An act to add and repeal Section 23 of the Elections Code, relating to elections, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately.
AB 1664 would add a new, temporary Elections Code section requiring local agencies, political subdivisions, and elections officials to notify the Secretary of State and the Attorney General within one business day after learning of any warrant, subpoena, or active law enforcement investigation involving election records or voting systems in their custody or control. The bill defines election records broadly to include records that elections officials are required to keep, retain, or preserve under the Elections Code, and it defines law enforcement investigation to include investigations by federal, state, or local agencies.
The bill also authorizes the Attorney General to intervene in related court proceedings or to initiate proceedings to challenge a warrant or subpoena on any valid grounds, or to seek other appropriate relief. Those proceedings would receive calendar preference. The measure is an urgency statute, intended to take effect immediately so it can apply before the June 2, 2026 statewide direct primary election, and it would sunset on January 1, 2030.
AB 1664 would expand the duties of local election administrators by imposing a rapid notice requirement whenever election materials or voting systems become the subject of a warrant, subpoena, or active law enforcement investigation. It would also strengthen the state’s role in protecting election materials by giving the Attorney General express authority to intervene or file suit in response to those legal process actions. Because the bill increases local duties, it is identified as creating a state-mandated local program, with reimbursement available if the Commission on State Mandates determines costs are mandated by the state. The bill would apply statewide, including to charter cities and charter counties, and would be repealed after January 1, 2030.
The available voting history suggests the bill has generally received support, though not unanimously. It passed committee on a 6-2 vote in April and later advanced again from committee by a 5-1 vote in June, indicating a favorable but not broad consensus. The urgency clause and the stated need to protect election administration before the June 2026 primary suggest proponents viewed the measure as time-sensitive and important to election integrity.
The main points of contention appear to be the balance between state oversight of election materials and the autonomy of local election officials, as well as the bill’s potential to interfere with law enforcement investigations. Supporters frame the measure as necessary to prevent improper search, seizure, or retention of election records and voting systems and to protect public confidence in election integrity. Opponents or skeptics likely focused on the added compliance burden on local agencies, the possibility of state intervention in criminal or investigative matters, and the costs associated with the new notice and litigation-related duties. The bill’s state-mandated local program designation and fiscal referral also indicate concern about local implementation costs.