, but I've already basically presented the issues of the bill, and I shall wait until I have your undivided attention. Yeah, so the reason for it and the arguments are really the same as 1225. The responsibility for writing titles and summary statements is both in the Constitution as well as statutory. So that's why I have a policy bill and also a constitutional amendment. This, if passed, would go to a ballot before the voters to decide on. I am positive that they would approve this because this is a good government proposal. And my witnesses are the same. Ryan Woolsey with the LAO and Savannah Jorgensen with the League of Women Voters.

Savannah Jorgensen, League of Women Voters of California. Also nothing additional to add. We urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Daniel Conway, still with California Common Cause, still in strong support. Still thankful for the senator's leadership on this issue.

Carlos Lopez with the California School Employees Association. We just wanted to echo the comments made towards the last bill and state that we are in opposition.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional opposition? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the committee. Any questions, comments? Seeing none, Senator, you may close.

Okay. Is there a motion to pass to Committee on Appropriations? Moved by Senator Umberg, and we will call the roll. Motion is be adopted by the Committee on Appropriations. Senator Wiener? No. Wiener, no.

Allen?

No.

Umberg?

Umberg, aye. Okay, the vote is 1 to 2. We'll put that on call. Thank you, Senator. Thank you. We'll now go to our final item, item 8, SB 1360, received by Senator Cervantes.

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 the Berkeley IGS poll, 70% of California voters support providing language access to voters with limited English proficiency. This bill would ensure that Californians continue to enjoy the language access assistance provided by Section 203 by codifying these provisions from federal law into state law. However, the bill will also expand on Section 203 by expanding the potential languages covered by state law. Beyond the languages covered by Section 203 of the Federal Voting Rights Act, SB 1360 will provide the same level of language access 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 Senate Bill 1360 would be based on the language determined by the Secretary of State every five years. The bill will bring us close to fulfilling the dream of an inclusive democracy in California that makes voting accessibility even for non-proficient in English. So at the end of the day, I want to make sure that we do all that we can to address this issue. I know that there are concerns from the Clerks and Election Officials Association that we will be working with and addressing moving forward. We here have today the California Democracy Partnership, Deanna Katamura, Managing Attorney with Asian Law Caucus, and Remla Shahid, Executive Director of Partnership for the Advancement of New Americas, Pan-Anim. You each have two minutes.

Chair Wiener and committee members, I'm not Deanna, sadly. She is here to answer technical questions, though. I'm still Adam Liaz with Senior Policy Counsel with LDF, and I'm very happy to be testifying in support of SB 1360, which is another critical piece of the California Voting Rights Act of 2026 package. Language access protections are an essential part of the federal VRA and a key piece of most state VRAs enacted since 2021. Congress amended the VRA in 1975 to add Section 203, which guarantees that all election materials, including votable ballots, be translated for limited English proficient or LEP voters that meet a certain population threshold. California's large Spanish-speaking population and the advocacy of Congressman Edward R. Royale of Los Angeles were influential in the formation of Section 203. Congress deemed its protections necessary to enforce the 14th and 15th Amendments after finding that language minority communities, quote, have 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. SB 1360 addresses four critical gaps in California and federal law. First, it ensures that voters who currently receive in-language materials under Section 203 don't lose those protections due to their expiration in 2032 or lack of enforcement by the current administration. Second, the bill expands protections to all languages, not just Spanish, Asian, and Native languages covered by federal law. This means that sizable communities that speak languages like Arabic will be eligible for coverage Third the bill lowers the numeric threshold for coverage from 10 to 5 LEP adult citizens in a county. And fourth, the bill establishes a petition process so communities that are 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 does not happen to be English. And they will result in increased language services for LEP communities in about a dozen counties. We urge you to vote yes on this important piece of the CVRA of 2026. Thank you and I'm happy to answer questions.

Hello, I am Deanna Kitamura from Asian Law Caucus and I'm here in strong support.

Hello, Symphony Barbie on behalf of the ACLU CalAction, proud co-sponsors, thank you. Hi, I'm Melinda Howard-Harrate, United Nations Association of California. We strongly support this bill. Thank you.

Kevin Shankman, Voting Rights Attorney in support.

Good morning, Kathy Fung, Senior Deputy for Los Angeles County Registrar Recorder, County Clerk and one of the co-chairs of the CACEO Elections Legislative Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to speak today on behalf of the county elections officials, and we're here to express concern that the proposed state policy does not fully address language assistance needs, and for that reason, we respectfully oppose Senate Bill 1360 unless amended. At the outset, I want to apologize that CACEO did not have time to submit a letter through the portal because our legislative committee only just met this Friday, this last Friday. I also want to acknowledge and thank Senator Cervantes' office for facilitating productive meetings between us and members of the language advocacy groups because we think that there is an opportunity to really serve all Californians and provide linguistic access. Since I only have two minutes, I'm going to skip through lots of my testimony and just get straight to the four major areas of concern. First, we want to be sure that we are focused on, in addition to expansion, eliminating the inequitable and unreliable determination models that are created by election code 14201's precinct-based determination formula. That formula starts with taking census data that is collected at the block level, and then it has to be imputed to precinct shapes which are totally different geographic areas And then because the boundaries of precincts don align with census blocks and they can vary greatly in size the process of matching census data to precincts creates a requirement that inferences have to be made that introduces significant noise. Now, what's the practical reality of that? Precinct-based models have unintended consequences. In this latest round of determinations, for instance, some languages with more LEP voting age persons in a county were dropped, while other languages with far fewer speakers were added. And that creates a real dilemma for counties as to how we can serve large communities that have a language need based on this precinct-based model of determination. CACEO seeks an amendment to eliminate the precinct-based model and really focus on the county-wide formula that is embodied in 1360 to ensure that counties are dedicating limited resources to serving their greatest need. Second, we'd like to set...

Okay. Second, we support the California Voting Rights Act standard as the standard, which means 5% or 10,000 persons, but would support expansion to new languages. Third, we'd like to define better the petition process so that there's an actual threshold for determination, a standard. And lastly, we'd like to allocate a budget appropriation. I'm asking counties to seek reimbursement.

So that the quality of service is not just based on the least possible standard. Thank you very much.

Nope.

Aye.

Allen?

Allen?

Aye.

With deep homologies as a co-author, aye.

Okay, so that is on call 2-2. Okay. Item number five, SCA three, please call the absent members. Turn votes one, two, chair voted no. Choi, Allen.

Allen aye.

Which one number?

Number two?

Choi, no.

Aye.

Choi?

Choi, aye.

No vote.

Aye.

Choi, aye.