Transcript Highlights:

• ballots um I believe their Town ballot ballots um I believe their Town ballot is<00:35:03.280>
• , either as spoiled ballots cast or remaining ballots.
• <01:35:00.400> casted<01:35:00.840> ballots either as spoiled ballots casted ballots
• either as spoiled ballots casted ballots or<01:35:01.920> remaining<01:35:02.239> ballots<
• ballots.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The House Election Law Committee held an orientation and then opened a public hearing on House Bill 67-FN-A, which would make permanent the use of accessible voting machines in local elections and provide funding for additional systems. The chair outlined committee procedures, noting a heavy workload of roughly 70 to 80 bills, mostly Tuesday meetings, likely time limits on testimony, and a default of executive session unless a bill is specifically noticed. Members and staff were introduced, and the Secretary of State’s office described its election-related responsibilities, including voter registration, cybersecurity, ballot-counting equipment, and the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) program. Secretary of State David Scanlan and Deputy Secretary Aon Hennessy explained the current pilot program created by last year’s law, which requires accessible voting systems for local elections and allows the state to share machines with municipalities during the first half of 2025. They said the office has made hardware available, but towns have raised concerns about the speed of implementation and the cost of programming each election, especially for towns with multiple ballot questions. Scanlan said the state is also vetting longer-term options, including devices that could remain in polling places year-round, and suggested the committee consider delaying the bill’s effective date to January 1, 2026 to better align with implementation needs. Hennessy said the current state devices are older and complicated to reset for each election, and estimated programming costs could be about $600 for a small single-election ballot and much higher for towns with multiple elections. Supporters of the bill emphasized the importance of accessible voting for people with disabilities. Representative Robert Wy said the measure builds on 2024 law and would move the pilot into a permanent agreement, citing ADA concerns and prior testimony about discriminatory voting experiences. Fred Forier, a legally blind voter from Exeter, testified that accessible voting systems allow him to vote privately and independently and urged support for the bill. Committee members asked about the gap if the pilot ends before a permanent system is in place and about the cost range for programming. No vote was taken during the hearing, and the committee moved on after public testimony began.

Transcript Highlights:

• The election is consummated when the last ballot is received and the ballot box is closed.
• BC: it's a legit ballot.
• ' ballots.
• The mail ballots being received late is the number one reason ballots are thrown out, and we hear over
• and there's not a privacy issue with these types of ballots because these mail ballots, this list of

Transcript Highlights:

• The election is consummated when the last ballot is received and the ballot box is closed.
• To receive the mail and receive these ballots, and then we're just gonna throw out more Texans' ballots
• The mail ballots being received late is the number one reason ballots are thrown out.
• Sometimes an Austin ballot gets there before a Dallas ballot, you know, depending on the distance.
• and fake a bunch of ballots.

Bills: HB2139, HB2253, HB3632, HB4171, HB4309, HB4508, SB760, SB1470

Keywords: voting access, polling place, disability, caretaker provisions, ballot delivery, election code, HB 2253, Texas Election Code, bond election, bond issuance, local government, election cancellation, disaster declaration, natural disaster, emergency election, county election officer, polling place notice, open meeting, election workers, voter safety

Transcript Highlights:

• If they fill out the ballot incorrectly and send it in, or if they fill out the ballot incorrectly and
• choice ballot.
• old ballots are stored.
• 2 8.5 by 14 ballot pages for one ballot.
• on an entire ballot.

Transcript Highlights:

• So it will be an information-rich ballot.
• So it will be an information-rich ballot.
• It allows on the ballot to be printed.
• different ballot lines.
• or the Republican ballot.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a public hearing on Initiative Petition 25-12, H.503, a proposal to implement all-party state primaries for Massachusetts state and federal elections. The committee opened with procedural remarks explaining Article 48 requirements and then heard first from two subject-matter experts. Professor Costas Panagopoulos of Northeastern University testified that top-two primary systems in other states have produced mixed results: they may modestly increase primary turnout in some cases, but the research does not show a reliable reduction in polarization, and such systems can weaken party gatekeeping, increase strategic behavior, raise campaign spending, and reduce general-election choice for voters whose preferred party is not on the ballot. Katie King of the National Conference of State Legislatures outlined the different primary models used nationwide, explained that Massachusetts currently uses an open-to-unaffiliated primary, and reviewed legal distinctions between blanket primaries and top-two systems; she noted that blanket primaries were struck down by the Supreme Court, while Washington’s top-two system was upheld because it narrows the field rather than nominating party candidates. She also said voter education and administrative preparation would be important if the system changed. The proponents’ panel, led by Danielle Allen of the Coalition for Healthy Democracy, argued that Massachusetts has chronically uncompetitive elections, low turnout, and too many uncontested races, and that all-party primaries would give every voter a meaningful choice in the first round and force candidates to appeal to a broader electorate. Allen said the proposal is designed specifically for Massachusetts and differs from other states by allowing party endorsements to appear on the ballot, which supporters said would preserve useful information while shifting control of the preliminary election from party insiders to voters. Jim Henderson, the coalition’s counsel, said the bill is narrowly tailored to state-level primaries and would amend Chapter 53 to put all voters on equal footing. Other supporters, including Kevin Johnson, Kate Kavanaugh, and Spencer Reynolds, emphasized that the reform could increase competition, reduce polarization, improve participation by independents and underrepresented voters, and create more accountability to the full electorate. Committee members pressed the witnesses on turnout, the practical effect of endorsements, whether the proposal would simply shift party influence to an earlier stage, and whether it could disadvantage minority-party or independent candidates. Senator Fattman repeatedly asked about evidence that turnout would materially increase, while Representative Peisch and others questioned whether requiring or seeking endorsements would create new barriers or pressure candidates to clear the field. Supporters responded that the system would modestly increase primary participation, that the general election would remain the decisive contest, and that endorsements would be optional and handled through party rules. No vote was taken at the hearing; the committee heard testimony and questions only.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Express Vote ballot<00:53:00.319> card ballot card ballot card uh<00:53:02.640> the
• Um, the election ID for the actual ballot itself and the ballot language and ballot type for the ballot
• The full-face ballot, hand-marked paper ballot, is scanned through the ballot scanner.
• 01:31:16.239> ballot fullface ballot, handmarked paper ballot fullface ballot, handmarked paper
• . ballots. ballots.

Keywords: Discussion of BR 25 (2026 RS) 04:15 Presentation on voting systems by ES&S 48:14 Presentation on voting systems by Hart InterCivic and Harp Enterprises 01:13:07, 958, all

Summary: The committee met to approve the October 21 minutes and then took up BR 25 for the 2026 regular session, a proposal relating to prohibited uses of tax dollars and public resources. The sponsors said the bill is intended to strengthen existing law by adding civil and criminal penalties for taxpayer-funded advocacy on ballot questions, especially in light of controversies during the 2024 election over school officials and districts using public resources to oppose a constitutional amendment. They also described related concerns about school districts hiring third-party lobbyists and public relations firms, particularly in Fayette County, and said the proposal was meant to keep tax dollars focused on public services rather than political persuasion. Committee members raised several concerns about scope and drafting. Some asked whether the bill should specifically mention schools, school boards, and school employees, and the sponsors said they would add that language. Others questioned whether the measure would also affect local government lobbying through groups like KLC and KCO, and the sponsors said they intended to focus narrowly on schools while exempting certain advocacy organizations and internal government lobbyists. Members also asked whether public employees could still speak as private individuals, and the sponsors said yes. Several members suggested splitting the lobbying and ballot-advocacy issues into separate bills, and the sponsors said they would consider that. Members also pressed for clarification on how the bill would apply in practice, including whether it would cover legal challenges to petition drives or only advocacy after a question is on the ballot. Counsel for the sponsors said the bill would not cover some petition-related litigation as drafted, though they believed it should. The sponsors and supporters argued the proposal was needed to give the existing prohibition real enforcement, while some members warned that the language could unintentionally limit legitimate public representation or be too broad if not carefully drafted. No final vote was taken during the discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• , 21 ballots going two times to a different physical address, 19 ballots went to the same physical address
• Hampshire town clerks mailed 23 ballots Hampshire town clerks mailed 23 ballots to<00:08:41.360>
• <00:15:06.160> under<00:15:06.519> this ballot under this ballot under this circumstance
• deal with fraudulent absentee ballots deal with fraudulent absentee ballots being<00:16:27.920><
• they would gather ballots.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• an overvote on their ballot, causing the ballot machine to reject the ballot and therefore require a
• ballots by mistake.
• ballots by mistake.
• what's on the ballot. what's on the ballot.
• the ballot to the election official manning the ballot machine, who shall place the ballot in the auxiliary

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So, paper ballots and audits.
• That ballot is the best evidence.
• We rely on paper ballots in Florida.
• or spoil a ballot.
• What happens to those paper ballots? How long do we keep those ballots? What do we do with them?

Summary: The Government Operations Subcommittee met to hear a lengthy presentation from Secretary of State Cord Byrd on Florida election administration, with a focus on how elections are handled during natural disasters, election security, and preparations for the 2026 cycle. Byrd described Florida’s response to hurricanes in 2022 and 2024, saying the state works directly with county supervisors of elections to tailor executive orders to local conditions, add or relocate polling sites, extend deadlines, and help displaced voters and emergency workers cast ballots. Members from affected areas echoed that local supervisors had managed storm disruptions well and that turnout remained strong despite major damage. A large portion of the meeting covered election integrity and security. Byrd emphasized Florida’s use of paper ballots, pre-election logic and accuracy testing, post-election audits, public canvassing, standardized voter-intent rules, and strict vote-by-mail request and signature-match requirements. He said the Department of State’s Office of Election Crimes and Security investigates complaints and refers matters to law enforcement, and that Florida has expanded access to the federal SAVE database to verify citizenship. Members asked about threats to election workers, staffing vacancies, cybersecurity, ballot design, vote-by-mail address changes, and how the state coordinates with county supervisors, emergency management, and other agencies. Several members raised questions about voter eligibility and returning citizens, and Byrd said the department provides free information to help people determine whether their rights have been restored, while noting that court and clerk reporting practices still create challenges. He also said the department is considering additional legislative proposals, including more safeguards tied to driver’s license and citizenship verification and a possible statewide 100% audit of races before certification. The meeting ended with the chair encouraging members to visit supervisors of elections offices and submit specific ideas for future elections legislation; no votes were taken and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• The reason is because it's a ballot measure now.
• Now it's a ballot measure.
• proposition, to make... ...regarding a ballot proposition, to make incidental remarks concerning a ballot
• And by the way, this became a ballot...
• You should not talk about a bill that became a ballot measure or is subject to challenge by a ballot

Summary: The meeting focused on whether legislators and legislative staff may use official resources, including newsletters and social media, to comment on a bill that has since become a ballot measure. Members discussed older ethics guidance allowing comments on legislation previously before the legislature, but questioned whether that rule still applies to modern social media posts and to ballot measures, especially when the language is strong or could be seen as an indirect appeal to voters. Several members argued that once a bill becomes a ballot measure, using state resources to advocate for or against it is prohibited, while others emphasized the importance of allowing officials to explain their votes and speak to their legislative record. The group debated possible guardrails, including whether comments should be limited to the bill itself, whether tone and timing should matter, and whether the rule should apply only to members not subject to election-year restrictions. One motion proposed extending the prior ethics guidance from the immediately preceding legislative session to the full biennium and applying it to social media, but that motion failed. Members then shifted toward a brighter-line approach tied to the primary election date, with discussion that after the primary officials should not use state resources to talk about a bill that became a ballot measure or is subject to ballot challenge. A second motion to use the primary date as the cutoff for monitoring these discussions was made, seconded, and passed. The chair then noted that officials are still free to speak on personal or campaign accounts, and to respond to questions, but the board’s guidance would help distinguish permissible official communications from campaign-like advocacy. The meeting then moved toward adjournment of the public portion, with no public testimony offered.

Transcript Highlights:

• You received two ballots?
• be added to the ballot.
• all in one ballot.
• Or would you be now dealing with the need to have a second ballot? It would be the same ballot.
• hopefully get on the '26 ballot.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The House and Senate Election Laws committees held a hearing focused on campaign finance and several local election-related bills. Office of Campaign and Political Finance Director William Campbell testified in support of H. 848 and S. 515, saying the campaign finance law needs modernization and highlighting proposals for stronger Super PAC disclosure, more timely reporting, improved security for campaign participants, and other reforms. He said the bills would help update a 50-year-old system to reflect legal, economic, and cultural changes. A major portion of the hearing concerned H. 868/S. 507, which would require earlier and more frequent reporting by ballot question committees. Witnesses from Common Cause, the League of Women Voters, and others argued that ballot campaigns now involve tens of millions of dollars, much of it raised during periods with no real-time disclosure, and that moving these committees into the depository system would improve transparency without burdening grassroots signature-gathering. The committee also heard support for H. 811 and H. 812, which would allow municipalities to create citizen-funded election programs and require identifying information on political text messages, as well as S. 525/H. 875, which would bar political spending by foreign-influenced corporations. The committee also heard testimony on S. 2605, a Canton home rule petition to move town elections from April to November. Canton residents, a select board member, and a poll worker said the change would increase turnout, better align local elections with the November voting cycle, and give newly elected officials more time to prepare for town meeting. Senator Rausch also testified in support of S. 530, requiring presidential primary candidates to disclose recent tax returns. The hearing ended with no votes taken and the committee adjourning, with a note that the next hearing was tentatively scheduled for January 13.

Transcript Highlights:

• . ballot. ballot.
• ballot card. ballot card.
• I mark a ballot. I insert I scan system. I mark a ballot.
• The ballot on your left would be the Hart summary ballot, which comes from our ADA-compliant ballot marking
• The ballot on handmark paper ballot.

Keywords: Discussion of BR 25 (2026 RS) 04:15 Presentation on voting systems by ES&S 48:14 Presentation on voting systems by Hart InterCivic and Harp Enterprises 01:13:07, 958, all

Summary: The committee met, approved the October 21 minutes, and then took up BR 25 for the 2026 regular session, a proposal to prohibit the use of tax dollars and public resources to advocate for or against ballot questions, including constitutional amendments. Senator Rawlings and the other presenters argued the current law already bars such advocacy but lacks meaningful enforcement, citing the 2024 school choice amendment campaign and other examples where public officials and school systems allegedly used taxpayer-funded resources to influence voters. They said the bill would add civil and criminal penalties, while preserving First Amendment rights for public employees acting in their personal capacities. Much of the discussion focused on whether the bill should be limited to school districts or broadened to cover other public entities, and on how to define terms such as “advocating in impartial terms.” Members raised concerns about possible effects on county and city lobbying through groups like KLC and KCO, on legitimate factual explanations by public officials, and on whether the bill could unintentionally restrict needed representation for local governments. The sponsors said the measure was intended to be narrow, would be vetted further, and would not bar individuals from speaking on their own behalf. Several members suggested revisions. Representative Lockett asked that schools and school employees be specifically named, and suggested separating the lobbying restrictions from the ballot-measure provisions into different bills. Representative Layman questioned the meaning of the bill’s language and whether it would cover factual testimony by officials. Representative Heen asked about a Jefferson County example involving legal fees used to challenge petition signatures; counsel said that situation would likely be allowable under the bill as drafted, though some members thought it should be covered. No final vote was taken on BR 25 during this discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• The reason is because it's a ballot measure now.
• Now it's a ballot measure.
• proposition, to make, Regarding a ballot proposition, to make incidental remarks concerning a ballot
• mentioned the ballot measure?
• You should not talk about a bill that became a ballot measure or is subject to challenge by a ballot

Keywords: 904, all

Summary: The meeting focused on ethics guidance for legislators’ official newsletters and social media posts about a major tax bill that has since become a ballot measure. Members and staff debated whether existing board guidance, which allowed comments on legislation previously before the legislature, should also apply to social media and to the current biennium rather than only the immediately preceding session. Several members argued that legislators should be able to state how they voted on the bill and discuss it as part of their legislative record, while others stressed that using state resources to advocate for or against a ballot measure is prohibited and that posts could become an indirect appeal to voters. The discussion also covered whether there should be a bright-line cutoff tied to the primary election date, after which official communications should stop discussing the bill if it is now a ballot measure. Staff and members raised concerns about tone, tenor, and proximity to the election, and whether official social media, caucus communications, and newsletters should be treated differently. One motion to extend the prior rule to the full biennium and apply it to social media failed. A second motion then passed establishing the primary date as a date certain for monitoring these discussions, with the understanding that official communications should be more limited after that point. Members noted that personal social media and campaign resources remain separate from official legislative resources. The meeting then moved toward adjournment of the public portion, with no public testimony offered, before a brief break and executive session.

Transcript Highlights:

• The measure has qualified for the ballot and will be on the ballot this November, and election officials
• arguments to appear on the ballot for the various counties.
• Armed Service members deployed overseas cast their ballots.
• in time to vote or did not receive a ballot at all.
• We received their ballot after the seven-day window to have a properly postmarked ballot returned.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• ballots and mail ballots. are all included in this.
• ballot would have U.S.
• If the person shows up and they cure their ballot, that ballot counts.
• Here's ballot board people.
• In this case, annual ballot by mail voters who. receive runoff ballots, can receive up to four ballots

Bills: SB16, SB76, SB310, SB311, SB396, SB505, SB827, SB964, SB1209, SB1210, SB1386, SB1470, SB2035, SJR37, SB 16

Keywords: voter registration, proof of citizenship, Election Code, criminal offenses, limited federal ballot, transportation, infrastructure, funding, public safety, state regulation, election, polling places, voter access, state oversight, electronic voting, voting, polling place, elections, countywide program, election integrity

Transcript Highlights:

• ballot be better?
• ballot be better?
• an August ballot.
• And I would anticipate whether it was on a June ballot, an August ballot, or a November ballot, there's
• And in many senses, we are fast-tracking this onto a ballot, specifically the August ballot.

Bills: HB4028, HB4029, HB4059, HB4063, HB4073, HB4074, HB4075, HB4076, HB4077, HB4078, SB1130, SB1131, SB1132, SB1133, SB1134, SB1142

Keywords: tax deduction, venture capital, economic development, Oklahoma, investment, ALS, funding, healthcare, State Department of Health, emergency declaration, public finance, state budget, financial regulations, monetary policy, referendum, constitutional amendments, special election, Oklahoma legislature, public voting, recovery fund

Summary: The committee considered a series of bills largely focused on reappropriating and closing out ARPA-related funds, transferring interest earnings, and filling funding gaps in existing state projects. Measures included funding for the Health Care Workforce Training Commission, juvenile services in Rogers County, rural hospital rebuild projects, DHS-related projects for Boys and Girls Clubs and the YWCA, water and wastewater projects through the OWRB, ALS grant limits for OSDH, pandemic relief accounting, administrative costs for ARPA projects, pediatric cardiology and OSU-related projects, rural industrial park and port water/wastewater gaps, and emergency response grants through the Department of Emergency Management. Most of these bills were presented by Rep. Newton, Chairman Caldwell, Speaker Hilbert, Rep. Osborne, Rep. Hill, and others, with committee substitutes adopted without objection where noted. One bill, House Bill 4028, drew the most discussion. It would extend the sunset on the qualified equity investment deduction for venture capital investments. Members questioned the lack of program-specific evaluation data, including return on investment, jobs created, and how much of the tax deduction had actually been used. The sponsor said the program had helped grow Oklahoma venture capital and that he would seek better data, but argued the sunset should be extended for now. The bill passed 23-6. Another extended exchange centered on House Bill 4063, which combined measures related to placing state questions on the August ballot, including HJR 1024 and a bill tied to House Bill 1440. Members raised concerns about single-subject issues, ballot timing, voter turnout, and whether combining the measures limited legislators’ options. The Speaker defended the approach as election-related and noted prior precedent. The bill passed 23-6. The remaining bills were approved overwhelmingly, generally by votes of 27-0, 28-0, or 29-0, and were reported out with due pass recommendations before the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Californians like using mail-in ballots, even Republican voters like mail-in ballots.
• But when you mail out the ballot, it means that you have to protect the But when you mail out the ballot
• It diminishes participation using our mail-in ballots, and again, our mail-in ballots should be seen
• Fresno County has holes in their ballot; you can't see Fresno County has holes in their ballot.
• ballot in increases.

Summary: The Assembly Elections Committee met on March 25, 2026, with nine measures on the agenda and three bills taken on consent. The committee approved the consent calendar for AB 1736, AB 1853, and AB 2153. The committee also heard several election-related bills, including AB 1993 on ballot-envelope privacy, AB 1788 on nonprofit disclosure of travel payments for elected officials, AB 1560 on barring people convicted of public corruption from lobbying, AB 1539 on presidential and vice-presidential ballot eligibility certifications, AB 1919 on Santa Cruz Metro local tax initiative procedures, and AB 1562 on county selection of poll workers. The chair also noted membership changes and welcomed new and returning members and staff. AB 1993 drew the most debate. The author argued it was a common-sense safeguard to prevent voters’ choices from being visible through ballot-envelope holes, citing a Sacramento County incident and public concern about ballot privacy. County election officials, the Secretary of State’s office, and Disability Rights California opposed the bill, saying the holes also serve accessibility and processing functions, that existing voter instructions already address privacy, and that the measure would create implementation problems and an unfunded mandate. After extended discussion, the committee voted the bill out on a 2-6 roll call and it failed. AB 1788 was supported by the FPPC and the League of Women Voters and passed as amended to Appropriations, with members emphasizing transparency while seeking to avoid unintended coverage of organizations like NCSL and CSG. AB 1560 passed 6-0 despite the Secretary of State’s implementation concerns about how the office would learn of relevant convictions. AB 1539, which would require party representatives to certify presidential and vice-presidential nominees’ constitutional eligibility, passed 7-0 as amended. AB 1919, which would clarify procedures for a Santa Cruz Metro voter initiative to place a transit tax on the ballot, passed 6-2, and AB 1562, which would allow counties to randomly select poll workers, passed 7-1 after discussion about civic engagement, guardrails, and election administration. The committee then completed roll-call adjustments for absent members and adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• We only got that one sample.
• no we don't we only got that one sample no we don't we only got that one sample so<02:22:04.720>
• then again there aren't any sampling then again there aren't any sampling going<02:22:23.800>
• <02:22:55.479> yeah investigate then we do sampling yeah investigate then we do sampling yeah
• 22:57.000> okay we're doing surveillance sampling okay we're doing surveillance sampling okay

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The committee heard budget testimony first from the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Director Tommy Johnson outlined short-term goals to reduce overcrowding, improve living and working conditions, fill vacancies, expand mental health services, and update the correctional master plan. He said the department is still dealing with severe overcrowding at facilities such as OCCC and HCCC, with 947 people at OCCC against a design capacity of 628, and noted 938 inmates are currently housed on the mainland because of temporary repairs at Halawa. He also reported progress on staffing, saying the correctional officer vacancy rate has dropped from 34.3% to 24% through expanded recruitment. The department’s major budget request was $30 million for planning and design for a new Old Triple C project, along with other requests for re-entry services, identification documents, security systems, radios, sink-toilet modules, and trauma-informed care. Members asked about the timing and scope of the OCCC project, courtroom space in new facilities, and the department’s plan to use the funding to improve re-entry and reduce recidivism. The committee then heard from the Department of Law Enforcement on a wide range of priorities. The department described requests to expand agricultural crime enforcement, traffic enforcement, illegal fireworks enforcement, and facilities such as a police building at the DKI airport, a state training center, and new police facilities in central and Leeward Oahu. It also discussed a major IT request for a statewide law enforcement and critical infrastructure notification platform, plus funding for grants management, the Wahiawa Civic Center and court complex, the prescription monitoring program, narcotics enforcement operations, and the narcotics lab. A significant portion of the discussion focused on a proposed traffic enforcement program for commercial vehicle inspections, speeding, and DUI enforcement, which the department said would be funded with federal dollars and would operate concurrently with county police. Committee members questioned whether the effort duplicated county jurisdiction and how the program would be trained and staffed. Members also pressed the department on salary disparities for deputy sheriffs and related vacancies, and the department said the administration was working on a supplemental agreement and placeholder funding to address the issue. Additional discussion covered agricultural crime staffing, the Silver Alert program, and expansion of the forensic lab to handle explosives, firearms, and related evidence. No votes were taken in the portion provided, and the meeting moved from the corrections presentation to the law enforcement budget review with questions and answers throughout.

Transcript Highlights:

• ballot, returning them to the precinct, and then the counting of those ballots that caused them to be
• You had eligible voters who were given ballots, allowed to vote, and their ballots were lost.
• These ballots were, in fact, put into the ballot box, as we heard Mr. Zoll say.
• If a ballot is marked, right, then the ballot must be given effect, no matter how crude the mark might
• I just find it troubling that we're accepting ballots, we're accepting testimony on ballots that don't

Transcript Highlights:

• The measure has qualified for the ballot and will be on the ballot this November, and election officials
• arguments to appear on the ballot for the various counties.
• Armed Service members deployed overseas cast their ballots.
• in time to vote or did not receive a ballot at all.
• a properly postmarked ballot returned.

Summary: The committee met on June 17, 2026, beginning without a quorum and initially proceeding as a subcommittee. Members heard several Senate bills, with testimony focused mainly on redistricting, Bay Area transit funding, and military/overseas voting access. The chair also announced committee membership changes and that SB 1369 had been pulled by the author. Written testimony was accepted through the committee portal, and public testimony was limited by the chair’s rules. SB 1414 by Senator Reyes would create an independent redistricting commission for San Bernardino County. Supporters, including Inland Empire United, Common Cause, and the League of Women Voters, argued the bill would improve transparency and reduce political influence in map drawing. Opponents, including San Bernardino County and several local government/election groups, said the county’s existing advisory commission already provided substantial public input and raised concerns about cost. The bill was moved do pass as amended and re-referred to Local Government, with one no vote from Assembly Member Lackey; it was later taken off call and passed 6-1. SB 830 by Senator Wiener made technical changes to the administration of the Bay Area regional transit sales tax measure authorized by SB 63, including uniform ballot naming and county-specific ballot arguments. Support came from labor, transit, business, and advocacy groups, who said the bill would help voters understand the measure and protect transit funding. Members emphasized the Bay Area’s transit funding crisis and the need for local action. The bill passed do pass as amended, 5-1, and was later recorded as out 6-0 on call. The committee also approved a consent calendar containing six bills. SB 970 by Senator Cervantes addressed military and overseas voting after the federal discontinuation of the Department of Defense fax service used for ballot return. Supporters, including county election officials and local government organizations, said California needed a secure replacement to avoid disenfranchising service members and overseas voters. The Secretary of State’s office and Verified Voting raised security concerns and suggested a task force or more detailed standards, but the author and supporters argued the bill was urgent and should direct the Secretary of State to develop secure regulations. The bill passed do pass and was re-referred to Military and Veteran Affairs, and the meeting adjourned after all agenda items were completed.