Elections — 2026-06-17 (partial)

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Good morning. I'd like to call the June 17th, 2026 hearing to order. And before we, okay, we don't have a quorum. So we will begin as a subcommittee. If members of the committee are monitoring this hearing, please come to room 444 of the state capitol so that we can establish a quorum. I'd like to welcome everyone who's here in the hearing room today and who's watching the hearing online. For the purpose of this hearing, we are accepting witness testimony in person, and we are also accepting written testimony through our legislature's position letter portal. That portal can be accessed through the committee's website at aelc.assembly.ca.gov. The committee has 10 measures on its agenda for today. Six bills are proposed for consent, and SB 1369 by Reyes has been pulled by the author. When we hear the bills on the agenda, we will hear from a maximum of two primary witnesses in support and two primary witnesses in opposition to the bill, with a limit of two minutes per witness. As a reminder, primary witnesses in support are those designated by the author. Other witnesses are limited to providing their name, the organization they represent, if any, and their position on the bill. Additional comments will be ruled out of order. We seek to protect the rights of all who participate in the legislative process so that we can have effective deliberation and decisions on the critical issues facing California. In order to facilitate the committee's business and public participation in today's hearing, we will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings. Violations of these rules may subject you to removal or other enforcement action. Before we move on to the agenda, I have some additional announcements to make. First, our former vice chair of this committee, Assemblymember James Gallagher, was elected to Congress and is no longer a member of the Assembly. So we want to wish him well in his new endeavor. But that being the case, the vice chair of this committee is currently vacant, and that spot has not been filled for today's committee hearing. Second, I have a letter from the Speaker appointing Assemblymember Tom Lackey to replace Assemblymember Natasha Johnson on the committee for purposes of today's hearing. Welcome, Mr. Lackey. It's good to have you back. And with that being said, we will now move on to the committee's agenda. And we can't take up consent yet because we don't have a quorum. So we have an author in the room, and that is Senator Reyes. And you have item 7, SB 1414. So when you're ready, please proceed.

Thank you. And you have two minutes.

Cause, stepping in for my colleague, who unfortunately was not able to make it. So I'll

other people in the room that like to step to the mic and share your name, organization, and your

proud co-sponsors of the bill. Thank you. We'll now move on to the primary witnesses in opposition. Please step up to the mic and you have two minutes.

The county provided opportunities for public participation in person, virtually, and in writing with engagement from stakeholders, including labor organizations, business groups, nonprofit organizations, and community-based organizations. Our current supervisorial map was the culmination of 16 public meetings across 14 locations throughout the county. And absent evidence that our existing process has failed, the need for this bill remains unclear. Second, we are concerned that the costs associated with the bill are not sufficiently addressed. Comparable independent redistricting commissions cost approximately $1.2 million in Los Angeles County and $1.5 million in San Diego County during the 2021 cycle, despite those counties not facing the same geographic and outreach challenges as we do, being the largest county in the state. We estimate implementation costs for this bill would exceed $2 million due to complex procedural outreach and compliance requirements in the bill. And as such, we respectfully request a no vote on SB 1414. Thank you. Are there any other people in the room that like to step to the mic and share your name, organization, and your position on the bill? James Coos, representing California Association of Clerks and Election Officials. We are in an opposed and less amended position. Good morning. Elisa Arcidio-Cono on behalf of the cities of Chino Hills, Upland, and Hesperia in opposition. Thank you. Thank you. Seeing nobody else in the room, we're bringing back the dais. Any questions or comments? Assemblymember Lucky. Yeah, first of all, let me just say that the majority of my district now is San Bernardino County, and I've never seen such a high-functioning board as the current Board of Supervisors that exist. And I'm very appreciative for the example. And what I mean is not necessarily I'm not into the day-to-day activities, but I do see the engagement level that they participate They show up They don just send staff I actually see members of the board come to small communities never seen that before so I think the representation issue you know what's fair is very debatable it's in the eye of the beholder and I would just say that I don't see any unfairness the The fact is, I've seen just the opposite. I've seen such strong performance by this board of supervisors that I don't see anything broken. So don't fix it. That's my very strong feeling based on fair observation. It has nothing to do with politics. It has everything to do with representation. And it has everything to do with the heart being there, being present, showing up. It's unusual. It's unusual. And I'm very thankful for the example that they set, and I will not be able to support this. Thank you. Any other questions or comments from committee members? Assemblymember Bennett. I'll move the bill if this is appropriate, even though we don't have a quorum yet. I appreciate the enthusiasm. Thank you. Anything else from committee members? Seeing none, Senator, you may close. Thank you so much. I do want to address. I think that when we look at the people who are in a position here are the supervisors. We have some wonderful supervisors. There's no question about that. And I've seen them be active. I happen to be in a district and part of the San Bernardino County where I've always seen all of the supervisors throughout my, I've lived my entire life there, throughout my entire life that I've been involved in any kind of politics or any kind of community groups. I've seen our supervisors involved. And so we're very lucky in San Bernardino County in that way that we do have engaged supervisors now and in the past. I think that this has to do less with a person than it does with fair representation at the county level, making sure that there is a process that will protect each individual group, each individual person that is a citizen of the county, not the representative themselves. It's the people that get to pick their representative, not the representative that gets to pick who they represent. And I think that's extremely important. And we have to have a basis for the future. I think that this is a proven model for the state of California and for the various counties that have already taken this on. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you so much. I believe the state certainly would be better served by a more comprehensive framework for establishing redistricting commissions statewide because broader efforts have not been successful. I continue to support these individual measures that expand the use of a citizens redistricting committee. I recognize that this bill has generated more opposition than prior proposals. And I encourage the author to continue working with the stakeholders to see if you can address some of their concerns as the bill moves forward. At the same time, I believe it's important that any new redistricting commission be broadly consistent with the structures and standards the legislature has established for similar commissions in other jurisdictions. So for that reason, I am recommending support with the technical amendments outlined in the analysis. Okay, so we have a quorum, so we're going to go ahead and call the roll. Pellerin? Here. Pellerin here Bennett Here Bennett here Berman El Here El Here Lackey Here Lackey Here Solache Stephanie Here Stephanie Here We have a quorum Okay, and we have a motion on this bill from Assemblymember Bennett. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Assemblymember El-Hawari. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. On SB 1414, the motion is due pass as amended and re-refer to the Committee on Local Government. Pellerin? Aye. Pellerin, aye. Bennett? Aye. Bennett, aye. Berman? El-Hawari? Aye. El-Hawari, aye. Lackey? No. Lackey, no. Salache? Stephanie? Aye. Stephanie, aye. We're going to keep that bill on call pending the arrival of our other members but thank you so much Thank you Make it a great day See you soon on the other All right, sounds good Our next author in the room we have Senator Adegu He's got item 2, SB 830 Come on down And Madam Chair, may I begin? Absolutely. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair, members, for the opportunity to present Senate Bill 830. I want to thank the Chair and the Committee for your work with my office and the bill's sponsors on this bill. I will be accepting the committee amendments in numbers six and seven of the analysis. After consulting with staff and the committee, we did propose author amendments in number two of the analysis, but we will not be moving forward with those at this time because it will impact the timeline of this bill advancing in the legislature. This bill does have an urgency clause given the importance of putting these technical changes into statute as soon as possible because the measure has qualified for the ballot and will be on the ballot this November, and election officials in the five counties will need to start administering the elections, so it's important that these technical changes take effect immediately. And unfortunately, accepting the amendment around reimbursement would mean that it would have to go to appropriations, which would delay the timeline for the effective date of these amendments. But I appreciate the engagement with committee staff and also with the counties on this particular issue. And I just want to clarify that this bill makes minor clarifying changes to the election administration duties and procedures related to Senate Bill 63, including designating a name for the ballot measure and allow for different arguments per county to consider the geographical funding differences. This is consistent with previous multi-county measures in the Bay Area, such as Regional Measure 3, which the legislature authorized in 2017. With the passage of SB 63 last year, the legislature authorized a 14-year regional public transit sales tax measure for the November 2026 ballot. And as I mentioned, petitions were submitted to qualify that measure for the five-county regional ballot. If approved by the voters, revenue for the tax would provide critically needed transit operations funding to save BART, Caltrade, Muni, and AC Transit from collapse, while also providing new revenues for local transit priorities and institute new and unprecedented accountability and financial efficiency requirements. SB 63 also includes accountability measures to improve financial efficiency and transparency, as well as provide a direct mechanism for counties to petition for operator funds to be partially withheld. It's the first time this has ever happened. Partially withheld if an operator is not consistently or fairly applying the performance metrics that are specified in SB 63. The narrow changes we are seeking under SB 830 have no effect on either the intent or the substance of the existing law. The expenditure plan and accountability measures approved in the prior bill through extensive stakeholder engagement remain unchanged. This bill is no opposition and support from a broad coalition of labor, climate, and business groups. And with me to testify in support of the bill, Sean Elsbrim, the president and CEO of SPUR, and Gene Cohen, the executive director of the South Bay Labor Council. Thank you. Great to see you both. You each have two minutes. Go ahead. Good morning, Chair. Good morning, Chair Pellerin and committee members. My name is Gene Cohen. I'm the Executive Officer of the South Bay Labor Council. Working people and our economy depend on a strong public transportation system every day. That's why we support SB 830. Transit operators, maintenance workers, construction workers, janitors, and countless others depend on reliable transit services, both as riders and as employees. SB 30 provides important technical clarifications for county elections officials and improves in transparency for voters. For labor, the stakes are high. This measure is a critical opportunity to protect essential transit operations and preserve the good union jobs at VTA, BART, Caltrain, Muni, and AC Transit. It also creates a pathway for future capital investments that support thousands of skilled construction jobs and apprenticeship programs. We support the clarification that election costs incurred by county registrars of voters will be covered by MTC and ask that the money comes from funds for administration, not projects. Counties should not be left bearing the cost of administering a regional measure, and this provision ensures that those expenses are appropriately reimbursed. Additionally, we encourage MTC to continue discussions with Santa Clara County about outstanding cost recovery opportunities. A healthy transit system is essential to the Bay Area economy, strong communities, and good union jobs. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your support of SB 830. Thank you. Thank you. And you have two minutes. Thank you. Good morning, Chair Pellerin. My name is Sean Nilsburn. I am President and CEO of the San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Center, SPUR. It's my privilege to be here today. I'd like to specifically thank Assemblywoman Stephanie and Assemblyman Berman for being co-authors of this bill. Thank you for your partnership in this. SPUR is honored and really thrilled to be a part of this campaign, to be here with the South Bay Labor Council, not here with us, but certainly standing with us throughout the Bay Area, CIU 1021, and the business side, Bay Area Council, Sam Sita, and well over 300,000 residents of the Bay Area who signed the petition that we submitted just a couple of weeks ago. Specifically to SB 830, the specific points that really resonate, it gives the measure a uniform title and placement of the measure in each of the five counties. Further, it allows each county to select their own ballot arguments in favor of and against the measures to reflect the differences of the measure in each county. As you may know, SB 63 set it up where four of the five counties have a half cent sales tax increase while San Francisco County has a full set sales tax increase It a different argument in each of the counties Much more in San Francisco the revenue raise goes specifically to operations Whereas for example in Santa Clara some of the money goes to operations some goes to capital some goes to road repaving It different in each county. This bill allows us to highlight those differences, both the pro and, respectfully, the con. And so it is a good measure, cleanup measure, and important to just simply remind everybody that public transit isn't optional in the San Francisco Bay Area. Public transit enables so many people to live and stay in our region. And for all of those reasons, we appreciate the opportunity to help ourselves at the ballot by supporting SB 830. Thank you. Wonderful. Thank you so much. Is there anybody else in the room that would like to add on as please state your name, organization, and your position? Madam Chair and members, Bob Giroux on behalf of the National Union of Healthcare Workers and the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades in support of the bill. Good morning. Steve Wallach on behalf of the Alameda Contra Costa Transit District in support. Good morning. Aaliyah Griffin with the American Federation of State and Municipal Employees in support. Good morning. Catherine Charles on behalf of the Bay Area Council, a co-sponsor of SB 63 in strong support. Thank you. Good morning. Laura Tolkoff with SPUR on behalf of several members of our coalition offering support. SEIU, State Council, East Bay Housing Organization, Trans Bay Coalition, Seamless Bay Area, and Climate Action California. Thank you. Thank you. We'll now move on to primary witnesses in opposition. Anyone in the room? Anyone who just wants to add their name as someone who's opposed to this measure? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the dais. Any questions or comments? Assemblymember Stephanie. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the author for bringing this forward. I'm pleased to support SB 830 and to be a co-author. This is obviously a common sense bill, no opposition. We all know that the Bay Area is facing a severe funding crisis when it comes to transportation, And without action, we risk devastating service cuts to the system that millions of Californians rely on every day to get to work, to school, to their medical appointments and so much more. And with SB 63, local leaders, labor, business, environmental advocates, transit riders have all come together to put forward a regional approach. If the Bay Area is going to ask voters to make a significant investment in public transportation, I believe we have a responsibility to make sure that we clearly articulate that on the ballot and we do it so that the voters can understand what we're trying to do in each county. SB 830 provides the tools necessary to administer this unique multi-county measure in a way that is transparent, understandable, and responsive to the needs of voters in each county. I truly believe that this is about giving the best opportunity to have an honest conversation with voters about the future of public transportation. This is dire. Mr. Ellsburn said it best when he said public transit isn't optional in the Bay Area. It just is not. We have to do everything we can to make sure that these measures pass in November and communicating with our voters is first and foremost. The stakes are much too high for us to get this wrong. So, again, thank you for bringing this forward, and I look forward to voting for it. Thank you. Assemblymember Berman. Well, I want to second everything my colleague Ms. Stephanie said, and I won't be as eloquent as her, but it's always good to see my friend, Jean. And I don't think I've seen you testifying up here before. No, not recently. This is fun But as was noted this is bringing the labor community and the business community together This is something that I mean I probably and thank you Senator for you know introducing this bill Public transit is so important for so many of our community members. But it's also important because as Silicon Valley and San Francisco and the Bay Area is kind of getting its mojo back, so is our traffic. And it's now something that I get to experience on a daily basis as I come back and forth to Sacramento more often than I used to. and sometimes I go up the peninsula and through the city and across the bridge. Sometimes I go across the Dumbarton and up the East Bay and it doesn't really matter which way you go. There are a lot of people on the road and if we don't have a functioning you know first world public transit system we're going to have even more people on the road and that's bad for everybody and so this really is something that benefits every member of the every every person who lives in the Bay Area regardless of whether or not they use public transit and we need the flexibility that we have in the measure so that every county can, you know, appropriately, you know, take care of the different issues that we all have in our different communities. So happy to support it, happy to be a co-author, encourage all my colleagues to support it, and thank you, everybody, for coming and testifying and presenting the bill. Thank you. And Assemblymember Bennett. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And to make an unusual request, usually if you live outside of the district, you don't co-author a district bill. But I'm asking to be a co-author of this bill, and I want to explain why. As the chair of Budget Sub-4, we have been battling the issue of the transit funding. And one of the things that we've consistently asked from the state is that local communities help themselves and that the state can help best when local communities are already helping themselves. And the Bay Area stepped up to do that. And that's part of why I would like to be a co-author of this to highlight the fact that this is the formula that we need in the state of California in terms of being able to fund transit. We've been talking about the transit loan, SB 125, all of those things, but they're all part of and contingent upon areas stepping up and trying to help themselves as we go forward. On top of that, we've had a significant change since we entered into sort of that partnership more than a year ago, and that is GGRF funding is going to be much less. And as a result of some of the policy bills that we adopted last year, current funding for transit has been put down in Tier 3 and is not projected to be there, according to a lot of projections that are out there. So this is really an important measure, and we have a sort of secondary crisis coming because transit was promised $247 million and simply doesn't look like it's going to appear at this point in time. So with that, I wanted to use this opportunity to try to highlight that. Thank you very much for bringing this bill forward. Thank you. Any other questions or comments from committee members? Seeing none, Senator, you may close. Well, I'd be honored to have you, Senator Bennett, as a co-author, and thank you for your incredible leadership on not just advocating for transit funding in California, but for making sure that we realize the commitment that was made when we adopted SB 842, the cap and invest legislation. 840. 840 and the agreement we have between the administration and the legislature to make sure we funding transit housing clean water clean air programs to be able to address climate impacts and improve the health and well of Californians. So I really appreciate your leadership as the chair of the subcommittee. It'd be honored to have you as a co-author's bill. And once again, this is a simple bill just to make very technical changes now that this measure is going to be on the ballot in these five counties to make sure that the election officials can administer the election effectively to recognize the distinction between how the funding will be applied in each county with respect to the ballot arguments and to make sure that the administration this election can happen effectively. So respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you so much, Senator. I appreciate your leadership on this issue, and it's great to see Ms. Cohen here testifying. The bill makes an exception to legislation that I authored four years ago, AB 773, to allow different ballot arguments to appear in the ballot for the various counties. So given the unique nature of the revenue measure that the voters will consider in November and its different effect on the counties, I'm comfortable with making that exception in this case. I also want to thank the author for accepting the committee's proposed amendments provide for county elections officials to select the official arguments for and against transit measure consistent with our existing law. I would be also honored to be added as a co-author, if you'll have me. And with those amendments, I'm recommending support. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. Oh, we have it. We need a motion. Okay. We have a motion by Berman, second by Stephanie. Now we can call the roll. On SB 830, the motion is due pass as amended. Pellerin? Aye. Pellerin? Aye. Bennett? Aye. Bennett? Aye. Berman? Aye. Berman? Aye. Elhawari? Aye. Elhawari? Aye. Lackey? Not voting. Lackey is not voting. Salache? Stephanie? Aye. Stephanie? Aye. Stephanie? Aye. That bill's up five to one, but we'll keep the roll open for our absent member. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. Thank you. We're now. Yeah. Okay. We've got, um, at this time we'd like to take up the committee's consent calendar. There are six bills on consent. The committee secretary, please read the items on consent. File item one SB 401 by Hurtado. The motion is due passed to appropriations with recommendation to consent calendar file item 4 is sb 1175 by Rubio Motion is due passes amended with recommendation to consent calendar file item number six s b 1389 by dolly Motion is due pass two appropriations with recommendation to consent file item number 8 SB 1420 by Richardson motion is due passes amended to appropriations with recommendation to consent file item number 9 SB 1431 by the Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments. Motion is due pass to appropriations with recommendation to consent calendar. And finally, file item number 10, SB 1432 by the Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments. Motion is due pass as amended to appropriations with recommendation to consent calendar. Does any member wish to remove an item from consent? Seeing none, do I have a motion on the consent calendar? So moved. Moved by Lackey. Second. Seconded by Southern Member Berman. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. Pellerin. Aye. Pellerin. Aye. Bennett. Aye. Bennett. Aye. Berman. Aye. Berman. Aye. El-Hawari. Aye. El-Hawari. Aye. Lackey. Aye. Lackey. Aye. Salache. Stephanie. Aye. Stephanie. Aye. That was sexy. Consent calendar is out 6-0, but we'll keep the roll open for our absent member. We'll now move on to our last bill, and that is Item 3, SB 970 by Senator Cervantes. Please begin when you're ready. Good morning, Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to present Senate Bill 970 today. In passing this bill, we would be honoring the legacy of our greatest generation, who in World War II fought in theaters as far-flung as Saipan and Guam in the Pacific and in France and the rest of Western Europe, and nonetheless cast ballots in the 1944 presidential election. After the enactment of the Soldier Voting Rights Act 1944 and the introduction of the federal war ballot, nearly 2.5 million of U.S. Armed Service members deployed overseas cast their ballot. However, the logistical challenges in providing and returning ballots from service members deployed literally around the world amounted to only 25% voter participation rate. In 1955, in response to the difficulties experienced during World War II, Congress created the Federal Voting Assistance Program to assist members of the U.S. Armed Forces and their families to vote when deployed overseas. In 1986, Congress followed up with the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, which required states to allow military and overseas voters to vote by absentee ballot. During the Gulf War in 1990, FVAP initiated the Electronic Transmission Service, which permitted military voters to submit their ballots by fax to alleviate the logistical issues posed by sending and returning ballots to and from the Middle East by mail. In 2009, Congress expanded the population of voters who would avail themselves of FVAP to include American citizens who are civilians living overseas through the enactment of the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act. In 2018, the Electronic Transmission Service was narrowed into the DOD Fax Service, which allowed military and overseas voters to submit their ballots using an email-to-fax system only if their home state did not accept documents by email. Unfortunately, in August of 2025, the federal government announced that FVAP would be discontinuing the DOD Fax Service. In last November's statewide special election, many of these voters had logistical issues either receiving their ballots at all or submitting their ballots by mail in time to be counted. As we know, the Postal Service announced that it would terminate mail service to several countries, including many where the U.S. military maintains bases. We have large numbers of American military personnel deployed overseas in the ongoing conflict with Iran. This is not a hypothetical problem. In 2024, the Brennan Center reported the story of a couple who were both members of the armed services deployed in Germany who mailed their ballots to the United States three weeks before Election Day. In the end, their voices were not heard because even though they sent their ballots back weeks in advance, they did not arrive in time to be processed and counted. This is not uncommon. In 2024, the Department of Defense surveyed found that one in seven military voters did not receive a mail ballot in time to vote or did not receive a ballot at all Last month the San Francisco Chronicle published a story about the obstacles military and overseas voters face in trying to cast their ballots. They spoke to a civilian voter from San Mateo County living in Munich, who, as a few days prior to the primary election, had not received their mail ballot. California must step up and ensure military and overseas voters from our state to retain the ability to exercise our sacred right to vote. This bill will accomplish that goal by requiring the Secretary of State to promulgate regulations allowing military and overseas voters to submit their ballots through a secured method. I do want to acknowledge that there are stakeholders, including the Secretary of State, who have expressed concerns about ensuring the method of submission is secure. I do share that same desire to ensure that military and overseas voters can cast their ballots in a way that maintains essential integrity of our election systems and public faith in the results of our elections. My team and I will continue to work and have conversations with all the stakeholders and look forward to continuing the work together to find a path forward to strike a balance between security and improving lawfully registered voters have access to the ballot. You know, I'm thinking about the sailor from California who might be serving in the USS Abraham Lincoln. Maybe he's from Riverside. Maybe he is they, she or they are from San Diego. And because they are from California, they are going to have a more difficult time to be able to cast that ballot in the upcoming gubernatorial election. On the other hand, they have a bunkmate who may be from Las Vegas where they are able to cast a vote because Nevada provides far more options for their military and overseas voters to cast their ballot. This is a basic equity issue. I am confident that we could get this right. And I am confident that we will be able to provide access to the ballots for our military and overseas voters. This is a project that began generations ago during the Second World War. Today, we have our sponsors of the bill who will testify, the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials, James Coos from the Fresno County Registrar of Voters. Thank you so much. You have two minutes. Good morning, Chairman, paneling, and esteemed members. My name is James Coos. I'm the Fresno County Clerk Registrar of Voters, and I'm here today on behalf of the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials, proud co-sponsor of this bill. And we very much want to thank Senator Cervantes for authoring this bill and bringing it forward. As the senators mentioned, a prime route for the delivery of overseas and military ballots has been ended by the federal government. The Department of Defense fact service was the simplest, cleanest, directest route for those military members overseas and general citizens living overseas to provide a quick return. We do still maintain a vote by mail process that they can access. And under federal law, we do actually send out ballots early to our UACABA overseas and military, 15 days earlier than we send to local. But that does not actually ensure that they're able to return it quickly and efficiently. Our goal with this bill is to provide a access route a secure access route one that the Secretary of State can work with all stakeholders to ensure remain secure remains private for the overseas voters This has been done in other states Colorado, Nevada have home-built routes for their overseas voters to return their ballots. Massachusetts and Rhode Island have used vendor routes to go. So there are options out there and available. And we can work with them to create a secure route to do that. And we are committed to working with the Secretary of State to meet that need, to meet both the needs of the voters and the security needs of our processes. It's important to note that any solution here will not directly link with voting systems. So when we talk about that email security, It is purely about the individual ballot that we're protecting. Our systems are completely separate from this, and no way would this impact our certified, secured voting systems in California. Lastly, I do want to note, since we have just had the June election, Fresno County has had to reject four UOCAVA voters because we received their ballot after the seven-day window to have a properly postmarked ballot returned. That includes one voter who mailed it on May 20th in Canada, and we didn't receive it until June 12th. So this is an ongoing issue, and we very much hope that we can get a solution found in time for the 2028 presidential cycle. Thank you so much. Is there anybody else in the room that would like to add on in support of this measure? Please come to the mic. State your name, organization, and your position, please. Thank you. Good morning. Mark Ysidra with the County of Los Angeles in support. Thank you. Good morning. Emma Jungwirth on behalf of the California State Association of Counties in support. Josh Gogger on behalf of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors in support. Thank you. And we have a motion when we're ready. And we will now move on to primary witnesses and opposition. Anyone in the room opposed to this bill? Please come on up. And you have two minutes when you're ready. Good morning, Madam Chair and members. I would like to clarify that we are not in opposition. However, we do have lingering concerns about SB 970 in its current form and have submitted to the author and the committee amendments which would provide for a task force to study the problem and make recommendations to the legislature on how to proceed by the end of 2027. As noted in your committee analysis, the bill does not define what qualifies as a secure ballot return method, nor does it establish any specific requirements or standards and provides SOS with discretion but no clear guidance. This supports the argument for our proposed amendments, which would provide that guidance. Today, we have consensus on both the existence of a problem regarding military and overseas voters and the need to take action in light of the defunding of the DOD fact service that facilitated return of ballots for those stationed overseas. What we do not have is consensus on what specific action to take. The current version of the bill provides direction that is vague and at best in terms of what regulations would look like. What is needed in our belief is a path to developing consensus among policymakers on what specific action to pursue to ensure military and overseas voters are not disenfranchised our amendments provide that The mechanism is a task force for the public process of evaluating and weighing options looking at best practices nationwide and calling in experts in the cybersecurity fields in government, private sector, and academia to get their input. It is not an open-ended study. It requires a report to the legislature that must be made by December 2027. The reality is there will likely have to be an electronic solution of some kind. But before we overturn a statute protecting California's voting system and California's 54 votes in the Electoral College from electronic tampering, we believe a prudent approach is to study the problem in a deliberate fashion, identify best practices by examining what other states are doing and their degree of success, and if possible, develop solid consensus among our policymakers in and out of the legislature on a specific course of action. So to recap, the current version of the bill provides direction that's vague. We believe we need a path that will guide policymakers to a specific option. And again, we urge action, but action that is deliberate and thoughtful rather than by regulatory fiat. The integrity of future elections is at issue and the stakes could not be higher. Thank you. And can you please identify yourself with the record? Tim Cromartie, I apologize. Tim Cromartie on behalf of Secretary of State Shirley and Weber. Thank you so much. Is there anybody else in the room that would like to add on as someone who is opposed to this measure? Please come to the mic or tweeners. Good morning, Madam Chair and members. I wasn't anticipating to come up and make any comments, but in light of the discussion, I wanted to. Ignacio Hernandez on behalf of Verified Voting. We are election technology experts, nonpartisan, that have worked state, local, federal government, both parties. We were opposed to the bill on the prior version because it referenced specifically mandated electronic transmission as part of the regulations. That reference was deleted, so we were officially neutral on the bill. In light of some of the discussion today, we have some concerns about electronic transmission based on the testimony of the proponents, electronic transmission may still be part of this, could be part of the regulations, and that does concern us. I know the analysis referenced it as well. Electronic transmission of return of ballots is the highest security risk. And so our experts are available for discussions, Secretary of State, the author, which we've been talking to, you know, last few months. But if that's still on the table, then that is concerning for us.

Okay.

Thank you. I allowed you to expand your comments because you are a second primary witness now. So you just took it from there. Anybody else in the room who wants to just add on with their name, organization, and position? and opposed. Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the dais.

So through the chair?

So, yes, we've had many discussions for the last several months as it relates to giving the Secretary of State the opportunity to find solutions and path forward, given the concerns around electronic submission, which is why we removed that language out of the bill. I believe that today we will continue. My commitment is to continue having these discussions around what that path looks like, but certainly would like to just acknowledge the amendments today. I don't believe that a task force is the route that I would like to see moving forward, just in all transparency. I believe that provides—this is not appropriations, but I believe that adds more cost, and we're not trying to add more cost at the end of the day. And I really would like to find a balanced solution here to give our military and overseas members just simply because they're from California and we failed to modernize our system. I refuse to accept that. And I believe most voters would. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to thank the author for bringing this forward today. And I trust that she will be looking for that balanced solution that is so necessary in this case. As a granddaughter of a World War II vet and the daughter of a Vietnam vet, I thank you so much for making certain that those who serve in the military have a voice in our elections. You know, they defend our democratic system. and for the Department of Justice to defund their EFAC system to make it harder for them to vote is incomprehensible to me. They take an oath to defend the Constitution, and then we are limiting their ability to participate in our democracy by doing this. And I find that to be deplorable. And again, I just want to thank you so much for doing whatever you can to fix it. And finally, you know, our military, they are affected by government decisions. I didn't have many long talks with my dad about Vietnam, but I know the effect that it had on him and his friends and that prolonged war and how many lives we lost. And to deny anyone ability who is fighting for this country to vote in our election is something that we cannot stand for So again I want to thank you so much for bringing this forward and I would love to be a co Thank you Absolutely.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Over and over again, the Trump administration keeps throwing problem after problem at California And ending the ability of our service members to be able to vote by the Department of Defense facts, more secure fact system is just one more example of that. And each time when the federal administration does that, we have to scramble. We have to work hard. We have to put more resources together to try to solve problems. So I commend the author for stepping up for our overseas military members to be able to do this and vote. And I think there's a broad recognition that there's a problem and that we need to do this. The one question, and I think it's particularly pertinent right now, is people accusing California of not having secure balloting and making sure that we can clearly defend ourselves. So you have a challenge in terms of working with the Secretary of State's office. Secretary of State's office has a challenge in terms of trying to make sure these things are secure. We haven't reached that consensus yet. But what I hope is, as I support this bill moving forward, what I hope is we will be able to identify, in my mind, ultimately, the reason I'm willing to support this is it says the Secretary of State has to come up with regulations for the secure return of the ballots, meaning the Secretary of State has to say this is secure. If the Secretary of State doesn't think this is secure, that doesn't become, you know, we don't force a system there. It has to be something that the Secretary of State ultimately can sign off on and says is secure. And so I appreciate that you've removed the side on the electronic voting just because you didn't want to tie the hands of the Secretary of State in terms of that definition. So that just that that not a choice that Californians decided to have a battle over It is a choice being forced on us again by the Trump administration and we having it happen whether it closing emergency rooms in hospitals whether it's social service programs, or whether it's our military personnel being able to vote. And it is something that we can't stand by idly and say, hey, it's just tough. Military personnel are not going to get to vote. So I applaud you for saying we have to solve this problem, and I hope we can be sensitive in terms of trying to make sure that we get that thing that the Secretary of State has this responsibility to make sure it's secure, and we'll come under scrutiny for that. So I will be supporting the bill. Appreciate it, your efforts. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, the truth of the matter of fact is that the federal government is not going to come and save us on this issue and many others. But I believe that we can protect our election security while also protecting military members' fundamental right to vote. And with that, respectfully, ask for an aye vote. Thank you so much.

Aye.

Bennett.

Berman.

Berman, aye.

Aye.

Lackey.

Salache.

Stephanie.

Berman.

Salache.

Solache?

Salachay?