Transcript Highlights:

• To protect the evidentiary use of those ballots, existing state law is clear that these ballots should
• In April, he told the press that he would gladly seize ballots again, including the ballot Forever.
• In April, he told the press that he would gladly seize ballots again, including the ballot In April,
• he told the press that he would gladly seize ballots again, including the ballot from the June primary
• , where he is on the ballot himself.

Summary: The Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety heard one item, Senate Bill 73 by Senator Cervantes, and took up committee and Elections Committee amendments. The bill was described as strengthening protections against interference in elections by extending restrictions to military personnel at polling places, protecting the chain of custody of voted ballots, and limiting law enforcement access to voting machines and voter rosters without a court order. The chair explained that the committee amendments would remove certain criminal penalties for peace officers, restore a uniform requirement for some polling-place personnel, and clarify the effect of objections by the Secretary of State or Attorney General. The author and supporters, including API Force and CHIRLA, argued the bill was needed to respond to threats of intimidation and election interference, citing concerns about armed personnel at polling places and the Riverside County sheriff’s seizure of ballots. Supporters said the measure would protect voters, especially immigrant communities and in-person voters, and preserve confidence in election administration. Opposition from the California State Sheriffs’ Association and CALA argued the bill was vague, could hinder lawful criminal investigations, and improperly restrict law enforcement and federal election oversight. After closing remarks, the committee voted to pass SB 73 as amended to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. The vote was 6-1, with one member not voting. The chair and another member recommended an aye, while one member voted no.

Transcript Highlights:

• You obviously can't do that with a ballot, but you can return certain individuals' ballots who have filled
• ballots, and noting that getting something on the ballot is not winning the issue.
• The process, as it exists, with its checks and balances, works to keep ballot initiatives off the ballot
• The process, as it exists, with its checks and balances, works to keep ballot initiatives off the ballot
• I don't agree with every ballot initiative proposal.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Ethics and Elections heard SPB 7016, a bill revising Florida’s citizen initiative petition process to address fraud, voter information, and ballot integrity. The bill and its amendments would add sponsor bonds and deposit requirements, require more identifying information from signers and circulators, bar certain felons and non-citizens from circulating petitions, require circulator training, shorten the time to submit signed petitions, require notices to voters whose signatures are verified, and change how financial impact statements are handled. Several amendments were adopted, including a $1 million bond framework, 10-point font and page limits for petition forms, a ban on incentive-based pay tied to petition counts or speed, removal of a requirement that fraud be proven by criminal conviction before administrative fines, county deposit and payment procedures for supervisors of elections, invalidation of petitions gathered by ineligible circulators, training requirements within 30 days, and a prohibition on public funds being used to advocate for or against constitutional amendments. Committee discussion focused heavily on implementation and fairness. Supporters, including the sponsor and the Florida Chamber of Commerce, argued the bill was needed to deter fraud, protect voter information, and ensure sponsors—not taxpayers—bear the costs of the initiative process. Supervisors of elections testified that county taxpayers should not subsidize petition verification, but also warned that some provisions would be difficult to implement quickly because of software and operational constraints. Senators raised questions about the bond cost, the 10-day submission deadline, notice to voters whose petitions are invalidated, the effect on returning citizens, and whether the bill could disenfranchise voters who sign petitions in good faith. Public testimony was overwhelmingly opposed. Common Cause, the League of Women Voters, NAACP Florida, Florida Rising, Equality Florida, All Voting Is Local, and other advocates said the bill would suppress grassroots participation, criminalize volunteers, create costly barriers, and favor wealthy or corporate interests. They objected especially to the bond, the new signer identification requirements, the shorter submission window, and the lack of notice when a petition is invalidated. A few supporters, including the Florida Chamber, backed the measure as a safeguard against fraud and outside influence. After debate, the committee did not reach a final vote on the bill in the portion provided, but the bill remained before the committee as amended.

Transcript Highlights:

• You obviously can't do that with a ballot, but you can return certain individuals' ballots who have filled
• ballots, and noting that getting something on the ballot is not, And noting that getting something on
• the ballot is not winning the issue.
• The process, as it exists, with its checks and balances, works to keep ballot initiatives off the ballot
• I don't agree with every ballot initiative proposal.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Ethics and Elections met to consider SPB 7016, a major bill revising Florida’s constitutional initiative petition process. Senator Grall presented it as a fraud-prevention and ballot-integrity measure that would add sponsor training, stricter circulator rules, more voter identification information, faster submission deadlines, notice to voters whose signatures are verified, and additional civil and criminal penalties. The committee also considered several amendments, including a $1 million bond requirement, font and page limits for petition forms, restrictions on incentive-based circulator pay, removal of a criminal-conviction prerequisite for certain fines, deposit and reimbursement procedures for supervisors of elections, invalidation of petitions gathered by ineligible circulators, mandatory circulator training, and a prohibition on public funds being used to advocate for or against constitutional amendments. All of the amendments were adopted, with some roll-call votes recorded and most passing on party-line or near party-line splits. The bill drew extensive questioning from senators, especially about the practical effects of the new requirements. Senator Polsky and Senator Rouson raised concerns about disenfranchising voters, burdening grassroots volunteers, the cost of bonds and deposits, the 10-day return deadline, and whether voters would be notified if a petition they signed was later invalidated. Grall said the measures were intended to protect the constitutionally significant initiative process, reduce fraud, and ensure sponsors—not taxpayers—bear administrative costs. Dave Ramba, speaking for supervisors of elections, supported the deposit and reimbursement concepts but warned that the bill’s implementation would be operationally difficult and that software vendors might not be ready for the changes by the effective date. He also said the process should avoid subsidizing petition drives with county taxpayer money. Public testimony was overwhelmingly opposed, with speakers from Common Cause Florida, the League of Women Voters, the NAACP Florida State Conference, Florida Rising, Equal Ground, Voices of Florida, and other civic groups arguing the bill would suppress direct democracy, criminalize volunteer activity, impose excessive costs, and create confusion and litigation risk. One speaker from the Florida Chamber of Commerce supported the bill, saying the initiative process should be protected from fraud and outside interests. During debate, Senator Polsky argued the Legislature has steadily made the initiative process harder after recent citizen-led amendments succeeded, while supporters framed the bill as a necessary integrity measure. The committee had not yet taken final action on the bill itself by the end of the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• <01:27:32.719> we<01:27:32.920> use ballot we use ballot we use the<01:27:35.360> uh
• I don't want to say that there's a lesser one for obtaining a ballot, but if they're getting a ballot
• I don't want to say that there's a lesser one for obtaining a ballot, but if they're getting a ballot
• both ballots equivalently?
• ballot for that person.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• To protect the evidentiary use of those ballots, existing law is clear that these ballots should not
• In April, he told the press that he would gladly seize ballots again, including the ballots from the
• June primary, where he is on the ballot.
• Or that ballots have... ...ineligible voters prior to the midterm elections, or that ballots have already
• The ballot— The ballot should never leave the custody of the elections official.

Summary: The Assembly Elections Committee met on May 6, 2026, with a quorum present and heard one bill, SB 73. The author described the measure as a response to perceived threats to California elections, including restrictions on armed or non-uniformed personnel at polling places, protections for ballots and voting equipment, and limits on law enforcement access to election materials without a court order. The chair reviewed a set of agreed amendments, including removing a section conflicting with AB 1664, deleting proposed criminal penalties, clarifying the role of the Attorney General and Secretary of State, and refining language on signature challenges, law enforcement support, and certified voting technology. Supporters, including AAPI Force, CHIRLA, the League of Women Voters of California, and Common Cause, argued the bill would protect voters from intimidation and preserve election integrity. Opponents from CALA argued the bill was unnecessary, would hinder legitimate investigations, and reflected distrust of law enforcement and federal oversight. Committee discussion focused heavily on whether the bill was responding to real-world threats and on the ballot seizure in Riverside County. Members questioned how the measure would affect signature challenges, chain of custody, and investigations into possible fraud. The author and supporters said ballots should remain in election officials’ custody and that federal or local agents should not be able to interfere with election materials or intimidate voters. The chair and other members also discussed the urgency clause and the need to move the bill quickly despite the proximity of the June election. The committee voted to do pass and re-refer SB 73 to the Committee on Public Safety. The roll call initially showed the bill passing 5-1, then after the absent member arrived, the final vote was 6-2, and the bill was reported out of committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• of ballots from the tally of ballots received on that day.
• responsibility for Yuokava ballot ballots, then the county retains those ballots after they've processed
• and the difference there is a use of the word all ballots versus ballots.
• responsibility for Yuokava ballot ballots, then the county retains those ballots after they've processed
• For Yuokava ballot ballots, then the county retains those ballots after they've processed them instead

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• To protect the evidentiary use of those ballots, existing law is clear that these ballots should not
• In April, he told the press that he would gladly seize ballots again, including the ballots from the
• June primary, where he is on the ballot.
• Or that ballots have... ...ineligible voters prior to the midterm elections, or that ballots have already
• The ballot— The ballot should never leave the custody of the elections official.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Armed Service members deployed overseas cast their ballots.
• at all or submitting their ballots by mail in time to be counted.
• in time to vote or did not receive a ballot at all.
• This includes one voter who sent their ballot back via mail on May 20. ...window.
• receive it until June 12th, having to reject the ballot.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The ballot scanners used to count the ballots had been checked, and their accuracy was confirmed, but
• The ballot scanners used to count the ballots had been checked, and their accuracy was confirmed, but
• The ballot scanners used to count the ballots had been checked, and their accuracy was confirmed, but
• The ballot scanners used to count the ballots had been checked, and their accuracy was confirmed, but
• The ballot scanners used to count the ballots had been checked, and their accuracy was confirmed, but

Keywords: Consideration of HB 27 00:04:20 Presentation by Secretary of State 00:10:44 Presentation by Karen Sellers and Jason Denny 00:35:56 Consideration of HB 45 00:55:36, 958, all

Summary: The committee first handled House Bill 27, which would remove the prohibition on political yard signs in planned communities statewide while still allowing communities to regulate size, placement, and duration. The sponsor said the 2023 Planned Communities Act created an unintended consequence by treating similar homeowners differently based on grandfathering dates, and a legal explanation was offered that the bill would clarify the law and avoid constitutional problems. After discussion, the committee voted 15-0 to pass the bill with favorable expression. The next item was an update from the Secretary of State on the 2024 election and implementation of House Bill 53, which created prompt post-election audits. He said the audits were carried out smoothly, most found no discrepancies, and no election winners changed, though he recommended adding a specific timeline to the law. He also discussed voter-roll maintenance, saying Kentucky has removed more than 440,000 ineligible voters since 2020, and argued that federal law and limited access to federal databases remain the main obstacles to faster cleanup. Members asked about the possibility of improper removals, double voting across states, and how provisional voting works. The Secretary said anyone improperly removed can reregister, that any double-voting abuse is likely marginal but still unacceptable, and that provisional ballots are available when eligibility is in doubt and can be reviewed by the county board of elections. He also urged Congress to modernize the 1993 federal voter-registration law, improve access to death and citizenship data, and create a central interstate information-sharing system for election officials.

Transcript Highlights:

• receives the absentee ballot and voter receives the absentee ballot and they<00:28:22.200> they
• validate absentee ballot validate absentee ballot voters<00:33:08.080> the<00:33:08.200><
• who uh request an absentee ballot who uh request an absentee ballot request<00:39:24.400> in<
• <00:42:10.359> application receive an absentee ballot application receive an absentee ballot
• um uh and and got that absentee ballot um uh and and got that absentee ballot filled<00:55:13.720

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• BALLOTS AND NOTING GETTING SOMETHING ON THE BALLOT IS NOT WINNING THE ISSUE.
• MAIL BALLOTS AND NOTING GETTING SOMETHING ON THE BALLOT IS NOT WINNING THE ISSUE.
• THAT IS JUST GETTING ON THE BALLOT.
• PROCESS AS IT EXISTS WORKS TO KEEP BALLOT INITIATIVES OFF THE BALLOT AND IN THE END THE PEOPLE HAVE THE
• I DON'T AGREE WITH EVERY BALLOT INITIATIVE PROPOSAL.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Armed Service members deployed overseas cast their ballots.
• at all or submitting their ballots by mail in time to be counted.
• in time to vote or did not receive a ballot at all.
• This includes one voter who sent their ballot back via mail on May 20. ...window.
• receive it until June 12th, having to reject the ballot.

Summary: The Assembly Military and Veterans Affairs Committee met and considered several measures, with most of the discussion focused on veterans’ access to food assistance, overseas voting, and veteran mental health research. SB 1201, the “No Hungry Heroes Act,” would seek federal waivers to protect certain veterans from CalFresh time limits and require referrals to county veteran service officers; supporters said federal SNAP cuts are leaving vulnerable veterans at risk of hunger, while no opposition testified. Members spoke strongly in favor, emphasizing the need to support service members and their families. SB 970 addressed ballot access for military and overseas voters after the federal DOD fax service was discontinued. The bill would direct the Secretary of State to develop regulations for a secure ballot return method. County election officials and veterans groups supported the measure, while the Secretary of State’s office and Verified Voting raised concerns about cybersecurity and urged a more deliberate process, including a possible task force. After discussion, the committee voted to pass SB 970 and send it to Appropriations. SB 1224 proposed a California Emerging Therapies Research Partnership to help the state compete for federal research funding for alternative therapies, including treatments relevant to PTSD, depression, and substance use among veterans. Veterans advocates described the bill as a way to expand options for those not helped by traditional treatment, and the author noted amendments to address conflicts of interest and administrative issues. The committee approved the bill and referred it to Appropriations. The committee also approved the consent calendar, including HR 120, SB 892, SB 1188, SJR 14, and SJR 17, and later voted SB 1201 and SB 970 out of committee as well. Overall, the meeting reflected broad bipartisan support for veteran-focused measures, with the main policy debate centered on how to balance access and security in overseas voting.

Transcript Highlights:

• In the Massachusetts 2024 statewide election, 5,106 provisional ballots were cast, 3,309 ballots were
• You might think it's your ballot.
• Ballot access is foundational to this.
• request a ballot from their hometown.
• As you've heard, the number of ballots—3,000 in each... ...as you've heard, the number of ballots, 3,000

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Election Laws held a hearing on a wide range of voting-access and election-administration bills. The largest portion of testimony focused on same-day voter registration (H. 834/S. 505), with support from Rep. Gentile, Boston and Chelsea officials, civic groups, and election administrators from Maine and Vermont. Supporters argued that same-day registration would help eligible voters who move frequently, miss deadlines, or face administrative errors, and would reduce rejected provisional ballots. Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows and Vermont elections director Sean Sheehan testified that same-day registration has worked in their states without major administrative problems and has helped increase turnout. A Boston-based panel also described high rejection rates for provisional ballots and the burden of registration cutoffs on renters, students, immigrants, and low-income voters. A second major topic was restoration of voting rights for incarcerated people, including S. 524 and related House bills. The committee heard extensive virtual testimony from incarcerated individuals at MCI Norfolk and MCI Shirley, who said voting should be restored as part of rehabilitation, civic engagement, and reintegration. They described disenfranchisement as dehumanizing and argued that voting would help maintain family and community ties, reduce recidivism, and give incarcerated people a voice on laws affecting prisons and reentry. Rep. Erica Uyterhoeven also testified in support, saying the bill would restore municipal voting rights for incarcerated residents and align with broader efforts to expand political participation. The committee also heard testimony on bills affecting election administration and access, including a proposal to reduce or eliminate mandated early in-person voting in primaries and shorten the general-election early voting period, with supporters from the town clerks’ community arguing that low usage, staffing burdens, and costs justify the change. Opponents warned that reducing in-person early voting could hurt voters who do not use mail ballots and could disproportionately affect communities of color. Other bills discussed included decoupling the municipal census from voter registration, requiring periodic accessibility inspections of polling places, and a Somerville home-rule petition on non-citizen municipal voting and another on lowering the voting age in municipal elections. No votes or final committee actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• We'll also look at data on ballots cast.
• Now, this isn't a large percentage of ballots cast, but it actually is a non-trivial number of ballots
• Let's go to rejected ballots. Thank you.
• We do know that many ballots... ...different for those who submit their ballot through different modalities
• your ballot after the election, most likely.

Summary: The committee heard a work session on voting access on tribal lands, beginning with a presentation from Dr. Chelsea Jones of the Brennan Center. She described barriers affecting Native voters and voters on tribal lands, including long travel distances to polling places and drop boxes, nontraditional addresses, unreliable postal service, language access, and limited broadband. Citing research, she said turnout on tribal lands trails turnout off tribal lands by about 10 percentage points nationally and about 10% in Washington, with larger gaps in some convenience voting measures. Members asked about the meaning of “lost votes,” the role of tribal leadership and community trust, and whether outreach by election officials and candidates could help; Dr. Jones emphasized that the study measured missed voting opportunities, not missing ballots, and that partnerships with trusted community leaders are important. The University of Washington Elections Database then presented data on voter registration, turnout, signature challenges, curing, and ballot rejection for voters whose addresses fall within tribal reservation boundaries. The presenters said registration on reservations increased from about 107,000 in 2010 to 137,000 in 2024, turnout on reservations remained about 8 to 9 percentage points lower than outside reservations in recent general elections, and signature-challenge and rejection rates were generally low but somewhat higher in off-year elections. They reported that about 60% to two-thirds of signature-challenged ballots are cured, with cure rates similar inside and outside reservations, and that late return is the most common reason for primary ballot rejection while signature mismatch is the leading cause in general elections. A question was raised about USPS postmarking issues and how those might affect future data; the presenters said they plan to track return method and cure timing more closely. The committee also received an overview of the Governor’s Office of Indian Affairs. Staff reviewed the office’s history, the Centennial Accord, the Millennium Agreement, and related state-tribal frameworks, and GOIA Director Tim Rainan described the office’s role as a bridge between the state and tribal governments, including consultation, policy coordination, training, and convening work groups. He said GOIA now has six positions, is part of the governor’s executive cabinet, and is working on a statewide tribal relations training module and consultation handbook. In response to a question, he said tribal voting is not a major topic at the Centennial Accord but is discussed more extensively through ATNI. The committee then shifted to contracting equity, hearing from WSDOT, DES, OMWBE, and the Office of Equity. WSDOT described its race-neutral small business and veteran goals, mentorship and support programs, and its response to the federal suspension of the DBE program; DES discussed statewide contracting spend, the EDGE pilot for small construction firms, and efforts to improve procurement access; OMWBE reported growth in certified firms and about $371 million in state spend with certified firms in the most recent year, while noting ongoing impacts from federal DBE changes; and the Office of Equity outlined its broader work on agency consultation, dashboards, and systems change. No votes were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm the spokesperson for the ballot question committee. Okay. All right.
• question on the ballot.
• Why the ballot committee didn't... I'm just asking.
• This group went straight to the ballot. Yes. Ballot petition process. Yes.
• This group went straight to the ballot. Yes. Ballot petition process. Yes.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a public hearing on Initiative Petition 25-10, House Bill 5002, titled “An Act to Restore a Sensible Marijuana Policy,” which would repeal Massachusetts’ adult-use cannabis legalization framework. Chairs Brendan Crighton and Kate Hogan outlined the Article 48 initiative process and explained that the committee is gathering testimony for a report to the legislature. The hearing was organized into expert, proponent, opponent, and public testimony, with written testimony accepted through March 27. The first witness, Jessica Trow of MassBudget, testified in opposition to repeal and focused on cannabis-related revenue and social equity. She said legalization has generated nearly $2 billion statewide since adult-use sales began, with revenue flowing through the Marijuana Regulation Fund, the state sales tax, and local taxes and fees. She emphasized that funds support public health, the Cannabis Control Commission’s social equity work, the Cannabis Social Equity Fund, and municipal budgets, and argued that legalization has created pathways for communities harmed by prohibition. The petition’s spokesperson, Wendy Wakeman, argued in favor of repeal, saying legalization has worsened public health, safety, and quality of life, citing higher potency, addiction, youth use, impaired driving, workplace positives, and black-market concerns. Committee members questioned her about the data sources, the will of the voters, the role of paid signature gatherers, and the petition’s funding, including out-of-state and dark-money concerns. Opponents of the initiative then testified that repeal would harm a regulated industry that has created jobs, tax revenue, and social equity opportunities. Caroline Pino of STEM, Kristen Rogers of Levia, Judith Ledbetter of Project De-Stigmatized Healthcare, and Armani White of Firehouse Dispensary/EON described their businesses, community investments, and personal reliance on cannabis, and warned that repeal would push consumers back to the illicit market and undermine equity programs. In public testimony, Lucas Thayer of the Massachusetts Cannabis Reform Coalition and Jeff Rawson, a chemist and consumer protection advocate, also opposed the measure, arguing that regulated cannabis is safer than unregulated products and that repeal would damage investments and public safety. The hearing ended after the public testimony, and the committee voted to close the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• California's general election ballots are lengthy.
• retention elections appear on the ballot.
• We were actually proponents of it on the ballot.
• We were actually proponents of it on the ballot.
• Special taxes still applies regardless of who places the measure on the ballot.

Summary: The Assembly Elections Committee met on July 16, 2025, and heard five measures focused on election administration, voter participation, judicial retention elections, charitable solicitation by officials, and local transportation tax initiatives. The chair noted the committee’s rules for limited witness testimony and accepted written testimony through the legislative portal. Several authors presented their bills in person or through a committee member due to scheduling conflicts. SB 3 by Senator Cervantes would tighten and clarify the ballot signature-cure process, including requiring standardized forms from election officials and adding a reminder on vote-by-mail envelopes about signature matching. Supporters said the bill would reduce rejected ballots and make the process more reliable; there was no opposition. The committee voted do pass as amended and re-refer to Appropriations. SB 316 by Senator Reyes, presented by Assembly Member Pellerin, would expand high school voter registration and pre-registration outreach to students, with testimony from students, education groups, disability advocates, and civic organizations in support. One member opposed on the grounds that it could be an unfunded mandate for schools. The bill passed 4-1. ACA 8 by Assembly Member Pellerin would change appellate and Supreme Court judicial retention elections so justices would appear on the ballot only if voters file a petition requesting it. Supporters, including the Secretary of State, the League of Women Voters, and the California Judges Association, said it would reduce ballot length, voter fatigue, and costs while preserving accountability. One member raised concern about the future petition threshold and the possibility it could be set too high, and voted no. The measure passed 4-2. SB 760 by Senator Allen would narrow behested payment reporting requirements for public appeals to charities, especially in disaster response, while preserving disclosure where officials, family members, or staff have conflicts of interest. Good-government groups supported the bill as a balance between transparency and encouraging charitable appeals; it passed unanimously on the recorded vote. SB 512 by Senator Perez would clarify that voters in transportation districts may use citizen initiatives to propose transportation sales taxes where the district already has taxing authority. Supporters argued it aligns Elections Code with Proposition 218 and recent case law, while opponents from business and real estate groups objected to the measure’s implications for tax approval rules. The committee approved the bill 5-2. After calling absent members, the committee cleared the calendar and adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• I do have ballot into a neutral state.
• So the current ballot requirement stating by voting yes on this ballot question, you are voting for a
• It's making sure voters are not presented ... ballot requirement stating by voting yes ballot requirement
• So our questions both their ballot.
• <00:07:48.639> is that what we're seeing on the ballot is that what we're seeing on the ballot

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Second, it prohibits voter suppression and discriminatory barriers to the ballot.
• Second, it prohibits voter suppression and discriminatory barriers to the ballot.
• To lose custody of the ballots invites all kinds of potential challenges.
• To lose custody of the ballots invites all kinds of potential challenges.
• The names of the candidates for elected office appear on the ballot alongside a ballot designation that

Summary: The Assembly Elections Committee met on July 1, 2026, heard a full agenda of election-related measures, and took final votes on several bills and one resolution. The committee also adopted two consent items, SB 1429 and SB 1430, without opposition. Members and the chair repeatedly noted committee membership changes and the final meeting of the session, and the chair emphasized the committee’s focus on protecting democracy and election integrity. Among the bills heard, SB 1369 would shorten the signature-gathering period for judicial recalls in larger counties and require paid gatherers to disclose they are compensated; supporters argued it would protect judicial independence, while the chair and some members noted the need to balance recall rights with county differences. SB 900 would reformat campaign disclosure language on large print ads and billboards to improve readability while preserving transparency, with broad support from outdoor advertising, clean money, and good-government groups. SJR 18, which condemns Citizens United and urges action against corporate spending in elections, drew support from reform advocates but also concerns about the resolution’s focus and scope; it was advanced on a party-line split with some members voting no. The committee also advanced SB 1164, a major voting-rights measure expanding California protections against vote dilution and voter suppression, adding preclearance-style review for some jurisdictions, and directing courts to interpret election laws in favor of voting access. Local government representatives opposed it unless amended, citing uncertainty, loss of safe-harbor protections, and implementation concerns, while civil-rights and labor groups strongly supported it. SB 1360, which expands language-access requirements for voters with limited English proficiency and lowers coverage thresholds, was supported by voting-rights and immigrant-advocacy groups but opposed by elections officials unless amended; the committee acknowledged the need for further work on county-level implementation and data standards. The committee also approved SB 1418, which extends protections against seizure of election records and voting systems beyond voted ballots, and SB 884, which creates a buffer zone around polling places and vote-by-mail drop locations to prevent interference with voting and ballot custody, though sheriffs and police groups opposed the arrest restrictions. SB 46, which would give the Secretary of State clearer authority to remove constitutionally ineligible presidential and vice-presidential candidates from the ballot, and SB 715, which moves candidate ballot-designation challenge deadlines earlier, also advanced. Most measures were sent to Appropriations or otherwise held on call for absent members, and the meeting ended with final roll calls and adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• To protect the evidentiary use of those ballots, existing state law is clear that these ballots should
• In April, he told the press that he would gladly seize ballots again, including the ballot...
• In April, he told the press that he would gladly seize ballots again, including the ballot from the June
• primary, where he is on the ballot himself.
• take those ballots from the custody of a county registrar.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• ballot.
• and didn't receive a ballot. and didn't receive a ballot.
• And said, you know, "Here's the ballot back."
• And said, you know, "Here's the ballot back."
• Um as in ballots."

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee first took up HF 2526 and received a walkthrough of the DE1 amendment from nonpartisan staff. The amendment revised the bill’s gift and ethics provisions by defining local government and public safety officer, narrowing covered mental health or wellness services to those provided by a qualified mental health professional and tied to recovery from a traumatic event, excluding luxury services or events as determined by the Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board, and allowing local governments to adopt additional gift restrictions. It also added a bribery-related provision for gifts made with intent to influence a public safety officer. Members noted the language had been worked on by Representatives Duran, Vernig, and Freiberg, and the DE1 was adopted unanimously. HF 2526, as amended, then passed to the floor on a voice vote. The committee then turned to HF 3722, which would remove deceased voters from the state voter registration system. The bill author argued that deceased voters should not remain on the rolls and that removing them would clean up the voter list. Secretary of State staff testified in opposition, saying deceased voters are already kept in a separate deceased status, not on active rolls, and that retaining the record helps flag suspicious activity and preserves voter history in case of administrative error. A second testifier described a real case in which a deceased voter’s retained record helped election officials identify and investigate a fraudulent ballot. After discussion, the committee tabled HF 3722. Finally, the committee heard HF 3723, which would require additional verification for absentee ballot applications and permanent absentee voters. Supporters said the bill would help ensure ballots are not sent to people who have died or moved out of state. Secretary of State staff opposed the bill, saying most voters are already verified at registration, that the proposed checks would duplicate existing procedures, and that additional verification could create delays or false rejections. A testifier also objected to the bill’s effective date, saying it would take effect only days after absentee voting begins. The sponsor argued that voters remain on the permanent list indefinitely and that periodic verification is needed because people move or die; the committee did not reach a final vote in the portion provided.