April 7, 2026 · Elections · 13,617 words · 23 speakers · 202 segments
Thank you. The Senate Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments will come to order. Good morning and welcome, everyone. Before we start, I want to announce that Senate Bill 884 has been pulled by the author. We will hear that at a subsequent hearing. So the bill will be heard, just not today. So we have seven items on our agenda this morning. I believe we do have a quorum. So will the secretary please call the Royal to Establish Forum?
Senators Wiener? Present.
Wiener here. Choi?
Here. Choi here.
Allen? Cervantes?
Here. Cervantes here.
Umberg? Okay. We have a quorum. We will start our bill hearing with – who's here? Senator Rubio is here. Okay. Senator Rubio is here with item number one, SB 1175 by Senator Rubio. You may present.
Good morning. Thank you for having me here this morning, Chair and members of this committee. Thank you for the opportunity to present SB 1175, the Lobbyist Registration Modernization Act, which will improve government efficiency and transparency, allowing the public to accurately identify lobbyist registration information. This bill makes a simple change. Instead of requiring the lobbyists to file terminations, employment changes, and registration amendments through their employer or firm, lobbyists will be required to directly go to the Secretary of State and do it themselves through the CalAxis replacement system or CARS. The current lobbyist registration system creates significant delays and transparency issues. When lobbyists change employers or need to update their registration, because a lobbyist can only be registered with one employer or firm at a time and because employers have up to 20 days to file certification changes with the state, lobbyists may have to wait weeks for their employer to file termination paperwork before they can register with a new employer. During this waiting period, lobbyists cannot legally begin work with their new employer and a lobbyist's relationship with their new employer remains undisclosed to the public, which is not good for transparency. Employer delays in processing their terminations can also result in lobbyists filing the disclosures late through no fault of their own and having to pay fees. By requiring lobbyists to file directly with the Secretary of State, SB 1175 will eliminate the intermediary step that creates delays. Again, this bill will simply improve government efficiency, transparency, and allow those in the public to accurately identify lobbyist information. And with me today to present on my behalf is Tim Cromartie the Deputy Secretary of State that will also speak on the bill behalf Okay thank you very much You have two minutes
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Tim Cromartie on behalf of Secretary of State Shirley and Weber, who is sponsoring this measure. It has been developed in consultation with the Fair Political Practices Commission and will modernize current filing practices for employment and amendment of registration and information for lobbyists affiliated with a lobbyist firm or employer, as Senator Robio has stated. It will also allow lobbyists to independently submit their amendments, employment, and or termination paperwork directly to the Secretary of State through the new Cal Access Replacement System without having to route such documentation through their employers. Consistent with the objectives of CARS, this bill will streamline and expedite the processing of such paperwork. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Are there any is there any member of the public who would like to express support? Please come forward and state your name affiliation if any
Hi, Lindsay Nakano on behalf of the FPPC in support. Thank you. Thank you. Any additional support?
Okay, seeing none. Is there any opposition to this bill? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the committee. Colleagues, any questions or comments? Senator Choi
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, the author, for this proposal, which sounds like to improve the efficiency and avoid the delays for 20 days at the maximum time when the employer delays the change of the lobbyists in their form. I wonder why, to begin with, in the beginning, this system was created. I'm curious about it. And similar to this kind of a situation is that what I know is that the realtors need to report their employer with what the realtor they are associated with. Currently, do you know what the situation is?
Each realtor, just like you are proposing, has to individually register or the employer,
employing company has to register when they hire a realtor in their firm?
I cannot speak to that, Senator. To my knowledge, realtors are not required to register with the Secretary of State. We did see a proposal at one point earlier this year, and we suggested that the sponsor of that measure take that to the Department of Real Estate.
So as an undersecretary, you are not familiar with this system?
Not with respect to realtors, no, sir.
I see. Do you know any justification why in the beginning the system was set up as such at the current time that we are under?
I'm not sure I understand the question.
Okay. Why in the beginning the system, lobbyist registration system was set up as such that the employer has to report their employees, the lobbyists in their firm rather than giving that burden to individuals?
I can't speak to that. I do know that what we have noticed over time is that it's not the most efficient system. There are significant delays And as you know, lobbyists that are not registered Cannot Do their work They can meet with clients they can advocate on behalf of legislation So the bill is meant as an improvement over the status quo
Okay, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Any other questions or comments? Okay, seeing none, you may close.
Thank you. As Tim already stated, transparency and accountability is paramount to what we do here, not only in this House but in the state capitol. And so this one, this bill simply just eliminates delays and takes care of the middle person that really should not be there. So we are intending to make sure that the system works more efficiently, transparently, and it's more responsive to Californians so they know who's lobbying on their behalf. And with that, I ask for an aye vote. Thank you.
Thank you very much. We have a motion by the vice chair, and I am recommending an aye vote, and the motion is do pass to the floor. You may call the roll.
Senator Wiener? Aye.
Wiener, aye.
Choi? Aye.
Choi, aye.
Allen?
Cervantes? Aye.
Cervantes, aye.
Umberg?
Okay. That has three votes, and we'll put that on call for the absent members.
Thank you, Senator Rubio. Thank you. Have a good day.
We'll next go to item number 2, SB 1357 by Senator Ochoa Bogue. You may present, Senator.
Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. Happy to be here. Senate Bill 1357 would require the published copy of the Notice of Intention to Circulate Recall Petition, which is required prior to circulation of a petition, to omit the signatures and the street addresses of the voters who signed the notice. It would also add a declaration at the top of the notice to ensure that proponents fully understand that unlike a recall petition, there is no provision to withdraw one signature from the notice. It also states that certain information will be made available to the public and that the notice is only used to trigger the petition process. It is not the recall petition. In order to trigger a recall election, recall petitioners must file a notice of intention with the elections officer and serve a copy to the person being recalled. The notice includes names, addresses, and signatures must be then published in the newspaper. This may have made sense before information became so easily available via the Internet, but in today's climate and retaliatory politics, releasing such personal information could lead to intimidation, harassment, and, in extreme cases, violence. Access to this type of personal information can also lead to identity theft, predatory scams, and excessive junk mail. While the bill would still require all the identifying information be submitted to the elections official and the official being recalled, the voter's street address and signature would not be published. Joining me today is Kristen Connolly, the county clerk recorder from Contra Costa County, who is happy to answer any questions you may have.
You may proceed You have two minutes As the senator said my name is Kristen Connolly I am the clerk recorder and registrar of voters from Contra Costa County I am one of three co of the California Association of Clerks and Elections Officials Legislative Committee for Elections And I'm here to, we are proud to support Senate Bill 1357 and specifically Section 1 of the bill that adds a notice of proponents, notice to proponents for notice of intentions. And I know that this can be very particular, but as the senator explained, there's a difference between notice of intentions, the notice of intention and a petition. Our members have worked diligently to develop and propose needed changes to the California Elections Code regarding recall elections. CA CEO appreciates that Senator Ochoa Bogue included our proposed language in Section 1 of SB 1357. Section 1's addition of the notice to proponents who will potentially sign a notice of intention to clarify the difference between an NOI and a petition is really important. This notice to proponents should clarify to recall proponents that no provision exists to withdraw one signature from an NOI, that their information will be made publicly available, and that the NOI seeks to trigger the petition process. It also clarifies that the NOA is not in and of itself a petition. We request the committee's aye vote on SB 1357. Thank you very much.
Is there any additional support for this bill? Please come forward. Seeing none, is there any opposition? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the committee. Colleagues, any questions or comments? Okay. Seeing none, do we have a motion?
I make a motion.
Okay, yeah. And this is a motion to pass to the committee on judiciary by the vice chair. And with that, you may close.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The power of recall has been a fundamental part of California's political system since 1911. In the age of digital technology, it's important we take steps to safeguard the personal information of voters who choose to engage in the electoral process. I respectfully ask for that.
Thank you very much, Senator Ochoa Boe. Again, the motion is to pass to the Committee on Judiciary. And with that, you may call the roll. Senators Weiner?
Aye.
Weiner, aye. Choi?
Aye.
Aye. Allen.
Cervantes.
Aye. Cervantes.
Aye.
Umberg. Okay. We have 3-0, and we'll put that on call. Thank you. Thank you very much, Senator. Next, we have Senator Reyes, who has two bills. We'll start items 3 and 4. We'll start with item 3, SB 1369. And, Senator, welcome, and you may present.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. and committee members for the opportunity to present SB 1369. SB 1369 establishes safeguards for California's judicial recall process while preserving voters' constitutional rights. California's recall process is an important tool of direct democracy. However, there is a growing concern that the process is increasingly being misused, particularly to target judges for issuing lawful, yet sometimes controversial, rulings. Unlike other elected officials, judges are prohibited from campaigning or publicly defending rulings. Strength protects judicial impartiality. It also leaves judges uniquely vulnerable to recall efforts driven by disagreement with their decisions rather than actual misconduct. When recall efforts are driven by disagreement with lawful rulings rather than misconduct, it threatens judicial independence. It risks turning court decisions into political calculations instead of decisions based on law and evidence. Additionally, gaps in the current recall process, such as a lack of transparency around paid signature gatherers, can mislead voters. SB 1369 introduces reasonable common sense safeguards. It requires an oral disclosure when signature gatherers are being paid and shortens the signature gathering period for judicial recalls from 160 days to 80 days. This bill does not eliminate or restrict the right to recall a judge. It simply ensures the process is transparent, accountable, and not misused to punish judges for carrying out their constitutional duties. Joining me here today in support are Niall McCarthy on behalf of the California American Board of Trial Advocates and Judge Jeff Kaufman, President of the California Judges Association.
Thank you very much. You each have two minutes.
Good morning. My name is Neil McCarthy. I'm with the American Board of Trial Advocates California Chapter, which is a nonpartisan group of both plaintiff and defense lawyers who are supporting the bill. We have an ongoing problem with recall of judges. I want to talk very briefly about what's happening in Orange County. Right now there are 12 members, 12 members of the one court who are subject to a recall. And when you walk into Orange County every day, you'll see pictures of these judges in front by the proponents with devil horns and slogans about them and their families attacking them. So it's not only a political problem in terms of the independence of judges, it's a safety problem. And what we've done is we've tracked the group who's the proponents. And what they've said is this is so simple. The bar is so low. Now we're going to expand into Los Angeles and San Bernardino County. So it's a trend that we're seeing, very sad trend, but it's a trend that we have to deal with. We have a proposal, which we think is very common sense. Statewide recalls are 160 days. These are local elections. So 80 days is more than sufficient for a valid recall to go forward. We're not doing anything to attack the mechanism of recall, which is very important. But it's a very modest procedural change. And as the senator mentioned, the second piece of it is really just having signature gatherers tell the truth, that they're paid signature gatherers. So we see this as a problem that needs immediate attention, and we appreciate your support. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Good morning. Thank you to the chair and to the members of the committee for giving me this opportunity. My name is Jeff Kaufman. I'm a judge in Solano County. I'm also president of the California Judges Association. representing over 2,000 active and retired judges across the state. Here in support of Senator Reyes' bill, I want to explain to you why it's important to judges. So the mere filing or recall petition can change a judge's behavior. The psychology of a threatened recall is powerful and potentially all-encompassing. Even a frivolous, politically motivated recall effort can force a judge to divert enormous time, energy and personal resources toward survival away from the courtroom away from the law and away from the public that we serve The threat alone does the damage but this bill helps to address that reality Consider the nature of what judges do. Every single day, California judges make decisions. We judge. By the very structure of our adversarial system, every decision that we make produces both a winner and a loser. A judge can rule correctly, lawfully, and with integrity, but still leave half of their courtroom unhappy. A recall may be initiated simply as a result of judging, for following the law, for applying the Constitution as written, even when the result is unpopular. This is not a flaw in our judiciary or our system. This is the judiciary actually working. But under the current recall framework, doing our job well can feel like opening ourselves up to a recall threat. And this is not a theoretical concern. Judges in California have high-risk assignments, death penalty cases, potentially politically charged civil rights matters, controversial family law decisions, where any ruling will generate fierce opposition from one side. These cases are often handled by our most experienced, most capable judges, presiding over our most consequential cases. These are precisely the judges that we cannot afford to lose. That brings me to my final point, which is the pipeline to the judiciary. California needs exceptional lawyers to become exceptional judges. But when we ask talented attorneys to consider the bench, they're increasingly asking us, why would I subject myself and my family to this? The current recall process, with its relatively low barriers and high disruption, is a genuine deterrent to judicial service. We will lose the next generation of great judges before they even don a robe, not because they lack skill or intelligence, but because the risk is simply not worth it. This bill brings balance, proportionality, and sanity to a process that was designed for accountability but has become a tool for intimidation. We are grateful to Senator Reyes for her leadership and her commitment to the judiciary that is both accountable and independent. The California Judges Association urges your aye vote.
Thank you. Thank you to both of you. Is there any additional support for SB 1369? Please come forward and set your name and affiliation, if any.
Good morning. Savina Takar with the Consumer Attorneys of California in song support.
Good morning. Greg Rizzio of Consumer Attorneys of the Inland Empire and National ABOTA and San Bernardino Riverside Chapter of ABOTA, all three strongly in support.
Mr. Chairman and members, Mike Belote on behalf of the California Defense Council, the Civil Defense Bar, in support. Thank you.
Thank you. Any additional support? Seeing none, is there any opposition to this bill? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the committee. Colleagues, any questions or comments on this bill? Senator Umberg.
Only that it's quite timely, particularly in light of my own county, Orange County, and the number of recalls that are going on in Orange County that appears to be for just vindictive and political reasons. So I'm strongly in support.
Thank you very much, Senator Reyes. Thank you for bringing it forward. Thank you. Mr. Vice-Chair.
I have a question regarding the core of this bill is reducing the signature gathering period from 160 days to 80 days, right?
Yes.
I wonder non recall process what is the time frame for other elected officials Statewide is sorry Senator I didn mean to step in
Statewide is 160 days. Locally is determined by the number of registered voters. This bill, there would only be three counties who would have an increase up to 80 days. So you are specifying just the judges to reduce to 80 days.
The intent of this, I hear what you are saying, the judges are doing their very demanding job. I understand that. But the democracy, the process is sometimes noisy and very complicated. And we think even the fact that the other elected officials are still under 160 days for signature gathering, but the specifying judges only doesn't it create inequity and some partial treatment of the deposition?
I do want to add one thing that for recalls, It is from 40 to 160 days. And so what we are doing is for judges, we're setting a set time for judges of 80 days. But it could be as short as 40 days, as was noted, depending on the registered voters. And Senator, I would just add that we're addressing a problem. We know that there are recall efforts that are unjust, attacking judges up and down the state. We know that they're creating safety problems for certain courthouses. we talked about Orange County, there's an acute problem that needs a fix. That's why we're targeting judges for the 80 days as opposed to others. And we think that's completely in line with constitutional principles, as we're certainly preserving the recall process if there is a legitimate recall attempt against the judge. And they can gather signatures within the 80 days. It's a local election. 80 days, we think, is more than sufficient. Thank you, sir.
Yeah, all elected officials, including judges, they are somehow appointed, and eventually they need to be re-elected to that position. So that's a part of the process. All elected officials, we are subject to recall for whatever reasons, political—you call it political reasons. Everything is related to political reasons. So I wonder whether this is a good idea to carve out a certain group of electrophysiars. I think the answer would be yes. Thank you.
Thank you for your question. Thank you, Senator Joy. Senator Cervantes.
I want to thank the author for bringing forth a solution to the problems that we are seeing statewide, particularly in Southern California. And thank you to the witnesses who are here today to testify and support. Thank you.
Great. Thank you, colleagues. Seeing nothing further, you may close.
I respectfully ask for your aye vote.
Okay. Thank you very much. I believe – we have a motion on this. Is there a motion on SB 1369? The motion would be do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Public Safety by Senator Umberg. Okay. And I want to thank the author for bringing this forward. I'm recommending an aye vote. and with that we call the roll Senators Wiener Aye Wiener aye Choi No Choi no Allen Cervantes Aye Cervantes aye Umberg Aye Umberg aye Okay, 3-1. Okay, the vote is 3-1. We'll put that on call. Thank you. And actually, before we move forward, let's allow Senator Umberg to add on to items 1 and 2. So going back to item 1, SB 1175, please call the absent members. Motion is due pass. Allen?
Umberg?
Aye. Umberg, aye. Okay, 4-0. We'll put that back on call. Item 2, SB 1357. Please call the absent members. Motion is due pass to the Committee on Judiciary. Allen?
Umberg?
Aye. Umberg, aye. 4-0. We'll put that back on call. Okay, thank you. We'll now move to item number 4, also by Senator Reyes, SB 1414. You may present.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Today I present SB 1414, a bill that would create an independent redistricting commission for San Bernardino County. This would ensure that lines are drawn through a transparent process and not by those with a direct stake in the outcome. I appreciate the committee's work on this bill and will be accepting the committee's recommended amendments. In 2008, the people of California overwhelmingly supported the creation of a statewide citizens Redistricting Commission with the approval of Prop 11. Independent Redistricting Commissions provide citizens with an opportunity to draw lines independent of those who would otherwise benefit personally. Without the Independent Commission, County Supervisors could potentially draw boundaries but that prioritize their reelection instead of guaranteeing fair and equitable representation for their constituents. This model has been voted voted on by this body and implemented in counties like Riverside, Orange, and San Luis Obispo. An independent redistricting commission would bring a proven, trusted model to San Bernardino County and will empower over 2.2 million people in this county to reclaim their voting rights and strengthen our democracy. Here to testify and support are Skye Allen on behalf of Inland Empire United and Darlene Azarmi, on behalf of Common Cause California.
Thank you very much and welcome. You each have two minutes, please.
Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Darlene Azarmi, and I'm here on behalf of Common Cause California, alongside a coalition that includes Inland Empire United and the League of Women Voters of California. We're proud to support SB 1414, your bill to establish an independent citizens redistricting commission in San Bernardino County. Gerrymandering remains a persistent threat to our democracy. When those in power draw their own district lines, it can distort district representation, entrench political advantage, and weaken public trust. That's why across the country and here in California, there's been growing momentum to take map drawing out of the hands of politicians and place it with independent commissions. This bill would create an independent commission so that supervisorial lines are drawn through a process that's fair, transparent, and centered on people. It would help ensure that communities are heard, communities of interest are respected, and district lines are not shaped by political self-interest. California has already recognized the value of independent redistricting at the state and local level, and it is a national leader in this space. Independent commissions have delivered more balanced maps statewide, and now many counties across the state have adopted local IRCs. SP 1414 would establish fair, transparent and independent process in San Bernardino County, one grounded in public trust and not political self interest. In a county of more than 2.2 million people, that trust is essential. This bill ensures that communities are respected, voices are heard, and representation truly reflects the people. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote on SB 1414. Thank you.
Good morning. My name is Skye Allen. I'm the Executive Director of Inland Empire United, a civic engagement collective impact table serving San Bernardino and Riverside counties. Working at a civic engagement table, census and redistricting nearly became a personality trait for me for a while. I spent a year and a half convincing any nonprofit I could find to get the word out about the 2020 census, and then I spent the next year and a half talking to their members about communities of interest. Our coalition gathered dozens of COIs, and we were active participants in the discussion about what that should mean for our neighbors in the coming decade. We saw firsthand how that process worked with the California Citizens Redistricting Commission. We also saw firsthand how our local process differed and how that changed the way residents engaged with it. I do believe that the San Bernardino County Advisory Redistricting Commission made a good-faith effort to recommend fair districts to the Board of Supervisors. I also saw how an advisory commission appointed behind closed doors struggled to be seen as unbiased. I applaud the Advisory Commission for scheduling so many community hearings, but I'd be remiss not to mention that the board ultimately voted on their map of choice by the end of their second hearing. As much as we encourage public participation, the reality that these elected officials ultimately get to choose their final maps made engaging in the process feel less welcome to the community. But we know independent commissions work. They produce high-quality maps that voters trust and residents engage with. Passing SB 1414 is the truest way to ensure that this crucial process is fully reflective of community voice and insulated from political interference. I hope you all will support this bill, and I thank you for the opportunity to share.
Thank you very much. Is there any additional support? Please come forward and state your name and affiliation, if any.
Dora Rose, League of Women Voters of California, a proud co-sponsor of this bill. Thank you.
Any additional support? Okay, is there any opposition to this bill? Please come forward.
Hi, good morning, Chair and members. My name is Meg Snyder. I'm with Axiom Advisors. I'm not quite in opposition today, but I'm here on behalf of San Bernardino County. While we have initial concerns with the language, we appreciate the author's willingness to consider further amending the bill, and we look forward to future conversations as the bill goes through the process. Thank you so much.
Thank you very much. Any additional opposition or tweeners? Okay, seeing none, we'll bring it back to the committee. Any questions or comments, colleagues? Okay, seeing none, do we have a motion on SB 1414? And the motion would be due pass. I'm sorry, did you say that you accepted the committee's?
Yes.
Thank you. Sorry for that. So due pass is amended and we refer to the committee on local government. A motion by Senator Cervantes. I'm recommending an aye vote on this bill, and you may close.
I respectfully request your aye vote.
Okay. We'll call the roll. Senators Wiener?
Aye.
Wiener, aye. Choi?
No.
Choi, no. Allen? Cervantes?
Aye.
Cervantes, aye. Umberg?
Aye.
Umberg, aye. Three to one. Okay, the vote is three to one. We'll put that bill on call. Thank you, Senator. Okay we are will send a richness and will be here shortly So we now go to item 7 SB 970 by Senator Cervantes You may present Senator Are you in communication with Senator Allen? Oh, you're inside. Okay. Thank you. You may present.
Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members for the opportunity to present Senate Bill 970 today. Colleagues, in passing this bill, we would be honoring the legacy of our greatest generation who fought in theaters as far-flung as the South Pacific and Western Europe in World War II, and nonetheless cast ballots in the 1944 presidential election. After the enactment of the Soldier Voting Act in 1944 and the introduction of a federal war ballot, nearly 2.5 million of our U.S. Armed Service members deployed overseas cast their ballots. 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, FVAP, 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 of 1986, which requires states to allow military and overseas voters to vote by absentee ballot. During the Gulf War of 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 could avail themselves of FVAP include American citizens who are civilians living overseas through the enactment of the Military and Overseas Voter Enactment 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 systems only if their home state did not accept documents by email. email. Unfortunately, in August of 2025, the federal government announced that FVAP would be discontinuing the DoD Fax Service. As we know that in the 2024 presidential election in the last November statewide special election, many of these voters had logistical issues either receiving their ballots or just submitting their ballots by mail in time to be counted. Indeed, just last Last month, the Postal Service announced that it would terminate mail service to several countries including many where U.S. military maintains bases. We have a large number of American military personnel deployed overseas in the ongoing conflict with Iran California must step up and ensure military and overseas voters from our state retain the ability to exercise their sacred right to vote. Senate Bill 970 will accomplish that goal by requiring the Secretary of State to promulgate regulations allowing military and overseas voters to submit their ballots through an electronic means. 31 states and D.C. already permit this, with 24 allowing email or portal submissions. California is one of only 75 still limited to facts only. So I want to just make sure that we are acknowledging the issue before us, and I want to just acknowledge that there are stakeholders, of course, including the Secretary of State, who have expressed their concerns about ensuring that electronic method of submission called for by this bill. I share their desire to ensure that military and overseas voters can cast their ballots in a way that maintains the essential integrity of our election systems and public faith in the results of our elections. My team and I have had many conversations with these various stakeholders, and I certainly look forward to the work that we will continue to do together through this legislative process. And I am thoughtful about striking a balance between security and improving a lawfully registered voter's access to the ballot box. The language currently in the bill is intentionally broad. I want to be clear that I am not set on pursuing one method to thread this needle. I know that there will be continued discussions of the merits of fax, email, or web portals, but I am keeping an open mind about the options I could solve for this problem. Here to testify in support of this bill, the sponsor of the bill, the California Associations of Clerks and Election Officials, is Christine Connolly, a Contra Costa County Clerk, Recorder, and Registrar. Welcome back. You have two minutes.
Thank you so much. Thank you, Senator Cervantes. We are, as California's Association of Clerks and Elections Officials, a sponsor of this bill, and I'm pleased to speak in strong support of it this morning. As county elections officials, we've been sounding the alarm for several years about the rapid decline of fax machines, the only electronic return option currently available to California's military and overseas voters. With the recent discontinuation of the Department of Defense Fax Service, as described by Senator Cervantes, the majority of these voters are now left with no electronic return option at all, forcing them to rely solely on slow and unreliable international mail. This is not acceptable for Californians serving abroad, and it puts their fundamental voting rights at risk. Offering secure electronic return is already standard practice in much of the country, as the senator described. 25 states now allow military and overseas voters to return ballots electronically, either through mail, email, or secure online portals. California is one of only seven states that still limits electronic return to fax. States provide many helpful models. Colorado and Nevada have built secure in-house online ballot return systems for UACAVA voters. Other states, including Massachusetts and Rhode Island, use secure portals like Enhanced Ballot or Omni Ballot After adopting their portals Massachusetts saw a two percentage point reduction in ballot rejection rates and Rhode Island saw its rejection rate drop by a half a percentage point These improvements matter because late return is the leading cause of ballot rejection among UOCAVA and voters nationwide States also offer strong examples of flexible, security-focused, statutory frameworks. Maine, Arizona, and Rhode Island all use broad language, authorizing their secretaries of state to determine the secure method of return. an approach that aligns closely with SB 970. This is now the national norm because it allows states to implement technology that meets modern security standards while remaining adaptable as those standards evolve. SB 970 does not mandate a specific technology. It simply ensures that California's military and overseas voters are not left behind while other states modernize responsibly. It allows the California Secretary of State to establish a secure, regulated process. And it's worth noting we're talking about secure electronic return, which we should not conflate with Internet voting. CA CEO stands ready to work with the Secretary of State to develop a secure and practical solution for California's voters. We are grateful to Senator Cervantes for authoring this important legislation and respectfully request your iVote on SB 970. Thank you very much.
Is there any additional support? If so, please come forward and state your name and affiliation, if any.
Andy Liebenbaum on behalf of Los Angeles County. We're sorry we did not get our letter in in time, but we are in strong support of SB 970.
Emma Jungwirth on behalf of the California State Association of Counties in support.
Thank you.
Morning, Chair and members. My name is Seth Reeb with Reeb Government Relations. Again, I apologize for not getting our letter in on time. here representing American Legion, Department of California, California State Commanders Veterans Council, and the Vietnam Veterans of America, all in strong support. Thank you.
Thank you. Any additional support? I see none. Any opposition? So please come forward. Okay, and the two lead witnesses will each have two minutes. Yeah, you can stay up. Okay. Yeah. You're not off the house. Okay. Thanks.
Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Tim Cromotie on behalf of Secretary of State Shirley and Weber. With all due respect, Senator Cervantes, with whom we are collaborating on a number of issues, as well as the counties with whom we work hand in glove on a regular basis, we have serious concerns about this bill, and we do not view it in terms of the closed universe of military and overseas voters. We cannot support a bill attempting to facilitate secure electronic ballot return because we do not believe it is possible to achieve a secure system given the limitations of today's technology. We have shared examples with the committee of the cybersecurity environment in which we are operating today, including a recent story that the FBI director's personal email was hacked and penetrated. We know that existing technology lacks efficient security and that there will be significant pressure, notwithstanding the author's intent to keep this approach limited in scope to military and overseas voters, to apply electronic ballot return to public elections generally. This bill directs SOS to develop regulations to facilitate the secure return of ballots from military and overseas voters delivered through secure electronic transmission methods. As written, SB 970 would violate Elections Code Section 19295, which prohibits a remote accessible vote-by-mail system from transmitting ballot information to a server or storing ballot information on that server. In layman's terms, it prohibits a remote accessible vote-by-mail system from transmitting ballot information to a server or storing ballot information on that server. prohibits any vote system in California from being linked to the Internet, however, briefly. That statute is California's main shield, protecting us against the chaos of election interference in the cybersecurity realm, which is a distinctly immediate possibility. From our viewpoint, the state undertakes any proposal violating that statute at its peril. Our IT, cybersecurity, and voting systems technology staff have been examining this issue for months. They have repeatedly signaled serious reservations about whether existing technology will support secure electronic ballot return with the degree of security and privacy that our voting system enjoys today. It is no exaggeration to state that the cybersecurity flaws of this technology are significant and stand to place the integrity of future California elections at risk, notwithstanding the other states that have pursued this course. The crux of the issue is that any system relying on Internet transmission of ballot information will entail exposure of that information en route. We are concerned that ushering in such a system will only serve to undermine public confidence in our elections. We are committed, however, to working with the author and sponsors to meet their goals, but the bill in its current form must change. We look forward to conversations and anticipate submitting amendments within a very short time, authoring us to explore other options than those currently listed in the bill. Thank you.
Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name is C.J. Coles. I represent the nonpartisan nonprofit organization Verified Voting. I'm also here today in coalition with other like-minded organizations, including the Brennan Center for Justice, the California Voter Foundation, Free Speech for People, and Public Citizen. And we are in respectful opposition to this bill in its current form. The reason for that is because national security and cybersecurity experts agree that there is no secure way to transmit a voted ballot electronically, safely, and securely. In fact, there are no national standards for transmitting a voted ballot safely and securely. Standards have been attempted to be written over the last two-plus decades, and each time that attempt is made, the standards cannot be written because the security risks are so great and so high. In 2020 and again in 2024, four federal agencies, including the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, the National Institute for Standards and Technology, and the United States Election Assistance Commission issued a risk assessment memo on electronic ballot return, rating electronic ballot return as the highest risk possible to both security and safety and privacy to a voter's ballot. This bill, as currently written, will mandate the Secretary of State's office to promulgate rules for a, quote, secure electronic transmission. Who determines if something is secure? Saying something is secure doesn't make it so. In fact, these four federal agencies are telling us that there is nothing that is secure for electronic ballot transmission. Also, as it states, it sort of pigeonholes the Secretary of State's office into electronic methods to solve this problem. What about non-electronic methods to solve this issue? This bill wouldn't allow the Secretary of State to explore that possibility. And what if the Secretary of State's office does determine there's nothing that can be secure enough to transmit an electronic ballot Does this bill allow the Secretary of State office the opportunity to say no to promulgating rules because there nothing that is safe and secure We must sort of view this proposal in the current risk landscape Our foreign adversaries are constantly and consistently attacking our cybersecurity ecosystem. This doesn't operate on a different Internet system. The data isn't sent over a different Internet system, so I think that must also be considered. So with that, I appreciate your time and attention to this matter today. Thank you.
Any additional opposition? If so, please come forward. Please state your name and affiliation, if any.
Hi, Kim Alexander with the California Voter Foundation in opposition. Thanks.
Any additional opposition? Okay, we'll bring it back to the committee. Colleagues, any questions or comments? Mr. Vice Chair? I'm sorry. Did you have a question?
Yes.
Okay, you may proceed.
Thank you, Chair. It's very important for us to facilitate the opportunity for overseas veterans to participate in the election process by voting, which is their fundamental right and a very, very important voice they need to reflect even if they are serving overseas for the country. And this issue we are debating is in essence a voter cybersecurity issue versus which which is speed, and the other issue is accuracy, whether the system that we rely upon, Internet, that will be secure enough, we can trust. So it's interesting to read the opposition letter addressed to the chair by the former Secretary, we state Mr. Kevin Shelley, among many other points in the letter, one of the area paragraph, he states, military and overseas voters deserve to have their votes counted. But the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act of 2009 has already created significantly better pathways for our military voters, ensuring all U-O-C-A-V-A, that's the acronym, voters know about those advances. safe electronic blank ballot transmission. DOD 11 military express mail label that gets a ballot back in three to five days on average. and the 45-day window period may require greater outreach effort. But we should not trade the integrity of the votes for the appearance of convenience It a false promise basically he stating that electronic vote system cannot be traced back when there is any question, whereas paper ballots will have the evidence when we need to raise a question and try to validate. So I think two opponent witnesses aligned with is former State Secretary Kevin Shelley's viewpoints. So it is quite an important issue that we are dealing with when trade over the other, accuracy and speed, border integrity. Those are the key points. So I don't know whether you have any other additional solutions on how we can improve this bill.
Well, as I stated earlier, the Secretary of State is certainly sympathetic to the objectives of the bill. The issue is she's not willing to jeopardize an existing secure election system. One of the things that we would like is to have, again, express authorization to explore other methods of achieving the objectives of making sure that military and overseas voters are not disenfranchised. Right now, the bill is restricted to secure electronic transmission. That is not acceptable. It puts the state at what we believe to be undue risk, and there are other alternatives available.
Okay. Any other questions or comments? Did you want to answer that too?
I could answer it in my clothes.
Okay, yeah. I guess I have a question for any of you. So we have a situation where we have a president who, in addition to threatening to destroy the entire Iranian civilization this morning, Putting that aside, that horrific threat. He they are obsessed with blocking access to voting with the Save Act is just one example. They want to make it as hard as humanly possible for people to vote. They are methodically destroying the Postal Service. I mean, just tearing it apart. They are – we've seen what's happening with faxing. So we have a bad situation for anyone, particularly who's overseas. And so I understand the concerns about cybersecurity. We do conduct massive minute-by-minute transactions and activities via the Internet every minute of every day. in ways that someone could melt down the banking system or do whatever, and we rely on the internet for incredibly important and sensitive things, but I do understand the concerns. What is the solution then? If you can't rely on the mail, if the faxing situation is also being scaled back and is harder and harder, how do these people vote? Because I've seen it in the opposition letters. Forgive me if I missed anything. other than saying we should study it more. And I understand you're going to work with the author, but what is the alternative? I would love to hear that because of what being proposed here again understanding there always going to be a work in progress and there be collaboration We want to get it right It taking I think a good faith approach to a very real problem that we seeing So I'm curious from both sides if you could briefly.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I'm happy to sort of address that first. Number one, yes, all those issues and challenges that you've laid out are absolutely true. I would suggest, however, that while FVAP, while the DOD fact service is being scaled back and discontinued, that doesn't mean that within California's current regulation allowing for facts, that facts cannot be sent to the home office, the jurisdiction for the voters. So while they can't fax it to DOD, they can still fax their ballot back to the home jurisdiction. And so that option still exists for the California voter. And I also think in terms of studying it more and looking at this, I think this process of, okay, all of these issues now exist, and some are new issues in terms of the reliability of the Postal Service. DoD 11 express mail labels are still available for those service members that have access to that. But the specific voters, the specific service members, the specific overseas voters that might not have reliable access to that, if we're talking about that small group of voters, let's talk about that small group of voters that might have no other option. Right. So in that risk assessment that that the four agencies released, it said for the voters with no other option.
But even with the DOD, is that going to still be viable tomorrow? I mean, I mean, we see what having not just with this postal service, but war and just severing every relationship with lots of countries. I mean, it's just like this like unravels by the minute. And it's tragic and horrific, but that's what's happening. And so I just see us, at least, again, it's imperfect. Nothing is perfect. But we're trying to make sure people can vote and can vote efficiently. And I just, I'm just worried that all of these options, no one would have thought a few years ago that we would have a president that would decide to destroy the Postal Service. Like everyone thought – like if there was any kind of like mom and apple pie thing that everyone agreed on, like sort of like Alzheimer's research, which are destroying too, like no one thought that anyone would ever target the Postal Service, but that's what they're doing.
And Mr. Chairman, yeah, I mean the Postal Service is the only department listed in the Constitution. It's actually listed in the Constitution as an agency that the United States needs to have. And I think the Secretary of State's office saying let's get the stakeholders together. Let's look at what are all of the options, not just the electronic options, but all of the options. And this bill, as it currently sits, just doesn't allow for that secondary portion of what are the other options.
Did you want to add something?
Well, I just wanted to thank you, Mr. Chair, for the question, right, because that's one of my issues in having these conversations is that – And why we, in sponsoring this proposal, framed it that we want the Secretary of State, which is very, very good at establishing the certification process for our equipment that we rely on to make sure that we do have safe and secure elections, we're expressing that we're dissatisfied the status quo for our voters. We think there needs to be a better solution. And we structured it so that the burden is on the Secretary of State to develop something that's secure. Now, we've had conversations about the fact that it doesn't, you know, you can take the legislative language and interpret it the worst possible way and some of these other things. But I think what we really did make a good faith effort to say, hey, we know how to do this. We should be able to figure this out. And again, to the point I made in my and as the senator pointed out as the author, she is not wedded to one particular system or one particular technology. We are having ongoing conversations, but we think there needs to be a statement from the legislature to move this forward. So thank you for the question. Great. OK, it's with no further.
I see no further mics up. So we will allow you to close.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to acknowledge the conversation that we've been having here this morning and will continue to have. California is a birthplace of technology. We have Silicon Valley right here in our own backyard. And with this ever-changing technology, what might not seem possible today is possible tomorrow. And as I've stated, California is one of only seven states that allow military and oversee voters to submit their ballots through facts only. While 31 states plus the District of Columbia successfully allow more options for military members. that's a majority of our country with real data, not theoretical experiment. Modern portals use end-to-end encryption, multi-factor authentication and audit logs. The same infrastructure protects financial and government systems daily. And so I want to make sure that we are not abandoning Californians who are in the armed services deployed abroad or living overseas while residents of other states like Nevada or Massachusetts are provided by their home states with more options. We cannot permit a sailor on the USS Abraham Lincoln, which is currently in the Mediterranean Sea, to not exercise his right to vote just because he is from Riverside, while his bunkmate from Las Vegas can submit his ballot electronically. Where is the equity in that? And so I ask this committee today to support the ability to work with the stakeholders to ensure that whatever system we do pursue is secure. That is what is very important to me. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much.
I am recommending an aye vote on this bill. And do we have a motion? and the motions do pass and we refer to the Appropriations Committee. Motion by Senator Umberg, and we'll call the roll. Senators Weiner?
Aye.
Weiner, aye. Choi?
Aye.
Allen? Cervantes?
Aye.
Cervantes, aye. Umberg?
Aye.
Umberg, aye. Okay, the vote is 3-0, and we'll put that on call. Thank you. Okay, I see that Senator Richardson is here, So Senator we will call item 5 SB 1420 you may present
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, committee members. I was so busy rushing in from energy that I sat down and I joined your committee instead of getting in line to present my bill. So anyway, it's a pleasure to be here. and actually my first time presenting a bill in this committee. So I'm excited about the topic and the work that we hope to do. With that, I'm here to present to you Senate Bill 1420, which will increase California's voter awareness about new voting options and improve the speed at which California elections can be called. The length of time it takes to call an election in California can be prolonged, sometimes taking up to several weeks after the polls have closed. This opens our state up to bad faith attacks on the legitimacy of our elections, leaves candidates and voters unsure of the important outcomes, and has shown to reduce voter confidence in the results of elections. I myself have experienced this, the personal anxiety related to it, the harm that can be associated with it in the delays of calling an election. In my particular election, it took three weeks after the polls closed for my election to the state Senate to be confirmed, during which time I was left with questions and problems I could neither answer nor solve. I spent many times going down to the L.A. County Recorder's Office, observing where they were going through the process of counting the ballots, verifying the signatures. And because of the process itself, meaning ballots as I understood them to be, you know, basically a first in, first out of how they were processed, every day maybe in my particular district you'd see 20 votes, you know, addressed, 30 votes here, 20 votes there. And there really didn't seem to be a differentiation between votes that had a substantial number of votes had been cast to determine that election and then votes that were still outstanding. And there wasn't the ability to separate the two. And it was just very painstaking. The harm that was caused was that I was not able to come to the actual Senate training. And so I missed several days of the Senate training because my election results were not called. And so what that meant was I had to, you know, I got a book. I was told, read it if you have any questions. But that takes away the experience of meeting my other colleagues, hearing the questions that they were asking and being answered. And, you know, of course, I was very diligent and participated in the remaining of the training. but it just seemed three weeks should have been a sufficient period of time to be able to call the election. Delays in vote processing left me unsure on the footing and hampered my ability to swiftly move into office. So consequently what happened was I was expected to present bills, my bill ideas, to get them into Ledge Council and have them produced, and I had less than a week to do so. So there are consequences when elections are delayed and people are not able to get to work in a timely fashion. Past legislation has attempted to remedy this by promoting methods that reduce the time it takes to process ballots by reducing the number of ballots needing signature verifications by allowing them to be cast as in ballots This has already been proven to be effective through recent elections like those conducted in Placer County, which has seen the post-election processing time cut by up to three days. An example I would give you is my mother votes by mail. My mother just turned 88 a couple days ago. when I go to vote in person, I bring her ballot to turn it in. It could very easily, you know, at that time, if she was in the car, come out, verify, you know, her signature upon submitting her mail-in ballot, which could potentially avoid the delay of doing the verification on the back end when it's a part of thousands and thousands of other ballots. It's important that these new voter options are available to people so that we can call our elections more quickly and, of course, accurately. I don't want it to be perceived in any way a slight on the Secretary of State's office or the county recorders. I have found them to be responsive when I've called. The accuracy of our elections are second to none across the nation. This bill is simply just a way to improve the speed and for those who do vote by mail to have it be done in a faster way. We're also developing with SB 1420 to require the county election officials to include information about these voting options in their voter education and outreach plans. With me today, I have two individuals who will be testifying. Kim Alexander with the California Voter Foundation, and Ben Gipps with the Protect Democracy United. Thank you very much, and you each have two minutes.
Thank you, Chairman Weiner and committee members. I'm Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, and we are co-sponsors of SB 1420, which, if enacted, will provide state guidance and public education to expand voter awareness and use of so-called sign, scan, and go voting, allowing voters to turn and vote-by-mail ballots as in-person ballots at voting sites. Voters exercising this option bring the ballot they received in the mail to a county voting site and are required to sign the site's roster under penalty of perjury, just as in-person voters are required to do. Once election staff verify the voter has not already voted, the voter inserts their completed ballot into a scanner for immediate scanning or places it in a ballot box for scanning and tabulating later at the county election office. Placer County Election officials adopted signed Scan and Go voting in March 2024 and report that it is a popular and satisfying experience for their voters, resulting in a five-fold increase in Election Day in-person voters growing from 5 to 25 percent. Placer has also achieved a three to four day reduction in ballot processing time due to the implementation of this method, which eliminates several administrative steps involved in vote-by-mail ballot processing. A new law, SB 1249, enacted last year and sponsored by Secretary of State Dr. Shirley Weber, requires all counties to offer this method of voting at county election offices the Saturday before Election Day. At a December 2025 CA CEO panel discussion, several county election officials expressed interest in implementing this voting option, but also the need for guidance about how to implement it. The amendments we are developing in consultation with the authors and Secretary of State offices will specify areas of guidance needed via state regulation for the voter check process and to verify ballot type correctness and ensure ballot secrecy Good morning Chair Weiner and members of the committee
My name is Ben Gipps, and I am an impact specialist at Protect Democracy United, a proud co-sponsor of SB 1420. This bill promotes sign, scan, and go voting, which, as you've heard, is an excellent improvement to the range of options offered to voters in California. We are grateful for support for the bill from the League of Women Voters of California, the NAACP California-Hawaii State Conference, Verified Voting, CPCA Advocates, Campaign Legal Center, NextGen California, and Human Rights First. This voting method allows voters to bring their vote-by-mail ballot to a voting location, check in for voting like an in-person voter, and then cast the vote-by-mail ballot in person at the voting location. At Protect Democracy United, we see Sign, Scan, and Go voting as a meaningful way to counter-attacks on the legitimacy of California's elections and the attempts to shake voters' confidence in our election systems. It effectively provides voters the best of both worlds. The ability to mark their ballot in the privacy of their home, combined with the reassuring experience of putting their ballot directly into a ballot box or scanner in person at a voting location. It also avoids the time and resource-intensive steps of signature verification and removing ballots from envelopes by instead using the existing process of checking in voters in person. Despite these many benefits, we haven't yet seen widespread adoption of this voting method. We have heard questions from registrars about how to implement this voting method successfully, and this bill would ensure that those questions are addressed by the Secretary of State in consultation with counties. In short, the goal of this bill is to support the implementation of this important existing legislation in two ways. First by answering those questions and second by promoting the method of voting to the public Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee today, and I respectfully urge an aye vote. Thank you very much
Is there any additional? Support please come forward
Morning to arose the women voters of California in support, but for slightly different reasons So I want to give a bit of an explanation We think very very short. Yeah, we think it's It's extraordinarily important to do voter education on this matter. We are not concerned that voter confidence is shaken by the time that it takes us to count ballots in California. Extraordinarily important to be able to count those ballots in the method necessary to ensure that they be counted. We check signatures. We go through a process that takes some time. Voter confidence is not our concern. Voter education is. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Yes, C.J. Coles with the Nonpartisan Nonprofit, Verified Voting, in support of 1420. Thank you.
Kristen Connolly on behalf of the California Association of Clerks and Elections Officials, in support. Thank you.
Any additional support? Okay, seeing none. Is there any opposition to this bill? Any opposition? Okay, seeing none, we'll bring it back to the committee. Pardon me, Mr. Chair. We have concerns. Oh, okay.
Tim Cormoranty on behalf of Secretary of State Shirley Ann Weber. We have worked with the author's office in good faith. We're pleased to see most of our amendments suggestions have been accepted. However, we continue to have concerns about the provision involving double voting. We have made inquiries with the counties and have been unable to verify that this is a significant problem. However, the sponsor has put forward an argument about the smaller counties perhaps benefiting from more direct guidance in this area. We are capable, to the degree such guidance is necessary, of providing counties with that guidance administratively via periodic advisory documents called CCROVs. That is a common method of permitting communicating guidance to the counties on recently enacted legislation. We look forward to receiving additional information in future discussions, confirming that this rises to the level of a statewide concern. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Okay, we'll bring it back to the committee. Any questions or comments on this bill? Okay, seeing none, you may close.
Well, thank you, Mr. Wiener. My commitment to the Secretary of State and the office, we certainly, all parties involved, remain very willing to work and make sure that this is a policy that works for all Californians. Again, we do applaud the successes that we've had. We just want to make sure that we continue them and we do them in the most expeditious manner. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote on SB 1420.
Okay, thank you. Do we have a motion on SB 1420, which would be due, pass, and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations by Senator Cervantes? And I'm recommending an aye vote, and we'll call the roll. Senators Wiener?
Aye.
Wiener, aye. Choi?
Aye.
Choi, aye. Allen?
Aye.
Allen, aye. Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes, aye.
Umberg?
4-0. We'll put that on call. And we will now move to our final bill, item number 8, SB 1310, by the Vice Chair, by Senator Choi.
Thank you.
You may present.
Good morning, committee chairperson and also members. I'm here to present SB 1310, which improves information sharing between the jury commissioners, local election officials, and the Secretary of State for the purpose of ensuring up-to-date and accurate voter information. information. Free and fair elections depend on accurate voter registration information. Currently, information provided during the jury eligibility screenings is not consistently shared with the election officials, even if they imply a person may be eligible to vote. SB 1310 establishes a common sense mechanism that would require jury commissioners to provide information to the Secretary of State and the county election officials about prospective jurors who state that they are not qualified for jury service when their reasons would also make them ineligible to vote. We also been working with the opponents of the bill to address their concerns Later this week Disability Rights California sent an opposite letter where they expressed the concern that this bill may lead to people on conservatorship who are ineligible to serve on juries but still are allowed to vote to accidentally have their voter registration canceled. While I don't believe that SB 1310 in its current form will lead to such an unfair cancellation, I've agreed to narrow the bill's scope to ensure that the information shared is strictly limited to objective criteria that clearly align with the voter eligibility. Specifically, the only information that the jury commissioners may share would be if a juror attests that they are not a U.S. citizen or if they attest that they aren't domiciled in the relevant jurisdiction. We further clarified that no deregistration action can be taken based on any other jury disqualification criteria. Later today, I'll be crossing the amendments in the Judiciary Committee where it has been double referred. I also want to strongly emphasize that the SB 1310 does not use jury information as the sole basis for voter disqualification. It simply creates a mechanism for information sharing, so the Secretary of State and the county elections registrars will have more information. This will allow them to conduct their own inquiry before making a final determination on voter registration. Testifying in support of this bill is again, Kristen Connelly, the county clerk recorder for the Contra Costa Registrar of Voters, and Nicole Wooderman to represent Orange County, the sponsor of SB 1310. I strongly encourage an aye vote so we can promote the accuracy of our voter registration system and the full California voters. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Our two lead witnesses will each have two minutes.
Great. Thank you, Chair Wiener and members of the committee. Kristen Connolly, on behalf of the California Association of Clerks and Elections Officials, thank you for the opportunity to testify in support. We had initially taken a support if amended position and the senator worked with us and we really appreciate that and are here to support SB 1310. It has the potential to strengthen voter list maintenance, something we care about deeply, by improving information sharing between jury commissioners, the secretary of state and county elections officials. The bill requires jury commissioners to notify elections officials when they receive a juror affidavit showing that the individual is not qualified for jury service.
And again, the scope has been limited, as the senator has described, but for a reason that would make them ineligible to vote. This ensures that counties receive timely verified information that supports accurate and up voter rolls which is something we committed to year and work on every single day And again we really appreciate the willingness of the author to work with us to address our concerns and we'll work closely as the bill continues to evolve. But the amendment we ask for helps to ensure clarity and consistent implementation across counties. With this amendment in place, SB 1310 provides another tool that would be a practical, efficient improvement to the accuracy of our voter registration system without imposing new operational burdens on counties. For these reasons, the CACEO respectfully urges your aye vote on SB 1310. Thank you very much.
Good morning, Chair and members. Nicole Wordleman on behalf of Orange County, sponsor of SB 1310. At its core, this bill is about improving the accuracy and integrity of California's voter roles while maintaining strong protections for eligible voters. Counties share the goal of ensuring that voter registration records are current, reliable, and reflective of real-world changes, but we also recognize that our existing tools, while important, are not always sufficient on their own. SB 1310 proposes a thoughtful and measured approach by allowing limited information from jury questionnaires, information that may indicate a potential change in eligibility or residency to serve as a lead for further review, not as a final determination. This distinction is critical. We are aware of the concerns raised by stakeholders and are working to address them. They are valid considerations and they underscore why SB 1310 must be implemented carefully. However, this bill does not and should not treat jury information as conclusive evidence. Instead, it creates an opportunity to flag potential discrepancies and initiate a process that includes verification, voter notification, and the ability to correct the record before any action is taken. This approach is consistent with federal law and existing voter protections. For Orange County, this proposal also presents an opportunity to modernize how state and local entities coordinate. By engaging the Secretary of State as a central partner in data matching and verification, we can ensure consistency across counties and avoid placing undue burden on local election officials. Ultimately, SB 1310 is not about removing voters. It is about improving data quality, strengthening public confidence, and ensuring that our voter roles are as accurate and up-to-date as possible, while preserving every eligible Californian's right to vote. We respectfully ask for your support. Thank you very much.
Additional support, please come forward, sit your name and affiliation, if any. Any? Okay. Any additional, any support? Seeing none, we'll go to opposition. Please come forward. You will each have two minutes.
Thank you, Chair members. Dora Rose, Deputy Director, League of Women Voters of California, here in respectful opposition to SB 1310. California has already got tools built specifically for maintaining accurate voter rolls. In fact the League and other advocates have sponsored and supported multiple bills to ensure that our state is able to maintain clean roles without purging eligible voters SB 1310 creates a new and unnecessary cancellation pathway based on a source of information poorly suited to voter registration maintenance Jury affidavits can reflect mistakes, misunderstandings, stale information, or statements that have nothing to do with voter eligibility. Using it to trigger inactivation or cancellation means that eligible voters could be wrongly flagged, and then voters would only have 15 days after the notice is mailed to demonstrate eligibility before elections officials are required to purge them. We know the problem with the mails. We spoke about it earlier in this hearing. But demonstrate is left undefined. Does it mean producing documentary evidence of citizenship in a very short time frame? Is that what this bill is? It's certainly unlike current code in Section 2201 that requires only voter attestations to correct data like mistaken records of incarceration. SB 1310 is especially dangerous for naturalized citizens. Someone may indicate that they're not a citizen, right, later naturalized and lawfully registered to vote, and still be swept up into cancellation process based on outdated information. There is also a requirement that jury affidavits comply with election laws translation mandates, which raises the risk that people who have limited English proficiency not understanding what they're doing, what they're attesting to on that jury form. It's also documented that eligible voters sometimes falsely claim not to be citizens to avoid jury duty. Now, that's illegal. It's wrong. It's dealt with under the law. But it shows why jury forms should not be relied on for voter list maintenance. Under federal law, list maintenance programs have got to be uniform, they've got to be non-discriminatory, and they've got to include safeguards to prevent erroneous removals. But this bill is going to rely on data that can generate false flags and create a real danger of discriminatory disenfranchisement. Bad data and wrongful purges disproportionately harm already underrepresented communities, including those with limited English proficiency, voters of color, people with disabilities, and those who are housing insecure may not get those mailings or low income. The League respectfully urges a no vote. Thank you.
Thank you, Chair. Daniel Conway here on behalf of Common Cause. I want to apologize to you and to the author for the fact that we did not get a letter in prior to this committee. But I also just want to echo and emphasize a few of the comments that my colleague here made. You know, Common Cause has a longstanding position where we obviously want to see voter lists maintained to the highest integrity. But we have longstanding concerns about proposals like this that introduce erroneous and potentially unreliable data to this process. California has made significant progress in recent years when it comes to maintaining its voter list. We've seen significant legislation, SB 504, which dealt with formerly incarcerated individuals and the fact that too many of them were being purged from voter lists. We took corrective measures so that people were now getting notice and the opportunity to cure that. We saw subsequent legislation in AB 2841 and AB 2951 that basically submitted that process. And so while we see this as an important step going forward, what we don't want is, again, the data that we're seeing from voter registration or from jury qualification introduced to this process. Wanted to just also note that because of the fact that the qualifications for being a juror are much different than those from being a voter. And so trying to kind of apply one to the other situation is again, we believe going to lead to a number of false outcomes. So at the end of the day, we just don't wanna see a reversal of the progress that we've made when it comes to maintaining voter lists. Thank you.
Thank you. Any additional opposition, please come forward,
say your name and affiliation, if any. Morning, Chair and members, Symphony Barbee, on behalf of the ACLU CalAction and respectful opposition. Thank you.
Thank you. Any additional opposition? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the committee. Any questions or comments? Senator Allen.
Yeah, I just want to make – so I understand there's a lot of outstanding concerns. You've been working with the committee. There seems to have a lot more work to be done. I know there are concerns that the appropriations chair has, and that's where this is headed next. But, Mr. Chair, do you want to give us some clarity on the status of negotiations, given all these –
Yes, and it will head to the judiciary if it passes out of committee today. So I understand the opposition, and I think that there is some validity to those arguments. It is also the case that if you have someone who states under penalty of perjury that I'm not eligible to vote, to me that's not totally irrelevant. This is the first committee, and if the bill proceeds, it will have a long road ahead, And I think the bill does need – will need some work. The 15 days could be longer, for example. So there are various – I know the bill has already – the author has already committed to narrow the bill in some respects. And so I understand that there will – the bill is a work in progress. I think there is something to this. I think we'll need some work moving forward, but I'm prepared to support it, to support moving it out of committee today to continue that conversation, and the bill will either succeed or not succeed moving forward. So that's where I am.
Okay.
Well, with that understanding, I'm happy to move the bill, but I understand this is a long, unwinding road ahead if it's got any chance to see the light of day. Okay. With that said, Senator, you may close.
Thank you, Chair and Senator Allen. Obviously, we all know that the integrity of the voter rule is always our concern and the primary source of keeping our democracy clean as much as possible, unqualified voter rule. We – nobody wants that. And as you know, if you have been called to jury duties, you will know that the first question is that you can present yourself whether you are qualified to serve as a jury or not. Among them, among many other reasons, then they will state, oh, I'm not a citizen, and other neighboring in the district, or my English is not good enough. So those reasons will trigger the jury commissioner to notify disqualified to serve on the jury duty more closely related to right to vote. So when the Secretary of State receives they are not automatically purging their data from the voter rolls This will give them opportunity to screen to find out such as English proficiency is not a condition to disqualify the vote So obviously the Secretary of State will dismiss that kind of request. So there are many other language translations for the voter information for that reason. So that's why the secondary stage will screen out whether the request to the Secretary of State to evaluate this person's qualification to vote. So that's the reason I think we need to proceed this one, and obviously we may have to address certain areas of deficiency in this bill as is, so we'll improve to that. But the simple goal of this bill is to improve the quality of the voter database. When we receive such a self-disqualifying information is gathered, that should be transmitted to the Secretary of State and for its office, her office can evaluate. So I urge you, I vote. Thank you very much.
The bill has been moved by Senator Allen to pass to Judiciary Committee, and we will call the roll. Senators Weiner?
Aye.
Weiner, aye. Choi?
Aye.
Choi, aye. Allen?
Aye.
Allen, aye. Cervantes? Umberg? Okay, 3-0. We'll put that on call. Okay, we've now completed all of our bills. We're going to lift the call. I think I have – we'll ask – can you track down Senator Umberg? Thank you. Okay, we'll go back to item number one, SB 1175 Rubio. Please call the absent members. Motion is due passed. Chair and Vice Chair voted aye. Allen?
Aye.
Allen, aye. Five?
Yeah.
Okay, so the vote is five to zero. That bill is out. Item two, SB 1357 by Senator Ochoa Bogue. Please call the absent members. Motion is due passed to the Committee on Judiciary. Chair and Vice Chair voted aye. Allen?
Aye.
Allen, aye. Five-zero. Vote is five to nothing. That bill is out. Item three, SB 1369 by Senator Reyes. Please call the absent member. Motion is due. Passed to the Committee on Public Safety. Chair voted aye. Vice-chair voted no. Allen?
Aye.
Allen, aye. Four to one. Four to one. The vote is four to one. That bill is out. Item number four, SB 1414 by Senator Reyes. Please call the absent member. Motion is due. Passed to the Committee on Local Government. Chair voted aye. Vice Chair voted no. Allen?
Aye.
Allen, aye. Four to one. Four to one. That bill is out. We'll next go to item number seven, SB 970 by Senator Cervantes. Please call the absent member. Motion is due to pass to the Committee on Appropriations. Chair voted aye. Choi?
Allen?
Aye.
Allen, aye.
Four to zero. The vote is four to zero. That bill is out. And I believe now we're just missing Senator Umberg on two bills. Okay. He's on his way. He's on his way. He was here earlier. Okay. We take a very brief recess until Senator Umberg arrives Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. We are back in session and we have two remaining bills. So for item number five, SB 1420, Richardson, please call the absent member. Motion is due passed to the Committee on Appropriations. Chair and Vice Chair voted aye. Umberg?
Aye.
Umberg, aye. Five zero. Okay, 5-0. That bill is out. And then finally, item number 8, SB 1310 by Senator Choi. Please call the absent member. Motion is due. Passed to the Committee on Judiciary. Chair and Vice Chair voted aye. Cervantes Umberg?
Aye.
Umberg, aye.
4-0. 4-0. That bill is out. Okay, that completes our business today. Thank you very much. And the committee is adjourned. No problem. Thank you. Thank you.