June 30, 2026 · Elections · 12,358 words · 18 speakers · 120 segments
you yeah meeting as a subcommittee so we can save time and I see assembly member
Pellerini is present and that's AB 2255 when you are ready we listen and proceed Thank you. Hi, good morning. So good morning, Vice Chair and member. I'm here to present 2255. Candidates often begin fundraising well in advance of an election to ensure they have sufficient resources to communicate with voters. However, most campaign spending usually occurs during the weeks leading up to the election. AB 2255 requires additional detail about the purpose of large campaign expenditures made at times when a candidate is not appearing on the ballot at the next election and is likely to be engaged in significant campaign activity. This additional disclosure will improve transparency and ensure appropriate oversight of the state's campaign finance laws. AB 2255 is sponsored by the Fair Political Practices Commission, is supported by the League of Women Voters of California, and has no opposition.
And with me to testify today is Lindsay Nakano with the Fair Political Practices Commission. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Vice Chair and member. Lindsay Nakano here on behalf of the FPPC as the sponsor of AB 2255. Under existing law, descriptions of payments and campaign reports are permitted to be brief and general. As noted in the committee analysis, campaign committees are permitted to describe payments using standardized expenditure codes such as, for example, PRT for print ads or WEB for various IT costs. Subject to certain exceptions, AB 2255 would require additional detail to be reported about large expenditures to a single source in periods where the candidate will not be on the ballot in the next election and are not running for re-election. For each qualifying expenditure, the committee would be required to disclose a description of any consideration for which the expenditure was made, including the specific political, legislative, or governmental purpose of the payment, and, if applicable, the relationship of the person or portable sub-vendor to the candidate or the candidate's campaign or office holder staff. This added transparency will help build public trust and confidence that candidates are making permissible expenditures in years where a candidate has an open campaign committee for a more distant election. Thank you for your time and consideration of this bill.
Okay. Anyone witness? Just the one, yes. Anyone, me too, supporters? Any opposition witness? Okay, no one. Anyone in the committee has a question? Okay. We'll wait until the quorum is established to take motions and vote on it and leave it open for the votes. In the meantime, if FCC is sponsoring the bill, it must be very detailed, accurate, and sounds like it's a supportable bill.
Thank you.
Thank you at the appropriate time I request your I vote Thank you Okay Is that it No more That was it You can present all of it Yeah Now you going to be bored Okay All right Have a nice day
Bye.
You too. Okay. Any assembly member here to present? Okay. We'll have a recess until next assembly member arrives Okay, we're back from recess and Some member Soria is here to present item number 12 AB 2753. Welcome, Assemblymember, and you may present your bill.
Good morning, Chair and members. We know public trust is foundational in our democracy. AB 2753 strengthens that trust by prohibiting registered sex offenders from running for or holding local or state elected office. Today, California already prohibits individuals convicted of serious public corruption crimes from running for office because we recognize that some offenses are fundamentally inconsistent with holding positions of public trust. This bill is not about expanding the sex offender registry. It is about protecting public trust in elected office, trust that they have the interest of their community at heart, and the trust that they reflect the values of their constituents and trust that they will serve and protect the residents they represent. Earlier this year, my community in Fresno learned that our election laws did not prohibit a sex offender from running for local office. Rene Campos, a registered sex offender, announced his intention to run for Fresno City Council. Our community was shocked and outraged and baffled that a registered sex offender could run for office. This case exposed a gap in our election laws and it forced us to ask ourselves whether someone who is a registered sex offender should be entrusted with elected office. AB 2753 answers the question very simply. It's a no. I do appreciate the concerns raised in the committee analysis regarding the history of California's sex offender registry and the LGBTQ community. While California has evolved significantly over the decades, I also recognize that there are still legitimate concerns about how portions of the registry operated historically. Those concerns deserve continued discussion and reforms where appropriate. However, that is not the issue before us today. This bill is not trying to revisit the history of the registry nor expand it. It simply relies on the registry as it exists today. To address some of the committee's concerns outlined in the analysis, I will be amending the bill so that only individuals who are currently required to register as sex offenders would be prohibited from running for or serving in state or local elected office. If someone is lawfully removed from the registry under existing law, they would no longer be subject to this prohibition. So I believe the amendment I did take at the consideration of this committee narrows the bill while still maintaining the bill's core purpose, ensuring individuals who are currently registered sex offenders are not serving in positions of public trust. AB 2753 helps protect the integrity of our democratic institutions by giving confidence that those who serve them haven violated the public trust Here with me today to testify in support of 2753 is Nelson Esparza president of the Fresno City Council
Thank you very much. Before we go to your witness, just to be clear, so you are not accepting the committee amendment in the analysis, is that correct?
Not in its entirety. We're addressing just limiting to those that are currently.
Right. Okay. So, and correct me if I'm wrong in saying this, that you're, so the committee analysis contains an amendment to limit the bill to tier three sex offenders, which is lifetime registration. you're indicating that you're not taking that, but instead all sex offenders, tiers 1, 2, and 3, will be prohibited from running for office during the time that they are on the sex offender registry, which is minimum 10 years for Tier 1, minimum 20 years for Tier 2, lifetime for Tier 3.
That's correct.
Okay. Thank you. You may proceed. You have two minutes.
Good morning, Chairman. My name is Nelson Esparza, serve on the Fresno City Council as the president and was a co-sponsor of our council resolution number 2026-41 in support of AB 2753. This issue is deeply personal to me because in Fresno we did not have to consider this as a hypothetical. The registered sex offender at the center of this matter announced this candidacy to succeed me when I term out next January. In 2018, this individual was convicted of possession of child sexual abuse material. And again, earlier this year, he announced his candidacy for Fresno City Council in my district. What followed was weeks of disruption and distraction that pulled our city's focus away from the work that matters the most. Instead of addressing Fresno's issues, our city was consumed by the reality that a registered sex offender was actively running for office. This individual hosted a press conference in front of an elementary school and drew national coverage. My office received dozens of calls from our residents asking how this could be allowed, and AB 2753 closes this loophole. I do believe and trust the will and judgment of voters, but running for office is a very intentional act. in Fresno, and we had a registered sex offender actively trying to engage at the doors, posing very serious concerns in our community. I trust voters, but I also believe they should not have to unwillingly interact with sex offenders in the first place. Lastly, I will say that I firmly believe in rehabilitation and second chances, but accountability does not disappear. And when someone commits a serious offense, especially one that violates another person, much less a child, that decision carries lasting consequences. AB 2753 is a responsible action to add being a registered sex offender as a disqualifier for public office. In Fresno, we saw in a short time frame how our residents reacted at the mere prospect of a sex offender running for office, and I do not wish that upon any other community in our great state. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Are there any additional witness or anyone in support of the bill beyond the lead witness? Okay, seeing none. Is there any opposition to this bill? If so, please come forward. Okay, we'll bring it back to the committee. We have not established a quorum yet. We will do that as soon as we have a third member here Senator Choi did you have any questions or comments Oh yeah I appreciate your content or intent of the bill It is a very serious
issue. Sex offenders of all different kinds are running for elected official positions. Another bill that we'll be dealing with later will be AB 2691 is a very similar but the 3d amendment process at the it excludes a certain categorical sex offenders so what I'm hearing from you is that you use is any kind of a sex sexual offenders or registered sex offenders I will be bought from yes well that's that's correct senator tori while they're on the registry they would be banned from seeking public office local and state sounds good they're very supportive yeah thank you thank you great um so
remember you and I have had a number of different conversations about this bill and I respect where you're coming from and I know I must have been I can imagine why it was very jarring that this happened. I question whether anyone on the sex offender registry politically could ever be elected to office, but putting that aside, as I've indicated to you, without the amendment contained in the analysis, I will be voting no on this bill and recommending that the committee vote no. So, you know, we've done a lot of work in California. It's hard to overstate how extreme and broken the California Sex Offender Registry was. One in 400 Californians was, as of 2017, when we started fixing it, one in 400 Californians was on the Sex Offender Registry. I'll repeat that again. One in 400 Californians was on the Sex Offender Registry because we were one of only four states in the country where once you got on the sex offender registry, there was almost never a way to get off of the registry. So whether you were a sexually violent predator or whether you were a gay guy who had sex in a park or in a car and got arrested, like, for example, Bayard Rustin did back in the 1950s, Martin Luther King's right hand, was arrested in a park for having sex in a car and had to register. You were on for life. 2017, we finally, with the support of a broad coalition, including law enforcement, we tiered the registry so that we had three tiers. Tier 3, you're on for life. And then, as I mentioned, Tier 2, you can petition to get off after 20 years. Tier 1, after 10 years, you're not guaranteed to get off, but you can at least petition. and we began to really make the sex offender registry the tool that it is supposed to be. It is not a form of punishment. Sex offender registry is not punishment. It is a tool for law enforcement to be able to monitor people who may potentially cause a risk. And when we use the sex offender registry as a proxy for anything else, we get into problems. The way this bill was drafted and the way it passed out of the Assembly would have gone back and the way the bill is in print today, anyone who has ever at any moment in time, whether today or 70 years ago would be precluded for running for office for life. I appreciate that the author has acknowledged that the bill does need to change, but the amendment that the author has suggested will still sweep in anyone on the registry for any reason in all three tiers, and that's just not something that I can support. So I respect our disagreement. I have enormous respect and admiration for the author who represents her district well. But that is where I am. And so with that, you may close.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, I just want to, again, make it very clear that the bill that is in front of us does not create any new crimes. It does not expand the sex offender registry, nor does it change who must register. That is not what the bill is focused on. It simply says that if California currently requires someone to register as a sex offender, they should not be entrusted with the honor of elected office. And so obviously my community and I feel very strongly about these types of individuals seeking to run for elected office, and we do believe that we must draw the line there. and so with that I respectfully ask for an aye vote.
Thank you very much, Assemblymember, and once we establish a quorum we will entertain a motion. Thank you for coming today. Okay, I see that Assemblymember Addis has joined us and she'll be presenting item number 11, AB 2691.
Thank you so much, Chair and members. I know you have a very long day, so I'm going to tighten up my testimony and then have my witnesses share from their perspective. But the gist is I'm here to present AB 2691, the Public Trust Protection Act, which would expand the list of felony convictions that disqualify someone for running for or holding state or elected, excuse me, state or local elected office to include the most severe cases of sexual assault and sex trafficking. And I just want to thank the chair and staff for working so closely with us to get this bill to the place that it's in today. So I think I'll turn it over to my witnesses and then happy to answer any other questions if you have any.
Great. Thank you for coming. And just our witnesses are Dorothy Small, survivor and advocate, and Mitch Steiger, whom you know, legislative advocate for CFT. Great. You each have two minutes. Thank you.
Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Dorothy Small, and I'm a registered, retired registered nurse, former advocate with the survivors of those abused by priests, and a survivor of childhood and adult sexual abuse perpetrated by persons in trusted positions of power and authority. I am here to strongly urge you to vote yes on AB 2691 Reporting offenders is never a simple administrative task It forces survivors to relive their worst moments Beyond any legal challenges by reporting offenders, a survivor dismantles their own life before skeptics who often blame the victims. Reporting offenders is emotionally exhausting and ends up compounding the trauma. Many victims choose to remain silent. There's a high incidence of re-offending. Placing a person in public office where the power of the office is combined with ample supply is putting the trusting and vulnerable public in harm's way. Sexual assault is about power. If a person running for public office advertises and it's known that they were previously convicted of sexual assault or trafficking, not only is it highly triggering to victims, but it tells the community that the ambitions of the offender is valued over the victim's safety. AB 2691 provides an essential boundary by preventing convicted individuals of sexual assault or human trafficking from holding public office. It would ensure that survivors do not have to fight abusers for a voice in local government. It also prevents abusers from weaponizing and exploiting their positions of trust for personal gain. Please protect survivors, public trust, and the integrity of the offices sought. Public safety must come first over personal ambition. Please vote yes on AB 2691, and thank you for your time and consideration.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, Senator Choi and staff. Mitch Steiger with CFT, Union of Educators and Classified Professionals in support of this bill. The author and previous witness really covered it well. We would also really emphasize that from the education worker perspective, when you consider the power dynamic involved in the crimes at issue in this bill, it's especially relevant to some of the offices that we pay close attention to, namely school boards, where when you look at what school boards do, the individual members have great power over both student expulsion appeals as well as worker disciplinary proceedings. And so when you combine someone who's been convicted of committing crimes like this with the very direct and real power they have over specific individuals, we think it's a real recipe for disaster. We very much agree with the comments regarding the previous bill and we want to be very careful in how we expand these restrictions in law, but we think there's a pretty clear nexus here between the crimes in this bill and the potential for serious abuse should an individual who commits this sort of activity be in charge over individual people in those situations. Also wanted to flag that for some of these school board elections, they tend to be fairly down-ballot elections. Often there's not an opponent, and so just relying on this information to be public, obviously the candidate's very unlikely to disclose it. they may not even have an opponent that's going to disclose it, it's very likely that this could be something the voters never even hear about. So someone could quietly work their way into this office and have that potential for abuse there. Something we're very concerned about, and we think it's a great bill, and we urge your support. Thank you.
Thank you. Is there any additional support? If so, please come forward.
Good morning. Jack Worson from Nausman on behalf of the County of Monterey in support.
Okay, any additional support? Okay, seeing none, is there any opposition to the bill? Please come forward. And are you, so do we have two, I want to make sure, are you the two lead witnesses then I know I am Okay so two minutes each please right chair members my name is Greg Burt with the California Family Council representing tens of thousands of constituents and more than 2 churches
across California when we read the June 24th amendment to AB 2691 our honest reaction was that it could not be real we assumed we'd misread it we sat in our office and tried to imagine how anyone could stand up and defend it. So I'm here today genuinely hoping someone will tell us why crimes against children are being carved out of this bill. Let me be clear about what we support. Barring people convicted of felony sexual assault and human trafficking from holding public office is good policy. We want to support the bill. But the amendments, we were told this committee chair demanded exempt convictions for felony sodomy oral copulation and sexual print it's penetration against children so here is where the bill now stands a person convicted of felony sexual assault against an adult would be barred from public office a person convicted of the same act against a minor would not be adult victim you're disqualified child victim you may run for school board no one has offered a rationale the The committee's own analysis does not offer one. The bill passed the Assembly 4 67 to 0 before this amendment existed. The unanimous vote was a clean bill. Other states put children first. Utah permanently bars anyone convicted of grievous sexual assault against a child from serving on a school board. This amendment moves California in the opposite direction. It protects child victims least, exactly where the protection is needed most. We are ready to become strong supporters the moment these three exemptions are removed. Until then, we urge a no vote, and we're still waiting for a clear justification. Thank you.
Good afternoon, honorable senators, chair. My name is David Pollock of the SFV Alliance. Among our many concerns is out of law, order, and protecting kids. We do find sexual assault to be repugnant when this legislation originally came out We took a neutral position on it while on one hand We like the intentions We feel that elections are the place for the voters to decide who is worthy to serve them and who is not It is something that usually works itself out We also felt what the author's prestige among her colleagues that the legislation would have no trouble passing unfortunately with the recent added amendments making the crime of If I read it right, rape and anal sex with a minor exempt, it is now in contradiction with what it seems to be the attempt of the author. I'm baffled with this current legislation. I don't know how anybody thinks these exemptions would be acceptable with its prior intentions. If these amendments came from outside of the author's bill, Assemblymember, I'm truly sorry that this was done to your bill. If the person who came up with those amendments is in this room, I want to say shame on you. I've been mistaken in the past and if I'm wrong on my analysis I would love to hear why I'm requesting either the author or the committee members Please explain why these current amendments are a good idea why you felt they needed to be added on at this moment We at the SFV Alliance must oppose this bill at its currents understanding of it And urgently request the committee members to also impose it unless the current amendments are removed. Thank you
Any additional opposition, please come forward. Seeing none we bring it back to the committee I have a question As we previously communicated
I thought the bill would have rightly excluded a broad category of sexual predators from elected office in California. But as we hear from the opponents, amendments are the problem. Last week narrowed the scope of the bill and it now for some inexplicable reason excludes heinous crimes like sodomy of a minor or sexual penetration of a minor. So my question is this. Why should someone who engaged in sexual acts with minors should be able to run for local or state office for the mayor and national office?
Thank you so much for the question, Senator. I think my witness's testimony speaks for itself in terms of the harms of the kinds of crimes that we're focused on in this bill and what that does to survivors. And so we're doing a first-in-the-nation bill that would protect the public trust of survivors and would make sure that survivors are really in the lead. So happy to continue working with the committee or others if there are other kinds of crimes folks feel need to be addressed. But at the moment, I feel like we have a really important bill that is nation-leading that will uplift survivors and enhance public trust here in California.
The previous bill we heard AB 2753 also in broad sense to prohibit sexual offenders registered in the sexual offender registry shall be banned. So it is in general. But yours excluded certain specific categories that is really troubling. I cannot in good conscience support this bill. The initial version of the bill, which I strongly supported, would have removed the people convicted of sexual assaults and the human trafficking from the ballot. This was special in your bill. Human trafficking case was included. That was a little bit broader and very supportable. Unfortunately, recent amendments significantly watered down the bill and now explicably exempts a certain number of serious crimes that the definition of sexual assault. The last version exempts the following crimes from the definition of sexual assault under this bill. The bill analysis says penal code 286, which is a so dami or minor penal code 287 or copulation on minor penal code 897, sexual penal. Penetration on a minor, these are all focusing on minor sexual assault will be exempted. This is a heinous problem that I cannot understand why this kind of exclusions have been made. For this reason, as a result of amendments, someone who engaged in these heinous crimes would not be barred from seeking state or local office in California. Until the most recent amendments, I supported this bill, but I now believe that this bill must be opposed because of the absurd message that it sends, namely that it's okay to have pedophiles and child groomers in elected office. until the heinous crimes involving minors are restored in the definition of a sexual assault under this bill, I would not be able to in good conscience support this bill. Thank you.
Let me just, you know, I have to say I've been around politics a long time, and every time I think I've seen the height of cynicism in politics, there are people who managed to set a new world record in political cynicism. I want to be clear, the people who are opposing this bill, which is there were no felonies in any of the amendments removed out. No felonies. And the folks who are opposing it, and respectfully to the vice chair, have never brought forward a bill to restrict anyone from running for office in 2026, in 2025, in 2024, 23, and we'll go back years and decades. They have never come forward and said this crime or that crime should make you ineligible to run for office. And so the author comes forward and says, we're going to take a set of crimes, of sexual crimes, sexual assault crimes, human trafficking, and we're going to say that those people are not eligible to run for office. and instead of saying okay, we're going to make those people ineligible and then you can introduce whatever bill you want to introduce in the future if you think there are other crimes it's like well, you didn't include enough crimes including crimes that are misdemeanors or otherwise not felonies you didn't include enough crimes so I'm going to oppose your bill that's not opposition on the merits that is pure politics and pure political cynicism and I'm just calling that out So the author, I appreciate your work on this. I think that this is a solid bill and it has my support and I'll be voting for it today.
So with that, you may close. Thank you so much, Senator. I appreciate the discussion. And I'll just reemphasize that California is nation leading and even considering doing something like this for survivors. I think we're showing how much we value the voices of survivors and the experiences of survivors who are really at the center of this legislation And with that I respectfully ask for your aye vote Thank you As noted we do not have a quorum so we will
entertain a motion as soon as we establish a quorum. Thank you all for coming. Thank you. And we will continue. Do we have any? Are there any authors on their way? No. OK. We will go back into recess until we have another author. Good morning, Senator. Okay, we are going to come back from recess. We're good? Okay, great. We're back from recess. Welcome, Assemblymember Berman.
You have four bills in addition to the one that's on consent. So we will start with item one, AB 686. And in a few minutes I have to step out, and so the vice chair will take the gobble while I'm out, and then I'll be back, and you'll probably still be going by the time I get back.
Thank you, Chair.
You may proceed. Appreciate you. Deep fakes are extremely convincing fabricated photos, videos, and audio recordings of someone appearing to say or do something they did not. The ability to attribute speech and conduct to a political candidate that is false and that never happened makes deepfakes a powerful and dangerous tool in the arsenal of those that want to wage myths and disinformation campaigns. That is why the legislature passed my AB 730 back in 2019 to prohibit the distribution of deepfakes and other manipulated media within 60 days of an election, unless the image or recording includes a disclosure stating that it is manipulated. However, this law will sunset in 2027. AB 686 would extend the sunset to January 1st, 2031. I'm not sure why we're not eliminating the sunset, but that will be a different conversation with my team later. Keeping the law intact for an additional four years. This will ensure that California law continues to dissuade the creation and distribution of nefarious election-related deepfakes and other manipulated content. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.
Great. And do you have any witnesses?
I don't think so.
Okay. Is there anyone in support of AB 686? If so, please come forward. Seeing none, is there any opposition to AB 686? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the committee. Mr. Vice Chair, any questions or comments? No. Okay. So we have not yet established a quorum. We will make a motion once we do so. So we'll move past item one to item number two, AB 1130. What are these little white phones for?
is that right that is very old school AB 1130 social media and the growing influence ah this is a fun one social media and the growing influencer industry have drastically changed the election space not only impacting how voters consume the news but also how campaigns attempt to reach voters Under the Political Reform Act, if a campaign committee pays a third-party individual to post content, whether it is supporting or opposing the candidate or a ballot measure, the paid individual must include a disclaimer stating that they were paid in connection to the post. While campaigns are required to notify the individual of their responsibility to include a disclosure within the paid post, there is no liability for anyone for failure to include the disclosure. This leaves the third-party individual with no incentive to comply with the law and can result in voters being misled by the paid content. AB 1130 would increase transparency for social media content that has been paid for by a campaign committee and improve compliance with current law. failure to include a disclaimer may result in penalties under the Political Reform Act for both the campaign committee and for the third-party individual. AB 1130 would also improve transparency around campaign expenditures by requiring campaigns to disclose in their filings if funds were specifically used for social media posts. Ultimately, AB 1130 would ensure that voters are not misled by content that looks authentic when it's really the equivalent of a paid advertisement. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. And with me today is Lindsay Nakano, Senior Legislative Counsel for the Fair Political
Practices Commission.
Thank you, Assemblymember.
Good morning, Chair and Member. I'm Lindsay Nakano here on behalf of the Fair Political Practices Commission in support. The Political Reform Act requires disclaimer statements to be placed on campaign advertisements that generally provide information to the public about which individuals or groups are behind campaign messaging that seeks to influence voting choices. As technology evolves, the methods for communicating with voters expand, and it's prudent to examine how the law should be updated to adapt to those changes. To that end, the legislature passed SB 678 in 2023, sponsored by the commission, which imposed a new concurrent disclaimer requirement on content posted on the Internet that supports or poses a candidate or ballot measure when the poster, such as a social media influencer, was paid by a committee in connection with that post. AB 1130 further strengthens that disclaimer requirement by imposing liability on the person who posted the content and the committee that paid them. This will incentivize compliance and authorize the commission to pursue appropriate administrative enforcement actions in cases of noncompliance. The bill also requires more detail to be reported on campaign reports about these expenditures, which will enable the public and others to better identify these payments. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Thank you. Is there any additional support for AB 1130? Please come forward. Seeing none, is there any opposition? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the committee. Mr. Vice Chair. I have a simple question that is for all social media that is either supporting or opposing either email or any kind of Facebook, any social media will have to have a disclaimer paid for by. That's what you mean, right? And do you have in this bill any certain type size or how many letters minimum or anything like that?
Yeah, I appreciate the question. We'll defer to my witness for specifics.
But if you were being paid by a campaign you would have to disclose in the post that you were paid by a campaign to make that post and I don know existing law this is strengthening a senator Umberg law from a couple years ago and I think that law maybe had those specifics yeah
I thought already we had that the disclaimer requirement law but the how
this bill is different so these communications wouldn't necessarily qualify as a campaign advertisement but they are communications that are put out there by a third party person like an influencer or somebody any person on Twitter or Instagram or Facebook who wants to create a message that supports or opposes a candidate or ballot measure and who was paid to do so by a committee so it's not coming from the committee it's coming from a third party who was paid by the committee to deliver that message so this is a little bit different and it builds on the bill that was passed a couple years ago regarding the font size and things like that. In existing law there's a requirement that it is readily legible to an average viewer. So not as precise as some of the other requirements regarding campaign advertisements but there's a general requirement that it is legible to the average viewer. So you raise a good point and maybe that's something that we should look at is you know take a look at whether or not not we need to get more specific posting on social media you are constrained to how big you can make things like the platform kind of dictates the size and font I think that you use but it's an interesting point that you raise that we'll take a look at for whether or not you know there's more
definition that we can put yeah I'm comparing that when you mention as a social media that excludes
radio, right? TV is included, right? TV is included under, this is really geared at social media influencers, and so they are the ones who are, who, they
have followers. Because the same law applies
in the radio, the
sole speakers disclaim
pitfall by, so
fast. It's
a waste of time.
Nobody can understand the pitfall. I couldn't tell what they are saying and but what they are attempting is a meeting the requirement the law
requirement of disclaimer that's what they are doing but especially social media the space is also limited they can print it very small nobody can read and they met the requirements if you don't stipulate a certain legible size of what's the legible is a subject to you know behold of the eyes yeah great thank you so that
appreciate it and we will now move to item for AB 2281 and I'm going to step out so mr. vice-chair if you would be going to conduct the hearing until I return I would appreciate it thank you thank you You have bill number three, is that it? Bill number three, AB 2153. That's on consent. Oh, that's, that's, okay, that's already consent. And next one is bill number four, is AB 2281.
Thank you.
Go ahead.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let me start by saying I'll be accepting the committee amendments as described in the analysis. I was proud to author legislation in 2018 to establish the Office of Election Cybersecurity within the Secretary of State's office. is responsible for coordinating efforts to address cyber threats and monitoring election misinformation. Additionally, local and state elections officials have relied on federal resources and support to improve the security of their election systems. Unfortunately, the Trump administration has cut critical funding and coordination that helped states guard against threats to our elections. In response, this bill, AB 2281, would direct the Office of Election Cybersecurity to assess if additional resources are necessary to replace the loss of federal cybersecurity support. This will ensure that California officials continue to have the information and tools necessary to defend our democracy from cyber attacks. AB 2281 would also strengthen the Office of Election Cybersecurity by authorizing the
office to consult with academic researchers. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Do you have any support witness? I do not. You're looking at him. Anyone in the audience that support state? Okay. Any opposition witness? Any other me too opponents? Okay. Any members? Oh, that's only me. That kind of day. Okay. Can you define what you mean by this election cybersecurity, meaning that it's a false advertising is included in there or somebody altering the content of that. Can you define that? What you mean by the cybersecurity? Well, there's the cybersecurity piece, which is making sure that our counties are utilizing best practices to make sure that their election systems are safe from outside interference and wanted to make sure that because California we have 58 counties some are big and they have a lot of resources and on their team they have a lot of expertise some counties are very small and and so to be the the idea behind the office of election cybersecurity was to create a conduit between the 58 counties and the Department of Homeland Security because at the time the Department of Homeland Security was was providing a lot of funding around election cybersecurity issues unfortunately the Trump administration has gutted a lot of that function of the Department of Homeland Security and so this bill would say hey for our office of the for our state office of election cybersecurity for you know some of the efforts that used to be done by the federal government do you need more resources now to undertake those operations and provide those that guidance and services to our counties. So that's one issue. Then there's the issue of missing disinformation and and I believe that it has to do specifically with the time place and manner of voting which is illegal that's a different bill that I did a long time ago to make it a misdemeanor to intentionally mislead people and post content that that misleads around the time place and manner of voting. So if you intentionally say Election Day is on Wednesday November 4th when you know that it's on Tuesday November 3rd and you do that to try to trick people and essentially disenfranchise those people that is illegal in California and and so then this the original bill that created the Office of Election Cybersecurity tasked the Office of Elections Cybersecurity with monitoring social media and working with the social media companies right developing relationships with the key contacts within those companies so that if there that type of illegal content that is posted that it gets removed as quickly as possible and so that the sort of mis and disinformation kind of tasks of the office okay thank you for your defining the terminology do you have any closing statement i respectfully ask for your i vote when you get a quorum Okay, when we have enough members on the committee, then we'll go through that. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, you have one more? Last one. Okay, bill number 5, 2504. Go ahead. 2604. 2604. I'm sorry. Good. How are you? Good. Hey, good to see you. Thank you, Chair.
During my tenure in the legislature, we have taken numerous steps to ensure that voting in California is secure and accessible, and that our vote-by-mail process and our vote-by-mail process is both. Unfortunately, missing or mismatching signatures still result in far too many invalidated vote-by-mail ballots. In order to streamline the process to correct signature issues and process ballots faster, AB 2604 would have the Secretary of State implement a statewide system that counties could use to allow California voters to cure their vote-by-mail ballot electronically. AB 2604 builds upon legislation that I authored in 2023 that authorized county elections officials to offer this option, and several counties have found the resources already to contract for this option. And by several counties, I believe it's over 20, and I believe they serve over half of the registered voters in California. Contra Costa County offers this option and has noted that it was particularly appealing to younger voters, which is the demographic most likely to have a signature issue. And we are because we don't teach them how to write in school, but that's a separate issue. And we are following the lead of Colorado and Nevada, both of which allow voters to use text or similar technology. I'm pleased to be joined today by Kim Alexander of the California Voter Foundation and Ben Gips with Protect Democracy United. and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.
Okay, you have two witnesses. I have two minutes each person.
Thank you, Vice Chair Choi. Good morning. My name is Ben Gipps, and I am an impact specialist at Protect Democracy United, a proud co-sponsor of AB 2604. This bill, as you heard, promotes electronic signature curing, which is an important safeguard to the right to vote for Californians. Each election, millions of Californians cast a vote-by-mail ballot, and each election, tens of thousands of those voters have their ballot rejected. If all goes to plan, the voter receives a notice that their ballot has been rejected, and they have a chance to remedy the issue, typically by returning a signed statement by mail in a process commonly known as signature curing. However, all too often, this process does not go to plan. Voters miss the notice informing them of the issue with their ballot. They don't get around to resolving the issue or something else goes wrong in this multi-step process. AB 2604 offers a way to meaningfully improve this experience for voters by allowing them to cure their signatures using a smartphone rather than through the mail. This reduces delays in the curing process and helps voters feel sure that they have taken the necessary steps to make their voice heard heard Several counties in California already use this technology successfully and we have heard interest from many others Additionally as you heard states like Colorado and Nevada have successfully implemented this option statewide. It is a widely trusted and secure option for this important process of signature curing. Expanding this program is a common sense move. At Protect Democracy United, we also see it as a particularly timely response to recent bad faith attacks on the legitimacy of California elections. By streamlining a time-consuming process and introducing a user-friendly option to voters, we can help Californians feel confident in the election even after the unfortunate experience of having a ballot rejected. Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee today, and I respectfully urge and I vote. Thank you.
A second witness.
Yes, good morning, Vice Chair Choi and members. I'm Kim Alexander with the California Voter Foundation, and we are co-sponsors of AB2604. Missing and mismatched signatures are a leading cause for ballot rejection that particularly impacts young voters. A Center for Inclusive Democracy study of the 2024 election found that while the statewide ballot rejection rate was 0.9 percent, for young voters age 18 to 24, more than three times the statewide rate, 3.3 percent, had their ballots rejected, with non-matching signatures the top reason. Young voters face unique challenges when voting by mail. They are not accustomed to using the mail or making a signature, and they are new to voting. Ensuring that our young voters cast ballots successfully when they vote for the first time will encourage them to keep voting. And with slowdowns in the U.S. mail delivery, we need to provide voters with additional and more timely signature curing methods. Giving Californians, especially our younger voters, the ability to use their smartphones to cure a ballot envelope signature provides voters with an accessible simple and timely way to submit a valid signature to their county election office and have their ballot counted rather than rejected this curing method is already working securely and successfully in 22 California counties that are currently utilizing it voters whose signatures are challenged are notified by their local election office and typically provided a QR code that they can scan that leads to a secure portal where they provide personal data matched with their voter registration record to verify their identity and then use their finger or a stylus to make a signature on their devices screen which is then submitted through the portal and available to election officials for immediate comparison and curing at a CACO panel last December several counties expressed interest in employing this curing method for their voters AB 2604 is supported by numerous labor unions voting rights and voting access groups and I respectfully ask for your aye vote thank you okay anyone in the audience in support good morning Daniel
Conway here on behalf of common cause California League of Women Voters and Disability Rights California thank you for your leadership sir anyone else any
opposition witness okay you have two minutes good morning
My name is Nikesha Robinson and I am the Deputy Secretary of State over the Help America Vote Act and the Office of Voting Systems Technology Assessment. In 2017, election systems nationwide received the designation as critical infrastructure. As such, it is imperative that the technology addressed in this bill be regulated. The Secretary of State is the chief elections official in the state of California and has the authority to test and regulate most technology used in California elections. As a matter of policy, we have consistently and successfully asserted this authority ever since This technology should not be an exception What does critical infrastructure mean Critical infrastructure in election specific categories include the procedures to enable voters to register, cast votes, and have their votes counted and reported. The Secretary of State also regulates voting systems, the tabulation systems, ballot marking devices, remote accessible vote by mail systems, electronic poll books, election management systems, and ballot printing technologies. As the supporters mentioned earlier, this technology is being currently used by a majority of counties. So why try to regulate this down? The core of the problem is the initial signatures themselves. Automated verification, human verification, also unregulated. And the topic of this bill, signature hearing-based technology. If there are no standards, regulations, best practices around the inception point, the remainder of the process becomes a let's wait and see what happens. Our elections are far too important now more than ever to leave technology to chance. Rather than implementing standards and testing that continue to ensure that California's election infrastructure is safe, secure, accessible, and most important, accurate. Thank you. Thank you. Any other opposing
person can come up in the state your position okay if not then we are back to the committee we are discussing AB 2604 do you have any question no no no not Okay. Okay, I have a question.
This is a very serious question regarding signature verification. It's always problematic because it delays a lot of election results counting, the county and the counties are doing it when they determine certain signatures are not identical to their determination, then I don't know whether each county has their standard. observers are arguing that is same or not is a very subjective subjective judgment and finally my understanding is that at least the county I come from Orange County notifies the questionable voter I don't know what means that they are using by mail or telephone to verify and to cure their signature. That delays, I mean, every state is laughing at our state's delayed vote counting up to 38 days. As I remember, the state secretary will have to certify the ballots. So during that time, much of the time is verifying this wrongful signatures to cure the questionable signatures. So if this passes, what is the difference? Currently, the system in place, each county and the Secretary of State will authorize the county elected officials A system that allows a voter to access electronic signature curing. So that means if you can specify, so the county election officer will send me a text or a phone call, hey, we have a problem, can you sign and take a picture and send it back to us? Is that what the procedure are you suggesting?
Yeah, thank you for the question. And a couple of questions. and a couple points that you raised. So I'll just say, I'll let my witnesses fill in the gaps that I'm sure I'll have. But there are multiple different ways that a county might reach out to a voter to let them know that there was a missing or mismatching signature on their vote-by-mail envelope. One of the ways that they do that, which I want to do a public plug for and encourage everyone to sign up for, is the Where's My Ballot Tracking System, which is a system that I created with a bill back in 2018 or so. So full disclosure, copied it from Colorado. They were doing it there first. But this, you know, we try to create as easy a way as possible for the county elections officials to notify voters. And then what this will do is this will say that the county can provide a voter with either a website link or a QR code that then sends them to a secure portal where they can confirm their identity and that they did in fact vote. and then they can use a stylist or their finger to provide a signature on the screen that can then be compared to the voter file. And for example, in Los Angeles County, recent data shows that about 30% of the signature cures in Los Angeles happen using this technology. And to your point of counting ballots faster, this will help us count ballots faster. Because instead of getting something in the mail and then having to sign it and then send it back via mail, all of which takes a lot of time, this will help you do that immediately. And so I really think that this bill and this technology helps get the goal that you want and that I want, which is counting ballots faster. For what it's worth, I had the bill last year to create standards around counting our ballots faster because I agree with you that it's important. And so the signature verification process is a part of how we make sure that our voting processes are secure and accurate. it. If you're interested in ways to change that and and you know make that easier for voters than that I'd be open to as well. But but that's not quite in this bill. But I think this bill really accomplishes some of the problems and concerns that without your bill currently counties are not allowed to communicate on what's ended by electronically. They have to physically appear to show the valid signature. Thank you for the question. So right now counties can say because of a bill I didn't 2023 or 2024 counties can do this themselves and the goal of this bill is for the state to enter into a contract and then provide that service to the counties because right now there are about 30 counties that don't do it about 20 that do and so you know we want to make this technology available for all the voters of California okay senator member
Savantez has a question not necessarily a question but a comment just want to
thank the author for working on this. I think that we can overcome some technological challenges, and instead of saying what is not possible, I think we can figure out what is possible, even with some of the concerns that were stated earlier. Certainly understand that we need to be doing more to address this, and just want to thank you for your committed work on this. Thank you Senator Could I add a response to your earlier question Senator Choi about the standards around signature verification which is also a really important question There are extensive regulations in California established through the Secretary of State office that direct counties how to go about verifying signatures how to make sure that signatures that are challenged by lower-level staff are reviewed by senior staff. We worked on those regulations. There's also laws that govern that as well. So we do have a very robust guardrails in place to make sure that there is standardization and how counties undertake that process.
Thank you for that clarification.
Would you like to close?
Respectfully ask for, I appreciate the concerns that are raised. You know, obviously and absolutely we'll continue having conversations with folks. My concern is going backwards and wanting to avoid doing that. Respectfully ask for, I vote.
Okay. Is that your last bill today?
Yes, sir.
Okay, you are dismissed and then we'll wait until we have a quorum and take the motion and vote only. We'll leave it open. We can go to number 10 now. Number 10. Okay. Okay. Now we'll move on to final number 10, AB 2573, Assemblymember Sharp Collins, if you are ready.
God damn. This chair is short. All right. Good morning. It's still morning, yes. Good morning, Chair and Senators. Good morning. I will be accepting the committee amendments, and I am pleased to present Assembly Bill 2573, measures that strengthens and clarify California's confidential voter registration program for candidates and elected officials. Last year, I authored 1392 to expand California's confidential voter registration program to include eligible elected officials and candidates at the federal, state, and local levels. As counties began implementing AB 1392, they did encounter some practical and administrative questions. Without clear statewide standards, there has been variation in how eligibility is determined, how confidentiality is processed, and how long it lasts and how it is maintained when an official or candidate moves between counties. Assembly Bill 2573 is a target technical measure that builds on AB 1392. by resolving those implementation challenges and ensuring the program works as attended across all counties. This bill clarifies eligibility by confirming that both elected and appointed officials at the federal, state, and local levels may qualify for confidential voter status. It also allows immediate family members residing in the same household of elected officials to be included in confidentiality protections, recognizing that threats to public officials often extend to their families. It also establishes a clear process for transferring confidential status when an official or candidate relocates to a new county, ensuring continuity of that protection. In addition, AB 2573 sets consistent timelines for how long confidential status remains in effect for candidates and for elected officials after they leave office. It also clarifies how participation in programs interacts with voting procedures, maintaining access to secure alternatives such as vote by mail and ballot drop-off while preserving the integrity of the process. The bill continues to include exemptions that allow journalists to verify information, maintaining appropriate transparency, and I committed to working on determining the best method for candidates and elected officials to be able to vote in person without compromising their safety At its core this measure strengthens our democracy by allowing individuals to serve without unnecessary exposure to personal risk while preserving secure and reliable access to the ballot. With that, I do respectfully ask for your aye vote. But here to testify in support today is Tim, a comrade deputy of legislative affairs for Secretary of State, Dr. Shirley Weber. Mr. Cromartie.
Thank you Assemblymember. Mr. Chair and members, Tim Cromartie on behalf of Secretary of State Shirley Ann Weber. The Secretary is pleased to sponsor this measure, which is a detailed cleanup of last year's AB 1392, seeking to protect confidential information of elected officials and candidates contained in their voter registration files. AB 2573 addresses a number of deficiencies in the original legislation. You have heard from the Assemblymember in detail what those changes are, but I will highlight just a few of them. It includes providing for a mandatory opt-in process for those who want the protection of confidential voter status, clarifying the definition of family member, and a recent amendment clarifying that all voter registration in an individual's name is covered by the statute, including such information in the possession of local elected officials that predates the individual's confidential voter status. We have worked with the counties for several months to refine this measure and address the needs of county officials for smooth implementation. This improved framework will protect the confidential information of elected officials and candidates alike, an urgent necessity in a time of heightened threats and harassment of public officials. We thank Assemblymember Collins for her leadership and perseverance in bringing this measure forward.
The stars have aligned and we have a quorum, so let's establish quorum. Senators Wiener?
I present. Wiener present.
Choi? Choi here.
Allen? Cervantes?
Here. Cervantes here. Umberg? Okay, we have a quorum. Thank you for your presentation. Is there any additional support? Please come forward. on behalf of the California Association of clerks election officials and support thank you any additional support any opposition okay seeing none we'll bring back to the committee colleagues
any yes Senator Cervantes yes I just want to mention that I did have a conversation with the author issuing my concerns given some of the challenges we saw just in this primary election with colleagues who weren't able to vote in person. So thank you for your opening statement and your commitment to working on these issues. With that I will support the bill today. You're welcome. Thank you. Okay anything else?
Anyone else? Okay seeing none. I just have an I recommendation and a motion by
Senator Cervantes and we will oh you may close I'm sorry. I respectfully ask for
an aye vote. Thank you, Assemblymember. We will call the roll on item 10, AB 2573. Motion is due, passed as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. Senators
Weiner? Aye. Weiner, aye. Choi? Aye. Choi, aye. Allen? Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes, aye.
Umberg? Okay, that is on call three to nothing. Thank you so much. Thank you. Okay We will now Mr Okay yes So item 14A JR 31 by Assemblymember Brian you may come forward
Thank you, Mr. Chair and colleagues. I will be brief because I know we all have a lot today to do. I'm going to present AJR 31, a resolution that urges Congress to restore the provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that the Supreme Court has actively struck down. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.
Is there any support for item 14? Seeing none, is there any opposition? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the committee. Any motion by Senator Cervantes?
Any comments or questions?
Seeing none, we will call the roll. Motion is be adopted.
Senator Zwiener? Aye.
Wiener, aye. Choi?
No. Choi, no. Allen? Cervantes?
Aye. Cervantes, aye.
Umberg? Thank you. Okay, we'll put that on call. I see that Senator Aragain is here.
May I begin? Yes. Okay, well, good morning, Mr. Chair. I'm sorry, this is SB 830. item number 15. You may proceed. Once again, thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee for the opportunity to present SB 830. This bill will make 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 geographic funding differences. This is consistent with previous multi-county measures in the San Francisco Bayer such as Regional Measure 3 which the legislature authorized in 2017 with the passage of SB 63 last year which was jointly authored by myself and the chair the legislature authorized a 14-year regional public transit sales tax measure on the November 2026 ballot this measure will provide critical emergency funding to stabilize our Bayer transit operators important to note that this bill SB 830 does not change in any way the funding amounts or the accountability measures that were in SB 63 this is simply an election administration bill this bill is no opposition and support from variety of labor climate and business groups and with me to testify in support of the bill is Steve Hansen representing spur good morning chair Wiener and members my name is Steve Hansen here on behalf of spur and supportive SB 30 SB 30 is a
narrow and urgent elections cleanup bill for the five-county regional transit measure authorized by SB 63 it does not change the substance of SB 63 the expenditure plan or the accountability requirements what it does is give local elections officials clarity a uniform ballot title clear placement on the ballot and the ability for each county to use ballot arguments that accurately reflect how the measure works locally that matters because the measure has different tax rates different eligible expenditures by county voters deserve accurate county specific information before they cast ballots. Public transit is essential infrastructure for the Bay Area's workers, families, students, seniors, people with disabilities and economy. SB 830 gives voters clarity and gives election officials the certainty they need for November. We respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Is there any additional support? Please come forward.
Steven Sensor with Brown Seen on behalf of the Bay Area Council as a proud sponsor and in strong support. Thank you.
Jessica was on behalf of Bay Area Rapid Transit or BART in support thank you any
additional support seeing none any opposition seeing none we'll bring it back to the committee do we have a motion motion by Senator Cervantes any comment any questions comments seeing none you may close we ask for your I
vote. Great. Thank you and I appreciate you doing this and has my full support.
We'll call the roll. Motion is that the assembly amendments be concurred in. Senators Weiner? Aye. Weiner, aye. Choi? Allen? Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes, aye. Umberg? Okay, we'll put that on call. Thank you. Thank you. We might as well take motions. Oh, okay. Okay, well, if they're walking here now. Okay. Number three, the consent calendar. Can we take your consent calendar? Are we just... Well, they're on their way, so why don't we do it all once they get here in a minute. And so that's it. Are you in a rush? Are you in a rush? Because I think they're walking over now. But we can go through it if you need to leave. No, I mean, that would be helpful. Yes. Yeah, why don't we do that? Okay, we'll start with the consent calendar, which is items 3, 5. It's not 5. I'm sorry. 3, 6, 7, 8, and 13. Do we have a motion?
Okay, a motion by Senator Cervantes.
We will call the roll.
Senators Wiener? Aye.
Wiener, aye. Choi?
Aye. Choi, aye.
Allen? Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes, aye. Umberg? Okay, we'll put that on call. We'll now go back to item one. Do we have a motion? A motion. Moved by Senator Cervantes. Please call the roll. Motion is due passed to the Committee on Judiciary. Senators Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. Choi? No. Cervantes, I. Umberg. We'll put it on call. Item 2, AB 1130, please call a motion by Senator Cervantes. Please call the roll. Motion is due passed to the Committee on Appropriations. Senators Weiner? Aye. Weiner, aye. Choi? Aye. Choi, aye. Allen. Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes, I. Umberg. Put it on call. We'll now go to Item 4, AB 2281, do a motion. Motion. By Senator Cervantes, please call the roll. Motion is due passed as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. Senators Weiner? Aye. Weiner, aye. Choi? No. Choi, no. Allen? Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes, aye. Umberg? On call. Item 5, AB 2604. Motion by Senator Cervantes. Please call the roll. Motion is due passed to the Committee on Appropriations. Senators Weiner? Aye. Weiner, aye. Choi? No. Choi, no. Allen? Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes, aye. Umberg? Okay. We'll put that on call. item number nine, AB 2255, a motion by Senator Cervantes. Please call the roll. Motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations Senators Weiner Aye Weiner aye Choi Aye Choi aye Allen Cervantes Aye Cervantes aye Umberg Put it on call. Item number 11, AB 2691. Please call through a motion. Aye. Motion. Motion by Senator Cervantes, please call the roll. Motion is due passed. Senators Weiner? Aye. Weiner, aye. Choi? Which one? 2691. Item 11. Anyone is no. Choi, no. Alan, Cervantes? Cervantes, aye. Umberg? I'll put that on call. And then finally, item 12, AB 2753 by Assemblymember Soria. Oh, motion? Motion. Okay. Oh, motion by Senator Choi. We'll call the roll. Motion is due pass. Senator Wiener? No. Wiener, no. Choi? Aye. Choi, aye. Allen? Cervantes? Aye. Umberg? Cervantes, aye. Cervantes, aye. We'll put that on call. That's everything for Senator Cervantes? Yes, that is everything. Great. Thank you. We'll open the roll as soon as Senators Umberg and Allen return. Okay, we're good. We're back from recess. Senator Allen is here, and we will open the roll so he can add on. Let's start with the consent agenda. Please call the absent members. Consent items include file item 3, file item 6, file item 7, file item 8, and file item 13. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Umberg? Okay, put it back on call. Item 1, AB 686. Please call absent members. Current votes 2-1, Chair voted aye, Vice Chair voted no. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Umberg? Put it back on call. Item number 4, AB 2281. Please call the absent member. Current votes 3-0, Chair and Vice Chair voted aye. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. I'm sorry, what? He announced number 4, but you were calling the roll, I think, on number 2. Did I skip 2? Yeah. Oh, I apologize. Let's go back. My apologies. Item number 2, AB 1130. Please call absent members. Current vote is 3-0. Chair voted aye. Vice-Chair voted aye. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Umberg? Okay. We'll put it back on call. Item 4, AB 2281. Please call absent members. Current votes 2-1. Chair voted aye. Vice-Chair voted no. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Umberg? Okay. Put it back on call. Item 5, AB 2604. Please call absent members. Current votes 2-1. Chair voted aye. Vice-Chair voted no. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Umberg? Put it back on call. We'll now go to item number 9, AB 2255. Please call absent members. Current votes 3-0. Chair and Vice Chair voted aye. Allen? Aye. Allen I. Umberg? Okay, we'll put that back on call. Item 10, AB 2573. Please call absent members. Current votes 3-0. Chair and Vice Chair voted aye. Allen? Aye. Allen I. Umberg? Put it back on call Item number 11 AB 2691 CURTEN VOTES 2 CHAIR VOTED AYE Vice voted no Allen Aye Allen aye Umberg Okay put it back on call Item 12, AB 2753, Soria. Please call absent members. Current votes 2-1. Chair voted no. Vice-chair voted aye. Allen? Not voting. Umberg? Okay, put it back on call. And then item 14, AJR 31. Please call absent members. Current votes 2-1. Chair voted aye. Vice Chair voted no. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Umberg? Okay. Back on call. And then finally, item 15, SB 830. Please call absent members. Current votes 2-0. Chair voted aye. Choi? Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Umberg? Okay. Thank you, Senator Allen. Thank you. All right. We'll go back in recess until Senator Umberg arrives. That is five? Five nothing. That bill is out. Item number four, AB 2281. Please call absent member. Current votes three one. Chair voted aye. Vice chair voted no. Umberg? no umberg umberg aye order one that bill is out item number five ab26 oh the tv we got to start over the wall from after the recess okay so what do we do history he voted what happened oh okay Do we vote? Or do I just say what the votes were? Can he just announce the votes? Yeah, the votes happened. And we're recorded, I assume. Yeah, well, it has to be recorded. So, I mean, you've recorded it. Whoever the official recorder has recorded. Video recorded. Oh, is that right? The Munger initiative. Oh, okay. Thank you, Mr. Munger. Okay, so those votes are voided, and then he is re-voting? So just like he just walked in right now? I'm just saying, like, are we voiding? No, we're getting out. No, no, I'm just saying he voted already, so we're saying we are just eliminating those votes, and he's voting from scratch. Okay. We were kidding. What? We were just kidding the first go-round. Yeah, okay, great. If he doesn't change his vote, then it's moot anyway. And he's allowed to change his vote if he wants to. Okay, we're going to start from the top. The consent agenda, please call the absent member. File items include file item 3678 and 13. Umberg? I'm right guy five nothing the consent agenda is approved item one a B 686 please call the absent member current votes 3 1 chair voted I if I share voted no umberg umberg Aye Umberg aye 4 The bill is out Item number 2 AB 1130 Please call the absent member Current votes 4-0. Chair and Vice Chair voted aye. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. 5-0. The bill is out. Item number 4, AB 2281. Please call the absent member. Current votes 3-1. Chair voted aye. Vice Chair voted no. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Order 1, the bill is out. Item number 5, AB 2604, please call the absent member. Current votes 3-1, chair voted aye, vice chair voted no, Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Order 1, the bill is out. Now item number 9, AB 2255, please call the absent member. Current votes 4-0, chair and vice chair voted aye, Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. 5-0, the bill is out. Item number 10, AB 2573, please call the absent member. Current votes 4-0, Chair and Vice Chair voted aye. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. 5-0, the bill is out. Item 11, AB 2691, please call the opposite member. Current votes 3-1, Chair voted aye, Vice Chair voted no. Umberg? I'm sorry, how did the Chair vote on this? Aye. Chair voted aye. Okay, umberg, aye. Okay, 4-1, the bill is out. Item number 12, AB 2753, Storia. Please call the absent member. Current votes 2-1. Chair voted no. Vice chair voted aye. Alan Umberg. Not voting. Okay, so that is. That failed. Two to one? Yes. Okay, so AB 25, excuse me, AB 2753, the final vote is two to one. That measure fails. Without objection, reconsideration is granted. We'll now move to item number 13, excuse me, item 14, AJR 31. Please call the absent member. Current votes 3 to 1. Chair voted aye. Vice chair voted no. Umberg? Aye. Umberg aye. Okay, 4 to 1. That measure is out. And then finally, item 15, SB 830. Please call the absent member. Current votes 3 to 0. Chair voted aye. Choi? Umberg? Aye. Umberg aye. 4 to nothing. That bill is out. Is that everything? That's it. Thank you. Okay, that completes our agenda. I appreciate all of our staff and members of the public and authors and so forth for joining us today. And with that, we are adjourned. Oh, and I – wait. We were going to celebrate our departing members, but we'll probably have another hearing at some point, and we want more people to be here. So I don't think this will be your last hearing, Senator Umber, but we are so grateful for your service. So you were going to celebrate me leaving. We were going to celebrate you leaving, yes, exactly. Wow. You've been a great generator of elections bills. Yeah. Well, I've enjoyed. I chaired the committee both in the Assembly and in the Senate, and I've been really privileged to be part of the committee for lo these many years. So thank you. All right. Okay, thank you. With that, we are adjourned. Thank you.