June 16, 2026 · Elections · 12,148 words · 36 speakers · 169 segments
the Senate committee on elections and constitutional amendments will come to order good morning and welcome we have 11 measures on our agenda today and we do not have a quorum yet so we will start as a subcommittee and then take motions and vote once we have a quorum. And we do have several items on consent. The proposed consent items are AB 1789 by Assemblymember Berner, AB 2592 by Assemblymember Pacheco, AB 2655 by Assemblymember Valencia, and AB 2785 by the Assembly Committee on Elections. So we will start with item number one, AB 1116 by Assemblymember Berman. Welcome.
Good morning, Chair Wiener and Senator. AB 1116 would enhance our online voter registration system by allowing more eligible Californians to use this valuable tool. For more than a decade, our online voter registration system has enabled Californians with a California DMV-issued driver's license or identification card to seamlessly register to vote. The system is not accessible to everyone because it can only accept a voter's signature that is transmitted from the DMV. And, as we know, a signature is needed to validate a vote-by-mail ballot. As a result, an otherwise eligible applicant who does not have a DMV-issued ID must still use a paper form, then mail or drop it off in person. This impacts lower income, young, and elderly residents. Following the lead of more than a dozen states that have adopted this policy, AB 1116 would allow Californians without a DMV-issued ID, but who provide their Social Security number to register to vote online. The applicant would be able, based on parameters established by the Secretary of State, to submit a photo of their signature. And importantly, nothing in AB 1116 would prevent a voter from using a paper voter registration form, if that is their preference. I'm joined today by Mike Mosier, Senior Advisor to the Institute for Responsive Government, Amy Hamlin from NextGen and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.
Terrific. So you have two witnesses each two minutes and you may proceed.
Good morning members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of AB 1116. My name is Michael Moser and I am a consultant for the Responsive Government Action, a nonpartisan organization of problem solvers that works to make government more accessible and efficient. I'm also the former Director of Election Security and Technology at the Pennsylvania Department of State and a former election security expert at the Federal Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency. AB 1116 upgrades California's online voter registration system so more eligible Californians can register to vote online. This change will improve voter access and convenience save money and increase the accuracy and security of voter registration It also has the added benefit of using existing infrastructure minimizing costs and maximizing value Currently eligible Californians without a license or ID from the California DMV must register to vote through a paper form submitted by mail or in person. In 2024, California voters submitted approximately 920,000 paper registration forms, according to Secretary of State data. Paper forms aren't just inconvenient for voters, they're also labor-intensive and costly for election officials. Researchers estimate that processing each paper form costs $4.72 in labor. For 920,000 paper forms, that's $4.3 million in election official labor in one year alone. AB 1116 solves this problem, enabling eligible Californians without a DMV-issued ID to register to vote online. These people provide the exact same information they currently provide on a paper form and provide an image of their signature, typically just by uploading a photograph. This expansion of OVR, known as OVR Plus, enables many more people to register online instead of through a paper form, increasing efficiency, accuracy, and security. This has been adopted in 13 states and Washington, D.C., and implementation costs have been just several hundred thousand dollars. I personally led the implementation of OVR Plus in Pennsylvania in 2016. Our implementation was completed in a matter of months, And our launch costs were roughly $300,000. Since launching, we've seen major improvements in voter access and efficiency without any security issues. In short, AB 1116 is a straightforward way to modernize California's government. This change can increase voter convenience and access, save money, and enhance accuracy and security. And I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
Good morning, Chair Wiener and members of the committee. My name is Amy Hamblin, and I am a policy advisor with NextGen California. Thank you for the opportunity to speak here today. Across the country, we are seeing a coordinated effort to undermine the hard-fought victories that make our democracy better, from an executive order requiring documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration, to attempts to purge voter rolls, to attempts and litigation threatening the integrity of our voter data systems, all with the same aim to make voting harder for eligible citizens. Now more than ever, the country needs California and Californians need California to stand as a beacon of democracy and to strengthen access to the ballot box. That is why I'm here today to express my strong support for AB 1116. This legislation expands online voter registration to all eligible Californians. The current system, as outlined here, currently requires a California DMV-issued ID, and we know that not everyone has that. In fact, by one estimate, over a million eligible Californians do not have a California DMV-issued ID. About half those are people without any government-issued ID, and half those with an ID from a different state. this fix the simple fix would allow these one plus million eligible voters to use the last four digits and upload or to submit an electronic image of their signature a simple a simple fix and a common sense fix this common sense update enables more californians especially young people people of color and people with disabilities to participate in our democracy while drastically reducing paper registration forms, easing workload on county election officials, and minimizing the risk of errors in the data entry process AB 1116 is a critical step toward ensuring that every eligible Californian has an accessible path to registration regardless of what kind of ID they have We thank Assemblymember Berman for bringing this forward, and we respectfully request your aye vote.
Thank you. Is there any additional support? If so, please come forward and state that support.
Good morning, Savannah Jorgensen with the League of Women Voters of California in support.
Good morning, Paul Spencer with Disability Rights California in support.
Any additional support? Is there any opposition to AB 1116? Please come forward.
Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the current County Board of Supervisors in respectful opposition, mainly due to the bill allowing individuals to register to vote solely on the last four digits of the social security number. To the county, it presents concerns regarding verification and authenticity of voter identity. And the measures in the bill, we believe, do not provide the same level of identity authentication as a government-issued ID. Secondly, Kern County is concerned about the administrative burden and the added cost to the bill that it may cost place on county elections officials. And lastly, we would just like to align our comments with the Secretary of State as outlined in the analysis. And a particular note, those that about the security risks and the prohibitive implementation timeline and the costs as well. Thank you.
Any additional opposition?
opposition? Mr. Chair and members, Tim Cromartie on behalf of Secretary of State Shirley and Weber. We are not in opposition to the bill. In fact, we're in sympathy with the concept behind it, but we have significant and multiple concerns with this legislation. It would require the Secretary of State to create a system allowing voter registration applicants to upload signature images directly to VoteCal, the statewide voter registration database. This presents severe technical security and operational challenges that make implementation not only impractical but potentially dangerous to the integrity of California's election systems. We cannot support legislation that we believe would compromise election security. The bill would mandate that our VoteCal system accept file uploads directly from the public via the internet without allocating funding for or addressing the need for appropriate cybersecurity measures. This unprecedented exposure to external image files will open pathways for malicious software uploads and other sophisticated cybersecurity threats that could compromise the integrity of our entire election system. Our current security posture deliberately limits these types of external connections to trusted government partners like the California Department of Motor Vehicles. The bill also fails to address how to mitigate the substantial risks of malware and viruses being uploaded to the SOS website through the image upload process. There are no specifications in the legislation for protecting against these threats, nor does it contemplate the necessary security infrastructure required to safely accept external files. The proposed changes would compromise these critical protections at a time when election systems face increasingly sophisticated threats from both domestic and foreign actors. The SOS currently has neither an established process for signature validation nor the ability to accept document uploads to our website. VoteCal, our registration database, was designed to retrieve and append digitized signatures from the DMV database only, not to accept external file submissions from the general public. The bill provides no mechanism for remedying this fundamental deficiency. Finally the bill fails to define the standards regarding what makes an image acceptable for upload It requires only a quote highly quality high quality digitized image of the person signature with no specification of technical standards For those reasons, we cannot support this measure and we caution against implementation. Thank you.
Any additional opposition? Okay, we'll bring it back to the committee. I would just say that this has an – I'm recommending support. I appreciate the author's work on it. I understand anytime we're doing something new and different, you know, an agency could have concerns about it. I have confidence that the Secretary of State will be able to handle this, seeing as how we live in the fourth largest economy in the world and the global capital of technological innovation. So I think California should always have a can-do attitude about these things. So I do have an eye recommendation, and you may close. Oh, I'm sorry. My apologies, Senator Troy. I did not see you there, Senator Troy. Okay, Chair.
This bill AB 1116 is a very important measure that you are proposing, however, in a wrong direction, to my opinion. You may answer later all the questions I would like to raise. What are the intent of this bill? In other words, encouraging all those regardless of their voter true qualifications, is to encourage them to participate, to register to vote? Or is this bill truly trying to establish integrity of the voter qualifications? As far as I know, voter qualification is fundamentally two or three. Number one most important qualification is you got to be a citizen of this country. Number two is that you are 18 years old or older. Number third is you are not in jail. Those qualifications need to be met and we need to validate those qualifications when a person is trying to register. I tried to strengthen this validation of the voter qualifications through my bill last year. Unfortunately in this committee it died, but intent is to validate how we can validate the true most important qualification which is are you a citizen. If you look at the paper or online question to register the vote. One question right there on the bottom, towards the bottom is that, are you a US citizen? And it says under the penalty of penalty of perjury, a penalty of perjury, yes or no. And you mark either yes or no and you mail it. And you, right now, the online registration may have the same form. But once that's submitted, Who validates that's the check mark I'm a citizen. I don't believe the Registrar of Voters locally or the Secretary of State will validate whether the applicant is a US citizen. And but now your bill is suggesting even if without any driver's license which is not the proof of citizenship, the real ID, do you believe that is a proof of citizen? No it's not. Simply as far as I know I didn't have to take my passport or put the certificate to get the real ID. It was the proof of residence. You are living in the address you claim you are living and with the utility bills some of the things so you have to bring it and then you get the real ID. That is nothing to do with this proof of citizenship and the social security number four digits to provide is that the social security number proof of citizenship is not IRS is interested in collecting taxes from wages that's the reason just about anybody can apply for social security number and now your bill is encouraging allowing anyone to apply for to register to vote even without the on online is online I admire that effort to make it convenient a qualified people can register easily even though state of secretary states that some difficulties technical difficulties unless that is a more advanced system that will truly validate that the person registering is truly the right person and the documentation being uploaded will be true statements. But this one, this bill suggests only two things, affidavit of statement I am qualified. So probably two three lines will be there. I swear hereby that I'm qualified to vote. It's the same question, similar question, just like IOC, yes I know, and then provide the four digits of social security, four digits. So four digits of the statement, I'm sure a lot of four digits will be duplicate too, among millions of social security numbers, but the social security number four digits, with your name matching what does that say you you have the social security number received that about it it another pro it a validation of your citizenship so how are you going to protect the validity and the integrity of the voter qualifications with your bill That's my question.
Well, thank you for the question, and I'll let my witnesses answer in a second. The author, when you proposed this bill, We had the intent, even though I hear witnesses supporting this is a good measure. They are there to support that. They're there to answer questions also.
Senator, the author can defer any responses. I understand. You go ahead. That's his prerogative to do that. So, Assemblymember.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Dr. Choi, I do want to point out there's been some questions about this four digits of social security number. That's no different than the existing system. That's exactly what exists on the paper form. The paper form, you provide the last four digits of your social security number. The validation in this bill is exactly how it would be done with the paper form. And the bill does not change or bypass any existing verification procedures. In fact, the online process would exactly mirror the paper-based one. So I appreciate your concerns. I don't think you're quite understanding the specifics of the bill, but the bill includes the exact same verification process. There's each application would be subject to the same verification checks and requirements. And ultimately, county elections officials will still have the final say when processing an application that does not adhere to the requirements that they have. So the bill specifically mirrors the existing process. It just allows for it to be done online. I'll let my witnesses expand upon that.
I agree. I appreciate the question. And I would just like to echo those sentiments. This does not change the eligibility of voters in any regard. All this is is simply elevating the channel for voter registration. As you heard from the author, it is mirroring the paper process. So all of those longstanding verification checks are still intact behind the scenes. You still have the online deterrent with the affirmation language that tell people that under false penalty, there could be charges potentially. But behind the scenes, the work isn't changing. The channel is pretty much the same as it is coming from the DMV today. It's going to mirror that similar infrastructure. and when someone submits that signature online, it would be presented to the counties in a similar manner and stored in a similar manner as it is for online voter registration. So all those online checks are still valid. The Secretary of State can still coordinate with the DMV and other agencies to validate that individual, and it's a common practice nationwide for a vast majority of the states that are out there. they utilize the last four of the social security number with date of birth and name to validate an individual's information if they don't provide a state-issued id in my own experience in pennsylvania when we would we face this scenario we would submit the information to our dmv but we would also submit a parallel request to the dmv that would get passed to the ssa through the dmv And we would evaluate the response we got from our Pennsylvania DMV and then from the Social Security Administration to do a fraud check on that individual to verify that that person is not deceased, among other things. So that workflow does not change. As you heard from the author, it's going to be the same thing. What this does do is this provides an additional opportunity to have a more accurate signature on file We have known in the field that signatures coming over from the DMV aren always of good quality This provides a more accurate signature and it provides a more up-to-date signature on the voters file than you would have a point in time check when you're doing a transaction that pulls the signature over from the state DMV. So this actually will potentially give you a better quality signature and a more fresh signature to compare against a mail ballot to verify that is the person submitting the documentation.
Great.
As far as I'm concerned, as a follow-up.
Yeah, you're recognized, Senator Joy.
Either author or witness did not address my key point, that is, through this process, even paper registration process worries me even though majority of people will be honest when they say they are qualified and they are citizens, are you a citizen when they mark yes majority. But there are unfortunately crooked people who are not honest. And how do we prevent them from registering? And this online will even further promote. So I didn't hear any reply regarding how we can validate the most important one of the three questions, to qualifications, that is the registered citizen of the U.S.
Thank you for the follow-up. As you, I believe, noted, you're registering under penalty of perjury. And to register fraudulently would be a crime. And if you were to do that and you were to be caught, there would be a significant penalty. And so that's what we do is we create disincentives to people behaving badly by making them crimes and by making sure that there's punishment for those crimes. Now, we know and you know, Dr. Troy, because you're a science based, numbers based individual, that voter fraud is exceedingly rare. I know it gets a lot of national attention because the president and others lie about it. But the reality is that people don't want to fraudulently register to vote and risk going to jail over that. That happens exceedingly rarely. And when it does, like a Republican from Southern California registered their dog, they got caught and they're being punished. And so that's the system that we have. This does not change that system. And we will continue to make sure that there are disincentives for people to fraudulently engage in our elections. And when they get caught, they will be appropriately punished for that.
Your positive analysis is encouraging, but I have a different question. I would like to know if anyone can do the voters registered to be analyzed whether they are truly 100% U.S. citizens. Is there any audit process that we can make before this bill can be implemented?
No And that a conspiracy theory So there is no evidence of any kind of issue with with sort of widespread noncitizens voting or voter fraud This is a conspiracy theory that has been propagated by the president of the United States It led to the January 6th insurrection It led to conspiracy theories about the just completely made up conspiracy theories about the recent Los Angeles mayoral election because they're trying to set up a system where they can maybe not seat Democrats who are elected to the House of Representatives in November as a means of seizing control of Congress, even when they lose an election. And, you know, it's a conspiracy theory.
You may answer.
No, I defer to you, Mr. Chair. I think you did it great. Okay, I'm done.
Okay, we do have a quorum now. So why don't we establish quorum, and then I'll allow you to close. That'd be great. And then we'll entertain a motion. So we'll call the roll for quorum. Senators Wiener? President. Wiener, present. Choi? Choi here. Allen? Cervantes? Cervantes here. Umberg? Okay, we do have a quorum. And Mr. Berman, you may close.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I do just want to touch upon some of the concerns that were raised by the Secretary of State's office. And as I know the Secretary of State and her team know, I also am very concerned with election cybersecurity. That's why I created the Office of Election Cybersecurity that is housed in the Secretary of State's office back in 2018. And so I think that we absolutely need to make sure that our Secretary of State has the resources and the technical expertise that they need to make sure that our elections are as secure as possible. That's why I wrote that law. The concern about malicious file submissions is understandable, but there are several standard, well-established security measures and best practices that are commonly used to prevent abuse, including limiting submissions. to specific file types like JPEGs and PNG files, setting strict limits to file size, automated scanning and sanitizing files for malicious content, holding files and temporary storage until they are validated. Additionally, there are numerous templates available from other states. Pennsylvania's experience, for example, shows that with routine quality and security controls, non-security or non-signature images are exceedingly rare and virtually eliminated. as a lot of you probably do just this past weekend. I used an app on my phone to upload checks to banks and upload my signature on those checks to banks. This is something that's been used for years. The technology is not new and exists to allow a person to upload an image without exposing the system to security threats. I also want to comment that this bill was intentionally written to give the Secretary of State's team discretion to determine the necessary standards that should be used. uh that's why a lot of that specificity is not in the bill as i want to respect the secretary of state and and give her the discretion to identify what she thinks is best for the state of california i'm happy to get more specific if that's a desire of the secretary of state but the whole purpose was to give her the discretion to choose the best product and with that i respectfully ask for your i vote okay thank you and again this does enjoy
recommendation okay we have a motion by senator Cervantes and the motion is do pass and we refer to the committee on appropriations please call the roll Senators Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. Choi? No. Choi, no. Allen? Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes, aye. Umberg? Okay, that vote is 2-1, and we'll put that on call. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
Okay, well, I see that Assemblymember Addis is here, item number two, AB 1539.
Welcome. Good morning, and thank you, Chair, staff, and advocates that are here today. We're here to present AB 1539, the Protect Our Democracy Act, that would strengthen critical constitutional safeguards by making it a crime under penalty of perjury to place a candidate for president or vice president on the ballot if they are ineligible due to constitutional term limits. We know that the United States Constitution is written to include various protections to ensure that no single individual wields too much power over our country. And among these protections is the 22nd Amendment that limits presidents to two terms in office. Nonetheless, despite these longstanding prohibitions, this president has made repeated references to pursuing a third term, as have folks around him who have been angling for him to run for a third term. As mentioned in the committee analysis in March of 2025 in an interview with NBC, the president did not rule out pursuing a third term saying that, quote, a lot of people want me to do it, end quote, and that, quote, there are methods by which you could do it, end quote. Then in October of the same year, President Trump told reporters that he hadn't really thought about running for a third term, but he also refused to rule out running again in 2028. Additionally, as you may have seen, the president is selling merchandise that says Trump 2028 rewrite the rules. So this rhetoric in combination with actions taken to undermine our democratic norms, coupled with multiple attempts to supersede the law, pose an unprecedented threat to our country's democracy that we believe should not go unanswered. answered. Whether this president seeks a third term himself or not, we know that he sets the norms for many people for what is acceptable. We've seen this with his normalizing of sexual assault, attacks on our Capitol, targeting of the most vulnerable, and so many other behaviors that are really stretching the limits of what is normal in American democracy. Unfortunately, where this president goes, too many others often follow. So it's time for us to act, and that's why we've introduced AB 1539. That would make it a crime under penalty of perjury for a representative of a political party to attempt to place someone on the ballot for president or vice president who is not qualified to serve due to the constitutional term limits. This would prevent any party from attempting to subvert the Constitution by placing a nominee on the ballot who has already completed their two terms as president. And joining me today is Genesis Gonzalez, Leg Director for
Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kunolakis. Thank you. You have two minutes. Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members. Genesis Gonzalez, Legislative Director for Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kunolakis. The Lieutenant Governor is proud to sponsor AP 1539 and wants to commend the author for introducing this measure. The bill is deeply personal to the Lieutenant Governor. As U.S. Ambassador to Hungary she witnessed firsthand the rise of Viktor Orban a leader who systematically dismantled a burgeoning democracy by ignoring customs norms judicial orders and constitutional constraints She has seen that same pattern here at home When leaders openly disregard the safeguards that protect our systems of government, democracy itself becomes vulnerable. AB 1539 addresses that vulnerability. It simply requires a representative of a political party to certify under penalty of perjury that their presidential and vice presidential nominees meet the constitutional eligibility requirements under the 22nd and 12th amendments of the United States Constitution. These are not abstract rules. They are safeguards put in place to protect our democracy from the concentration of power and to ensure that no one, no matter how powerful, stands above the Constitution. For generations, term limits and eligibility requirements have preserved the stability and peaceful transfer of power that defines American democracy. But when those boundaries are openly questioned, it creates uncertainty and erodes public trust in the very foundation of our democracy. AB 1539 does not change who can run for office. It simply reinforces the rules we already have and ensures the integrity of California's ballot. The peaceful succession of power has been a cornerstone of our national identity for nearly 250 years. We can no longer assume it will be respected without vigilance. This bill is about drawing a firm line and reaffirming that our Constitution still matters. We respectfully request your support for AB 1539.
Thank you very much. Is there any additional support? Please come forward.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Jean Hurst here today on behalf of the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and Support.
Thank you. Any additional support? Seeing none, is there any opposition? If so, please come forward.
Leslie Sawyer. I'm here with the Butte Women Republican Federated. And also I'm the legislative chair for Moms for Liberty, but I am not in that capacity here today for this bill. this bill is nothing more than trump derangement trying to put nonsensical legislation in front of our populace we have way too much legislation way too many bad bills this is ridiculous it is only because of the attempted impeachments that even offer an opportunity for him to joke about or talk about running for a third term this is nonsensical and should be completely dismissed
Thank you. Kirsten Southam, I'm a retired educator, public educator for California, and I would like to also oppose this and say it is nonsensical. There's so many more important things that I think that you all should be doing than having Trump derangement syndrome.
Any additional opposition? OK, we'll bring it back to the committee. I support this bill. I think it's I don't think it should be controversial to say that you shouldn't be able to run for a third term. And we have a president who has repeatedly said or suggested that he might run for a third term. I think he at one point posted something about running for like 10 terms or something like that. he views himself as a king, and he acts as such. And so I think it's perfectly reasonable to make this important clarification in our law. And so I do recommend an aye vote. Yes, Senator Choi.
Thank you. So this bill is as we hear almost nonsensical and waste of our time Now you are asking each state secretary of state to hear from the representative of each qualified parties and state that the presidential candidate is qualified. That's what the summary says. But now your main focus of your oral presentation is this is to prevent The third term of presidential effort to run again, I mean, that was not in constitution. No one can run under the current constitution. No one is allowed to run for third term. If anyone wants to run for third term then constitution has to be changed. Just because current sitting president might have joked around what about me I'm a great president of the term. He might have said I didn't hear directly but I heard that the rumors that the world is going around and obviously you are taking it very seriously. Even if somebody, let's suppose he proposes, hey, I would like to run third term. As far as I know, there's a Federal Election Commission is the one who, which governs the national candidate qualifications and will judge, will rule out any candidates which are not qualified because of a violation of our Constitution. So if your bill passes, obviously there will be some chances of each some some states, oh that's a good idea and regardless of a Constitution let's allow a person Trump's a third term attempt on let's put it on the ballot that kind of a joke if phenomena can happen so why do we how do we know each state's secretary of state has the is the constitutional judge and has ability to judge truly non-partisan basis, you are qualified to run as a president of the United States or not. I mean, this is a much serious, much more serious and a bigger issue that has to be governed by the central federal level at the Federal Election Commission. and then once that's determined, regardless of each state's secretary of state's party affiliation, or your preference, personal preference or not, the person has been qualified by the central authority and should be placed in each state's ballot so that people can judge through their own personal votes. So this is wasting our time and almost like a joke I strongly oppose the basic idea Okay Thank you You may close Thank you so much I just would say
We do take elections seriously. We're proud of American democracy and We would hope other states follow California's lead and I respectfully ask for your aye vote Okay, we will have to wait for a motion until we have another member here. Okay, thank you. Since I can't make a motion. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, I see that Assemblymember Jackson is here who has – Oh, actually, why don't we take up the consent agenda first since we established quorum. And again, that is item 5, AB 1789. item 9 AB 2592 item 10 AB 2655 and AB 11 AB 2785 actually we don't motion by Senator Choi and we'll call the roll Senators Wiener aye Wiener I Choi Choi aye Allen Cervantes Cervantes aye Umberg okay so that is three nothing on the consent agenda we'll put that on call and Senator Cervantes would you be willing to make a motion on item two the miss Addis's bill okay okay so the the motion on item two is do pass and re-refer to the committee on public safety please call the roll Senators Wiener aye Wiener aye Choi no No, Alan Cervantes. Aye. Cervantes, aye. Umberg. Okay, that's on call at 2 to 1. And now we will ask Mr. Jackson to come up to present items 3 and 4.
So we'll start with item 3, AB 1562. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and committee members. First, I want to thank the committee and staff for their work, and we'll be accepting their amendments today. AB 1562 aims to bring people closer to their democracy by authorizing counties to randomly select registered voters to serve as poll workers if their county board of supervisors approves such a plan. This approach has been practiced in Nebraska for over 70 years. It offers counties a useful tool to recruit poll workers and ensure free and fair elections. Nebraska's drafted poll workers exhibit a stronger understanding of the election process and report greater confidence in election security. With that I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Great thank you. Do you
have any lead witnesses? No I don't. My gift to you Mr. Chair. Okay thank you. So remember is there any support any supportive any supporters of item 3 AB
1562 please come forward Ruth Sosa on behalf of Power CA action and support thank you any additional support okay is there any opposition please come
forward okay seeing none we'll bring it back to the committee colleagues any questions or comments okay seeing none and you did say you're accepting the committee yes I am mr. chair great thank you for working with us on on that I think it's a reasonable bill. And I think we should try this out and allow counties to do it. So thank you for doing that. And so I will be recommending an aye vote. And you may close.
We are hearing from counties that some have been short on poor workers. And some counties have expressed interest in utilizing this opportunity. Again, the only way to keep our democracy strong is to keep people closer to it. And this is just one way out of many ways we could be doing it. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.
I will entertain a motion, item three. It's a motion by Senator Cervantes, and that is do pass as amended. We'll call the roll. Senators Wiener. Aye. Wiener, aye. Choi. Aye. Allen. Cervantes. Aye. Cervantes, aye. Umberg. Okay, that's 2-0. We'll put that on call. And now we'll move to item number 4, AB 1664.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. This is AB 1664. Again, I want to thank committee staff as well with assisting us on this bill, and we'll also be accepting committee amendments on this bill as well. This bill would require a local agency, political subdivision, or elections official to provide notice to the Secretary of State and the Attorney General no later than one day after becoming aware of any warrant, subpoena, or active law enforcement investigation pertaining to any election records or voting systems under their custody or control. recent events here in California have made clear that existing law does not give state officials adequate notice or legal standing to respond quickly when election materials are ceased or subpoenaed this bill addresses that gap here with me today to testify is Deputy Attorney General Tiffany Brokaw and Deputy Attorney General Malcolm Brutigam to answer any technical questions
We each have two minutes. law enforcement have sought to search and seize election materials nationwide. AB 1664 addresses this threat by requiring notice to the Secretary of State and the Attorney General within one day after a local agency, political subdivision, or elections official becomes aware of any warrant, subpoena, or active law enforcement investigation pertaining to any elections records or voting systems under their custody or control. This ensures that the state can act quickly to mitigate any damage associated with those law enforcement efforts, protect critical election materials, and uphold the rule of law. AB 1664 also establishes a new channel for the Attorney General to intervene in any related litigation or otherwise seek any appropriate relief from the courts. It is imperative we continue efforts to maintain election integrity and voter confidence and for these reasons we respectfully ask for an I vote Great Good morning committee members
Malcolm Brudigum, deputy attorney general in the government law section of the attorney general's office, and just happy to answer any questions.
Great. Thank you. Is there any additional support? Please come forward.
Savannah Jorgensen with the League of Women Voters of California in support.
Any additional support? Seeing none, is there any opposition? Please come forward.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Corey Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association. I hear in opposition to AB 1664. The Constitution of California gives the Attorney General supervisory authority over sheriffs and district attorneys, but not supervisory authority over the judiciary. If pursuant to this bill, the AG were effectively asking a court to nullify a magistrate's discretionary probable cause determination, absent or direct state interest, the attorney general would be expanding supervisory authority into judicial review power the constitution does not grant. In fact, we're not aware of another circumstance where a prosecutor is given statutory standing to attempt to traverse a search warrant. There is case law to support this analysis. For example, as it relates to the issuance of a search warrant as a judicial act of the magistrate, a prosecutor cannot be vested with authority to foreclose the exercise of a judicial power and doing so violates the doctrine of separation of powers set forth in Article 3, Section 1 of the California Constitution. And similarly, the Attorney General cannot dictate to courts a legal result without violating separation of powers principles. And because this bill introduces the potential for political interference into a process already overseen by judges and peace officers, and to the extent the bill would inappropriately and likely constitutionally and permissibly invite the attorney general to intervene in a process in a manner that runs afoul of separation of powers. We must respectfully oppose this bill. Thank you.
Any additional opposition? Good morning, Chairman Committee. My name is Lieutenant Julio DeLeon. I'm
here representing the Riverside County Sheriff's Office and Sheriff Chad Bianco in opposition. Let me begin by stating that our agency supports election integrity, election security, and public confidence in our elections. I am not here to talk about the ongoing investigations as I do not have authority to talk about that in case someone wants to ask me anything about that. Our concern is that AB 1664 is not about election integrity. However, it's about who controls the criminal investigations after a neutral magistrate has already reviewed the evidence and authored a search warrant. Under existing law, search warrants are not issued by law enforcement. They are issued by a judge upon finding a probable cause. courts already provide independent oversight and constitutional safeguards to ensure investigations are lawful this bill would require notification to the secretary of state and attorney general within one day of certain search warrants, opinions, or investigations involving election records and expressly authorizes those executive branch officials to intervene in related proceedings or challenge those warrants once a court has reviewed the evidence and unauthorized investigative action. Disputes regarding the action should remain within the judiciary branch and judiciary process This bill creates a significant separation of powers constitutional problem that provides a mechanism for executive branch officials to insert themselves into active and criminal investigations that are already under judicial supervision The bill also applies broadly to any investigation involving election records For example, cyber crime, public corruptions, theft tampering, which are all under the general jurisdiction of local police agencies, not the Secretary of State or Attorney General. The bill contains no safeguards for investigations involving confidential informants, whistleblowers, or cooperative witnesses, especially Hobbs' sealed warrants. Those investigations often rely on rapidly developing information and immediate investigative actions are required. Delays created by mandatory notification requirements and potential interventions can jeopardize time-sensitive leads and compromise investigative strategies. In closing, existing law already provides substantial protections for election material and election administration. This bill adds just another layer of process, but does not approve the probable cause determination already performed by the courts. Existing judicial oversight already protects election materials while preserving the integrity of criminal investigations. And for those reasons, we ask for a no vote today. Thank you.
Any additional opposition?
Leslie Sawyer, California voter, opposed.
Kirsten Southam, California voter, opposed as well.
Any additional opposition? We'll bring it back to the committee. Before we, I just want to clarify one thing. So you're here on behalf of Sheriff Bianco?
Correct.
And you're here to oppose a bill that grew out of his seizure of ballots, but you're not going to answer any questions about his seizure of those ballots? I want to make sure I heard you correctly.
As you know, as an attorney, as am I, I am not capable or able to speak on active litigation.
Okay. But it's not just about active litigation. It's about the action of an elected sheriff seizing ballots. So you're just not going to answer anything about Sheriff Bianco's brazen, just seizure of ballots? You won't answer anything?
I would not characterize it as that, but no, I am not.
Okay.
I am not authorized to speak on that either.
Well, you just characterized it. So you just did say something about it. You just don't want to answer questions about it.
I can't.
Okay. And the Sheriff's Association, I just want to make clear. So the 58 sheriffs in California are all now aligning with Sheriff Bianco, saying we should be able to seize ballots and the state can't do anything about it. Is that what you're saying? I just want to make sure I understand.
I'm not sure that's the question asked by this bill, Mr. Chair.
It certainly is. But the entire association is –
The association represents the 58 elected sheriffs of the state, and that's the position of the sheriff's association that represents the 58 elected sheriffs has taken an opposed position on the matter before the committee today.
Right, but to say this isn't connected to what happened in Riverside County is sort of odd, given that Sheriff Bianca's representative is here opposing the bill.
Senator, I didn't make that determination. I didn't mention Riverside County or Sheriff Bianca in my testimony. It's a broader question about search warrants.
Okay, with that, any questions or comments, colleagues? Yes, Senator Cervantes.
Well, I want to just point out that this is so timely to bring this forward after we just passed Senate Bill 73, because we know that the threat of interference is increasing in our state and we need to make sure that we giving every tool possible to the Attorney General on this to safeguard the integrity and security of our elections I am proud to join you in these efforts Thank you for doing this and leading the way. Thank you to the Attorney General for sponsoring this bill, and I am happy to motion at the appropriate time.
We'll take that as a motion, and that is a motion to pass as amended and refer to the Committee on Public Safety. Any other questions or comments? Okay. So I also want to thank the author for bringing this bill forward. I think it's quite important. And this is not, this simply ensures that our Secretary of State and our Attorney General, the two officials who are most responsible at the state level for ensuring that our election laws are being followed, that we don't have abuses by anyone, that they are aware when a subpoena is served or when a law enforcement action is taken, such as the seizure of ballots, the frankly illegal seizure of ballots in particular, and have the ability to be part of the court process. This doesn't give them the power to make a decision over the judiciary. I think that's a complete mischaracterization of the bill. this allows them to be a party and be in court and to have the ability to make legal arguments and to seek relief. They're not there to tell the judges what to do. The judiciary is perfectly capable of enforcing the law. So I do support the bill. And with that, you may close.
Thank you very much. First, I want to thank the Attorney General for his constant leadership on election integrity and a whole host of meaningful things in terms of various other checks and balances that are necessary to safeguard our democratic process. I also would like to thank my colleague from Riverside for her leadership as well as she continues to lead us in terms of ensuring that there's appropriate checks and balances, especially when we continue to see political acts happening that are counter to our democratic principles that are putting into question the integrity of our electoral process. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.
Great. Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Cervantes, and we'll call the roll. Motion is due pass as amended to the Committee on Public Safety. Senators Weiner? Aye. Weiner, aye. Choi? No. Choi, no. Allen? Cervantes?
Aye. Cervantes, aye.
Umberg? Okay, the vote is 2-1. We'll put that on call. Thank you, Assemblymember.
Thank you.
I see that Assemblymember Chair Pellerin is here, who has two bills. And we'll start with item 6, AB 1853.
Good morning. So thank you, Chair and members. Current law allows a candidate running for a federal, state, or local office to have a candidate statement included in the Voter Information Guide. Candidate statements are limited to a recitation of the candidate's own personal background and qualifications and are prohibited from making reference to any other candidates for office or to another candidate's qualifications, character, or activities. Despite the state law, the State Voter Information Guide for the June statewide primary election included a gubernatorial candidate statement that did not describe the candidate's background or qualifications, but instead consisted of inflammatory, conspiratorial, controversial, and offensive content. The State Voter Information Guide is an official government publication relied upon by millions of Californians to make informed voting decisions. The inclusion of misleading, inflammatory, irrelevant, or harmful content in a candidate statement undermines voter trust and the integrity of our electoral process. AB 1853 establishes clear and enforceable standards to ensure candidate statements remain factual, relevant, and appropriate for an official state voter information guide while respecting constitutional protections of free speech. Specifically, AB 1853 limits candidate statements in official state and county voter information guides to inform about a candidate's own education, professional experience, community involvement, and qualifications for office. It will ban attacks, accusations, and characterizations of individuals or groups, links to external inappropriate content, false and misleading claims, and content that is hateful, discriminatory, or incites violence. Additionally, AB 1853 allows elections officials to reject a candidate statement that does not comply with these requirements. Finally, the bill permits any voter to seek judicial relief to enforce these requirements and requires a court to give priority to such actions. We've been working closely with the Attorney General's office and the Secretary of State's office on this important bill, and we are going to be taking amendments as it makes its way over to the Judiciary Committee to address some First Amendment concerns and also to amend the bill to provide a process for a candidate to cure their statement if there are problems with it. And with me to testify in support today is Miller Saltzman, who's the Director of Policy and Partnerships with Jewish California. Thank you.
Good morning, Chair and members. I'm Miller Saltzman, Director of Policy and Partnerships at Jewish California. Formerly JPAC, we represent over 40 leading Jewish community organizations across the state and serve as our community's unified voice in Sacramento, advocating on behalf of Jewish concerns and broadly shared values, including working to combat hunger, poverty, and climate change, expand access to health care and support vulnerable communities. Earlier this year, California mailed its official voter information guide to 23 million registered voters. Tucked inside that state-issued document under the seal of California, indistinguishable from every legitimate statement surrounding it, was a candidate statement filled with anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, white nationalist rhetoric, and links to websites filled with racist, homophobic, and other hateful content. The outcry from our community was immediate and profound. We heard from countless Jewish Californians who felt California was legitimizing and amplifying hateful ideas. Hate speech in a state-sponsored document sent to all voters spreads hate and sends a message that this speech is acceptable. It can lead to a direct increase in the number of hate attacks in our community and other groups at risk of hate violence This deep concern is why over 50 Jewish organizations signed on in support of this bill in less than 48 hours California has long led the nation in standing up to hate and protecting the dignity of all of its residents. AB 1853 ensures that the state's own democratic infrastructure reflects those values. That the official publications California sends to millions of homes inform voters and strengthen democracy rather than undermine it. This bill is long overdue and with that we urge your aye vote.
Thank you. Thank you. Is there any additional support? Please come forward. Please state your
name and affiliation if any. Mr. Chairman, members, Dan Filizzotto on behalf of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office in strong support. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Cliff Berg here in
in addition to a jewish california formerly jpac for the following organizations in support of this legislation 30 years after anti-defamation league gaduth israel ajc los angeles ajc northern california ajc american jews committee san diego bay area jewish coalition education and advocacy beverly hills synagogue the board of rabbis of southern california california jewish democrats Contra Costa, Jewish Democrats, Democrats for Israel, Jewish California, liaison for the Federation of San Luis Obispo, JCRC Bay Area, JCRC Jewish Long Beach, Jewish Center for Justice, Jewish Community Action Network, Jewish Federation of Greater Santa Barbara, Jewish Federation of Orange County, Jewish Federation of Palm Springs in the Desert, Jewish Family and Children's Services of San Francisco, the Peninsula, Marin, and Sonoma Counties, the Jewish Federation of San Diego, Jewish Family Services of Los Angeles, Jewish Federation of the Greater San Gabriel and Pomona Valleys, Jewish Family Services of Silicon Valley, Jewish Federation of Sacramento, Jewish Federation of the Bay Area, Jewish Federation of Ventura County, Jewish Free Loan Association, Northern California Council of Jewish Democratic Clubs, Northern California Jewish Labor Committee, Oakland Jewish Alliance, Santa Barbara, JCRC, the Simon Wiesenthal Center Mosaic Law Congregation Jewish families and children's services of Long Beach and Orange County Jewish Family and Children's Services of East Bay Jewish war veterans of the United States and Jewish
Silicon Valley urge your support thank you any additional support seeing none is there any opposition to the bill seeing none we will bring it back to the committee colleagues any questions or comments senator Choi thank you I kind
of understand that because of the unfortunate incident on one of the gubernatorial candidate made hateful speech against Israel and Jewish people You know, freedom of speech is not totally free. You are responsible when you make a statement. You need to stand by and be able to defend personally or legally. And if you stop, even though that principle is very worthy of supporting and accusing and making attacks on a certain individual or country or certain race, So I find it very rare other than this unfortunate instances Usually the candidate statement is in general introduction of himself and herself and what policies he or she is standing on etc But if you make limitations on this candidate statement, we are, we meaning the public or the state or registrar of voters or as the secretary of state will become the judge of that statement and it's a beginning of a statement infringing upon the freedom of speech. How we gonna make that the standard other than the lists that you have made in here the basic principle of how we're going to guard, protect the freedom of speech if this passes.
So as I said in my opening, we're going to be continuing to work on the First Amendment piece of this bill as it makes its way to judiciary. But I can tell you as somebody who served as a chief elections official for 27 plus years in a county, there were times when somebody submitted a candid statement that did contain harmful, irrelevant content. And I challenged them at that on it when it was turned in. And I said, this is not complying because the code section 13307 is very clear for nonpartisan offices of what is and is not allowed. And they agreed with me and took out that paragraph so then I could print the statement as and with the content that did reflect their own personal background and qualifications. So I do believe there's a way to do this, and certainly if anybody objected to any kind of direction as far as parts of a statement that were not allowed, there is time for them to go to court and get a judge to make an opinion because these cases in election matters are expedited. But in practical situations, sometimes Sometimes such candidate statement is not filed way in advance before the deadline. There's a 10-day public inspection period, and during that time is when those processes take place.
Yeah, some people will file it last day.
Yes, they do.
Last minute of last day. Yeah, if that happens and the candidate objects to the objections of the ruling of the clerk at the Registrar's Office, then how are we going to – it's a back and forth. We don't have time.
We actually do because those cases are expedited. And it's there and how – in practical sense, how we can control that kind of practical issues and also personal judgment. I know there are certain words that would not be allowed and even candidate statement, like incumbent is not allowed, so certain mechanical things.
But the content of the candidate statement is a different matter. That's what I'm concerned about.
Well, I mean, the same process takes place with ballot arguments, with ballot designations. All of these things are open to public inspection and challenge, and there's a time built in for that process. and anybody that does go to court that is expedited and happens very quickly usually within 24 48 hours Okay thank you I tell you of course Okay thank you
Okay, I appreciate you putting this bill forward.
I know it came up, it's a gut in a man because it came up quite recently. Recently, I think we were all just horrified that there was even an argument that this kind of vile hate could be in our official voter guide. And there's a long history of elections officials being able to – we don't have to just publish. Just because someone submits it doesn't mean it needs to be published if it doesn't meet the statutory criteria. you can imagine a just a vast array of just horrific statements that people can make have nothing to do with the election or their qualifications and so I appreciate doing this I know that it's a work in progress and you'll continue to ensure that the First Amendment is respected and that the procedure is up to the task in terms of if something is stricken out that people can still have ballot statement they just don't have that offending material inside so I appreciate you putting this forward and I does have an eye recommendation motion by senator Cervantes to to pass and we refer to the committee on rules where I understand that it'll be referred out to the committee on judiciary so we do have
a motion and you may close and I also applaud the effort but as you made reference to Mr. Chair it most likely is coming to Judiciary Committee and will continue to work on Judiciary today I won't be voting on the bill but I will be voting on it and working with you in Judiciary to make sure we accomplish your goals so hopefully we get it out of this committee without your vote so
you can see it well I guess we'll cross that bridge when we come to it all right
thank you okay you may close I respectfully ask for your I vote great
We have a motion by Senator Cervantes, and we'll call the roll. Motion is due passed to the Committee on Rules. Senator is Weiner. Aye. Weiner, aye. Choi?
No.
Choi, no. Allen?
Cervantes? Aye.
Cervantes, aye. Umberg?
Not voting.
Okay. The vote is 2-1. We will put that on call, and we'll proceed to Item 7, AB 1919.
Yes, thank you. My second bill. In 2022, the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District, known as Metro, worked with communities across its service territory to plan a network of bus services, dubbed Reimagine Metro, that would be faster, more frequent, and reliable in areas of high transit demand. Reimagine Metro Phase 1, launched in December of 2023, implemented new higher-frequency routes from Watsonville to Santa Cruz. Reimagine Metro Phase 2, which began implementation in March 2024, expanded Metro's network of frequent routes and increased ridership by 43%. Reimagine Metro Phase 1 and 2 were funded by a one-time infusion of $28.3 million in 2023. This funding will run out in 2026. To prevent service and job cuts after this funding runs out, Metro must secure additional state or local funding. Failure to secure additional funds will impact service to residents of Santa Cruz and Watsonville and will lead to significant metro employee layoffs. AB 1919 would add election procedures to address a gap in current law, which fails to outline how a qualified voter initiative for a local jurisdiction without elections procedures like Metro may be placed on the ballot. This Central Coast Caucus legislative priority bill simply gives voters in my district the power to decide the future of their transit system while protecting union jobs through a citizens initiative. And with me to testify in support is Brendan Ripicky from SYASL Partners representing Santa Cruz Metro and Local 23 General Chairman Jaime Renteria. Thank you very much. You each
have two minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Brendan Rpicki, on behalf of Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District, you're sponsoring AB 1919. I want to thank the author for carrying the measure. Very briefly, just would emphasize that there's a local group of advocates in Santa Cruz County currently pursuing signatures to sponsor a citizens initiative. As the author noted, Metro's authorizing statutes in the Public Utilities Code do not currently include a process for residents to actually place an initiative on the ballot. This bill would merely enshrine those procedures into our authorizing statutes. Ask for your aye vote. Thank you.
Good morning to all. Thank you very much. My name is Jaime Renteria. I'm the general chairperson for Smart Local 23. I represent roughly 250 fixed operators and paracruz transit operators as well. What more can be said after what Ms. Pellerin said? We are looking for your help. We're looking for your eye on this matter. This is imperative. Everybody's going through a hard time, especially now with the government that we have right now. The lower communities are mostly affected. If this bill doesn't go through, if we don't make it happen, our lower communities, our poor people, if you want to call it, are going to be suffering the greatest. Right now, I can tell you from driving a big truck that is hurting financially to fill it up just to go to work. Now, if that's my situation, can you imagine everybody else's? Our services have increased to over 40%. When this bill doesn't happen, that's going to be reduced, and then we are going to lose the faith of our community. We strongly respectfully request for your vote and your aye vote on this matter. Thank you very much. Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, go ahead. I'm also a bus operator. I keep forgetting that. They keep reminding me to tell you that. I'm also a bus operator, and I have been here 21 years serving my community. Thank you.
Additional support, please come forward.
Morning, Scott Brent, Smart Local 1201, and we are in support. Thank you.
Good morning, Jesus Gonzalez, Smart Local 23, in support.
Morning, Mr. Chair. Members, Louis Costa with Smart Transportation Division, State Legislative Board, in support. Proud co-sponsor as well.
Thank you. Any additional support? Is there any opposition to the bill? Okay, seeing none. Oh, sorry. Please come forward.
Scott Kaufman, Howard Jarvis, Taxpayers Association in opposition.
Thank you. Any additional opposition? Okay, seeing none, we'll bring it back to the committee. Colleagues, any questions or comments? Okay, seeing none, can I have a motion? Motion. Okay, a motion by Senator Cervantes, and that will be a due pass and re-refer to the Committee on Transportation.
I am supporting this bill. First of all, thank you for getting people around by bus. Public transportation is essential for our state in so many levels. And obviously, sometimes we focus on the big metropolitan urban areas, the largest cities. But it's important throughout the state. And as you note there are so many people in not just cities but in suburbia and rural areas who if the bus doesn come or it not coming frequently enough they can get to work or to school and so this is incredibly important so with that you may close yeah thank you so much this is a simple bill to let my people vote i respectfully ask for an i
vote uh great um we will call the roll motion is due pass to the committee on transportation senators weiner aye weiner aye choy no choy no allen cervantes aye cervantes aye umbrick Okay, that is 3 to 1. We'll put that on call. And then we have one final bill by some member Alvarez, who I... Two minutes, okay. Why don't we...
Senator Umberg, why don't we open the roll so you can add on while we're waiting? Very kind of you, Mr. Chair.
Okay. Okay. Okay, so first we'll open the roll on the consent agenda. Please call the absent members. Items include file item 5, 9, 10, and 11. Senators Allen, Umberg?
Aye. Umberg, aye.
Okay, we'll put that back on call. Item 1, AB 1116, please call the absent members. Motion is due passed to the Committee on Appropriations. Currents votes 2-1. Chair voted aye. Vice chair voted no.
Allen, Umberg? Aye.
Umberg, aye. Okay, we'll put that back on call. Item 2, AB 1539, please call the absent members. Motions do pass to the Committee on Public Safety. Current votes 2-1. Chair voted aye. Vice-chair voted no.
Allen, Umberg? Aye.
Umberg, aye. Put that back on call. Item number 3, AB 1562, please call the absent members. Motion is do pass as amended. Current votes 2-0. Chair voted aye.
Choi?
Allen?
Umberg? Aye.
Umberg, aye. Which one? That was 1562. I think you abstained before. Put that back on call. Item 4, AB 1664, please call the absent members. Motions do pass as amended to the Committee on Public Safety. Current votes 2-1. Chair voted aye.
Vice Chair voted no.
Allen?
Umberg? Aye.
Umberg, aye. Okay, we'll put that back on call. And you're on. He's on everything else. Okay. Um. Oops. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Welcome, Assemblymember. We will go to Item Number 8, AB 2484, and you may present.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, members. I want to thank you all for your work on this and the opportunity to present AB 2484. 2484 ensures that voters in San Diego have the authority to decide on the future of the public transit system. First and foremost, clarify that this bill does not create or impose a tax of any kind. It would allow voters to choose whether to authorize a local transactions and use tax dedicated to funding the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System, known as MTS, through a local ballot initiative. At its core, AB 2484 is about local control, voters' choice, and planning ahead for the future of San Diego's transit system. It clarifies that voters may propose and approve a local transactions use tax of up to 0.5% that is dedicated to MTS through the initiative process. It also ensures that any voter-approved MTS tax is excluded from the existing statutory cap on local sales taxes, protecting other local funding priorities. MTS is not just our local transit provider. It's truly the backbone of the mobility of San Diego County. It serves approximately 3 million residents across 10 cities and unincorporated areas in the county. In fiscal year 2025, MTS delivered over 81 million trips and has covered more than 95% of its pre-pandemic ridership. And it now ranks 13th in the nation. It's a system we're proud of. I used to serve on the board of MTS. It's growing, it's improving, and being used every day, especially by the people who depend on it most. In fact, the statistics are that 78% of riders rely on transit as their primary mode, only mode of transportation and no more than two use it to get to work or school Particularly in my district I represent the border region Assembly District 80 MTS has a strong ridership market with almost 80 of MTS ridership in the southern part of San Diego But despite the success, MTS is approaching a fiscal cliff. Beginning in 2030, the agency faces structural deficit for more than $120 million, driven by rising operating costs, workforce needs, and limited local funding. just over four years, that gap would exceed half a billion dollars. So if we do not address our public transit infrastructure's growing budget deficit, we risk severely limiting access to people who depend on it for jobs, for education, and essential services in the very communities that rely on it most. Now I'd like to turn it over for a presentation by Art Witness.
Hi, Ezra Shaban with Don and Shaban Strategies on behalf of San Diego Metropolitan Transportation System. I want to thank the chair and committee staff for your time and analysis of the bill and
the author for his leadership in this bill that's really critical to the transit future of the San Diego region. The assembly members' comments were exceedingly thorough, so I won't rehash. Suffice it to say, significant reductions in either frequency or routes would be required if there is not a new sustainable funding source. This bill allows the voters of San Diego MTS service territory to decide for themselves whether they want to invest in those services and future. I'm happy to answer any technical questions. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.
Okay. Any additional support? Please come forward.
Good morning, Mr. Chair. On behalf of the City of Chula Vista, happy to support the bill.
Good morning, Shane Gussman. On behalf of the Amalgamated Transit Union, in support.
Any additional support? Any opposition? Please come forward.
Scott Kaufman, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, in opposition.
Any additional opposition? Seeing no one, bring it back to the committee. Any comments or questions? Okay, seeing none. Motion by Senator Allen, and that is do pass and refer to the Committee on Transportation. You may close.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee members. Yeah, we're trying to get ahead of this, and hopefully the voters decide to put this on the ballot, and then they decide to vote on this in 2028. So while this won't be happening this year, by doing this bill this year and allowing this to happen to raise that cap, It gives the local community that that option at least put it on the table and hopefully With your votes today, we can give them that option respectfully ask for I vote. Thank you
Okay, thank you. We will call the roll Motion is do pass to the committee on transportation senators weiner I we know I Choi Allen Allen I So want this I umberg umberg I Okay, and again senator is not returning Okay, great. So item number eight, the vote is four to zero. That bill is out. And that is our final presentation. We will now open the roll on previously voted items. We'll start Consent agenda, please call the absent member. Items on consent, 5. File item 9, file item 10, file item 11.
Senator Allen? Aye.
Allen, aye. 5-0. The consent agenda is approved. We'll now go to item number 1, AB 1116. Please call absent member. Current votes 3-1. Chair voted aye. Vice Chair voted no.
Allen? Aye.
Allen, aye. 4-1. The bill is out. Item number 2, AB 1539, please call absent members. Current votes 3-1, chair voted aye, vice chair voted no.
Allen? Aye.
Allen, aye. 4-1, the bill is out. Item number 3, AB 1562, please call absent members. Current votes 3-0, chair voted aye. Choi? Allen?
Aye.
Allen, aye. 4-0, the bill is out. Item number 4 AB 1664 please call absent members current votes 3 chair voted aye vice chair voted no Allen AB 1664 current votes 3 chair voted aye vice chair voted no
Allen? Aye.
Allen, aye. That's 4-1. The bill is out. And then item number 6, AB 1853, please call absent member. Current votes 2-1, chair voted aye, vice chair voted no.
Allen? Aye.
Allen, aye. Umberg. Okay, so 3 to 1. That bill is out. Item 7, AB 1919. Please call the absent member. Claremment votes 3 to 1. Chair voted aye. Vice chair voted no.
Allen. Allen, aye.
4 to 1. That bill is out. Is that everything?
That is everything.
Cool. Okay. So we've completed the agenda. Thank you to everyone who participated.
And with that, the committee is adjourned.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you. Thank you.