Transcript Highlights:

• in time for the November 4 statewide special election.
• election and beyond.
• We just had elections. We've had many special elections.
• Yes, Madam Chair, if I can address this as well, there was actually a special election happening in St
• before an election.

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:

• elections.
• Just personally, in my very first election, I was the last candidate to enter in the primary, and someone—many
• elections to the general election.
• This has led to the transformative use of RCV in the recent NYC primary election... ...transformative
• use of RCV in the recent NYC primary election, which involved collaborative campaigning, no vote splitting

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Election Laws

Summary: The Joint Committee on Election Laws held a public hearing focused primarily on ranked choice voting (RCV) legislation and several local home rule petitions, along with one petition to authorize remote participation in Concord town meetings. Chairs Keenan and Hunt outlined hearing procedures and noted the committee would hear both in-person and virtual testimony. The committee also took testimony on Concord’s request for remote participation in open and special town meetings, with supporters arguing it would make town meeting more accessible to residents with childcare, mobility, work, or disability barriers while preserving direct democracy. A large portion of the hearing centered on RCV local-option bills and municipal petitions from communities including Concord, East Hampton, Salem, Chelsea, Arlington, Revere, Amherst, and others. Supporters—among them local officials, legislators, election advocates, educators, veterans, and nonprofit leaders—said RCV would reduce vote-splitting, encourage more candidates, promote more positive campaigning, improve representation, and increase turnout. East Hampton officials described their existing use of RCV, saying it produced record turnout, was easy for voters to understand with education, and could be expanded to multi-winner races without major added cost. Concord and Amherst witnesses said their voters had already approved local steps toward RCV and urged the committee to let municipalities implement the system without further delay. Testimony in favor of the local-option RCV bill emphasized home rule and local control, with several witnesses arguing the state should not block communities that have already voted to adopt RCV. Speakers from MassVOTE, the AFT Massachusetts, Voter Choice Massachusetts, Progressive Massachusetts, the Boston Teachers Union, and Veterans for All Voters said the reform would strengthen democracy, broaden participation, and save money by avoiding low-turnout preliminary elections. Some witnesses also referenced examples from Cambridge, Maine, and Utah to argue that RCV is workable, nonpartisan, and familiar to voters. The hearing ended with no votes or final committee action taken in the transcript provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• special election to try turnout off-year special election to try to<02:53:25.840><c> overturn</c><02:
• The special election itself is going to cost between 200 million and 250 million.
• The special election itself is going to cost between 200 million and 250 million.
• He wouldn't be sham special election.
• Now, the primary would decide the winner of the election.

Bills: SB5223 , SB5831 , SB5928 , SB6183 , SB6071 , SB5995 , SB5966 , SB5841 , SB5840 , SB6061 , SB6058 , SB5931 , SB5944 , SB5520 , SB6011 , SB6087 , SB6076 , SB5916 , SB6016 , SB5936 , SB6137 , SB5956 , SB6025 , SB6009 , SB5833 , SB6161 , SB6188 , SB5890 , SB5917 , SB5820 , SB5973 , SJM8015 , SB5816 , SB6136 , SB6091 , SB6024 , SB5053 , SB5249 , SB5536 , SB5834 , SB5837 , SB5872 , SB5879 , SB5899 , SB5925 , SB6019 , SB6148 , SB6184 , SB6190 , SB6237 , SB6086 , SB5574 , SB5873 , SB5992 , SB5924 , SB6134 , SB6263 , SB5395 , SB6282 , SB5905 , SB6302 , SB5950 , SB6074 , SB6226 , SB6096 , SB5970 , SB6269

Keywords: criminal offense, fingerprinting, law enforcement, state regulations, public safety, mortgage modification, uniform regulations, homeowners, financial stability, foreclosure prevention, wildfire risk, disclosure, safety, environmental policy, risk assessment, SB 6183, HIV, antiviral drugs, antiretroviral therapy, AIDS

Transcript Highlights:

• ; HB 2424, precinct committee members and elections.
• By rolls of military affairs and elections. 2424 precinct and elections. 2482, campaign finance.
• Education. 2508 elections. 2508 elections. 2506 voting elections. 2507 elections. 2511 early ballot,
• military affairs and elections. 2512 municipal, county, federal, and military affairs and elections.
• HB 2625, elections. HB 2655, elections.

Transcript Highlights:

• Should ACA 8 and its companion bills pass, voters will have their say in a special election on November
• But I believe the cost of the special election...
• Inflation rates, but I believe the cost of the special election is approximately $200 million. Mr.
• And this is a funding special election bill. So I'm glad that you read that aloud.
• Secretary of State are able to administer the statewide special election in this time frame.

Summary: The Assembly Elections Committee met on August 19, 2025, to consider ACA 8, SB 280, and an informational hearing on AB 604. The meeting began with several failed motions to adjourn, to read public comments into the record, and to recess so members could review the roughly 16,000 public comments submitted through the committee portal. The chair emphasized the hearing’s expedited format, transparency measures, and rules limiting witness testimony, and noted a letter from Speaker Rivas authorizing Assemblymember Berman to present ACA 8. ACA 8, described by supporters as the “Election Rigging Response Act,” would place before voters a temporary congressional redistricting plan tied to AB 604 and triggered only if another state, especially Texas, adopts a partisan mid-decade redistricting. Supporters, including Assemblymember Berman, labor groups, CTA, Planned Parenthood affiliates, SEIU, and other allied organizations, argued the measure was a response to partisan gerrymandering elsewhere and a defense of democracy, with voters having the final say in a November 4, 2025 special election. Opponents, including current and former redistricting commissioners, good-government groups, business and taxpayer organizations, and many members of the public, argued the proposal undermines California’s independent redistricting model, was rushed without adequate public review, could cost roughly $200 million or more, and would invite litigation and partisan manipulation. The committee also debated a proposed amendment that would bar legislators who voted for ACA 8 from later running for Congress in districts adopted under the measure. After extended procedural disputes, the committee voted to lay the amendment on the table. The hearing then continued with extensive public testimony, overwhelmingly divided between strong support and strong opposition, but the transcript provided does not show a final committee vote on ACA 8 or SB 280 before the excerpt ends.

Transcript Highlights:

• Today, I have some special guests up here in the north gallery.
• Members, I have some special guests with me this morning here in the South Gallery.
• Declare the vote. 850 nay and received the majority of those elected to and constituting the house.
• I 22 nay haven't seen majority both of those elected.
• Have received a majority or 2/3 voted those elected to.

Bills: HB2979 , HB3790 , HB3142 , HB3463 , HB4143 , HJR1086 , SB392 , HB3087 , HB3037 , HB3581 , HB4058 , HB2959 , HB4227 , HB2997 , HB4125 , HB1453 , HB3521 , HB3691 , HB2015 , HB2940 , HB1016 , HB3267 , HB3695 , HB3697 , HB3045 , HB3662 , HB3453 , HB3053 , HB3301 , HB3495 , HB3584 , HB3586 , HB3587 , HB3845 , HB4198 , HB4425 , HB2970 , HB3338 , HB3443 , HB3783 , HB3800 , HB3818 , HB1242 , HB1752 , HB2961 , HB2967 , HB2973 , HB2988 , HB3031 , HB3240 , HB3047 , HB3052 , HB3066 , HB3086 , HB3175 , HB3177 , HB3178 , HB3429 , HB3548 , HB3638 , HB3404 , HB3704 , HB1590 , HB3759 , HB3831 , HB3904 , HB4092 , HB1979 , HB1983 , HB1250 , HB2952 , HB3671 , HB3920 , HB4118 , HB3944 , HB3969 , HB3973 , HB3975 , HB3976 , HB3978 , HB3983 , HB3984 , HB3942 , HB4203 , HB2588 , HB3024 , HB3383 , HB3279 , HB3919 , HB3883 , HB4193 , HB3431 , HB3435 , HB4352 , HB4484 , HB1245 , HB3172 , HB3306 , HB4294 , HB3880 , HB2929 , HB3128 , HB2956 , HB3015 , HB3114 , HB3567 , HB3749 , HB4229 , HB4237 , HB4253 , HJR1046 , HJR1084 , HB3411

Keywords: HB2979, Talyn Bain Act, school zone, school safety, speed limit, 45 mph, state highway, Department of Transportation, ODOT, flashing beacons, traffic enforcement, speeding violation, public school, private school, K-12, drop-off, pick-up, highway safety, municipal maintenance, county commissioners

Transcript Highlights:

• So on primary election day, such a voter can request a ballot from one of the parties holding a primary
• the same day registration tool, statute and vote in a major party's primary election.
• Speaker and gentleman, only 1% use that in the primary elections. Representative McQueen: And Mr.
• primary?
• In the Democratic primary probably wouldn't be this election cycle, maybe the next one when this bill

Transcript Highlights:

• We will take up to two primary witnesses in support and up to two primary witnesses in opposition for
• Any primary witnesses in opposition? Thank you.
• I love special districts, and as you mentioned, there are a lot of very important special districts.
• I love special districts and as you mentioned there are a lot of very important special districts and
• Primary witnesses?

Summary: The committee heard a long agenda focused heavily on housing, local government, Brown Act teleconferencing, and public agency administration. Early bills included AB 39, which would require larger cities and counties to adopt electrification planning for EV charging and building decarbonization; AB 76, which clarifies Chula Vista’s university innovation district housing requirements; AB 259, AB 409, and AB 467, which extend or modernize Brown Act teleconferencing provisions for local agencies, community college student bodies, and Los Angeles neighborhood councils; and AB 428, which would let water corporations join joint powers authorities for pooled insurance. Supporters emphasized climate planning, housing access, public participation, safety, and cost savings, while several bills were amended to address stakeholder concerns. Most of these measures advanced on bipartisan votes, generally 6-1 or 7-0, and were left open for additional members to add on later. The committee also heard AB 632, which would strengthen local enforcement tools for serious code violations, fire hazards, illegal cannabis operations, and unsafe housing by allowing unpaid administrative fines to be converted into money judgments and liens. Local government and code enforcement groups supported the bill as a way to improve compliance and reduce costly litigation. AB 670 would let local governments count investments in preserving naturally occurring affordable housing toward housing element reporting and require broader reporting of demolitions and replacement housing compliance; supporters argued preservation is essential because many unsubsidized affordable homes are at risk. AB 761 would allow Monterey-Salinas Transit to place a future sales tax measure on the ballot with approval from two-thirds of its board, rather than separate approval from each member jurisdiction, to preserve transit funding for seniors, veterans, and people with disabilities. These measures also moved forward, with the committee noting amendments and sending them to the next committees of referral. Another major item was AB 810, which would require special districts and joint powers authorities to migrate public-facing websites and email addresses to .gov or CA.gov domains by 2031. The author argued the change would reduce fraud and improve public trust, especially after emergency-related scams, while opponents from special districts and IT organizations said the transition would be costly and difficult for smaller agencies. Several school-related opponents withdrew after amendments, and committee members discussed possible aliases and tribal-government language. The bill passed 7-1 to the Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee. Finally, AB 1206 proposed a pre-approved design catalog for single-family homes and small multifamily developments, modeled on a prior ADU bill, to speed rebuilding and reduce design costs; supporters from Habitat for Humanity and housing advocates said it would help both wildfire recovery and broader housing production, and the bill drew at least one opposed-unless-amended position as the committee moved into further discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• election, April election, even primaries, making sure all of it is moved to November when we have the
• We are concerned primarily on the election consolidation front, three primary spots, primarily on the
• moving that election date to the November election or to the general election can be quite costly.
• November election or to the general election can be quite costly.
• I remember in my community back in 2016, we had to have a municipal special election in November.

Committee: House Special Committee on Property Tax Reform

Summary: The committee heard extensive testimony on House Bill 2651, a broad property tax reform bill sponsored by Representative Burns. Burns said the bill is intended to close perceived loopholes in the Hancock Amendment, including moving tax-related elections to November, eliminating the new-construction exclusion, allowing multiple subclass rates, and preventing counties from opting out of multiple levies. Supporters argued the bill would better protect homeowners from large tax increases, while opponents and several members raised concerns about the loss of local control, the impact on growing communities, and whether the proposal was revenue neutral. No vote was taken; the bill remained in public testimony. The committee then heard House Bill 2944, which would change Missouri’s senior homestead property tax relief so eligible seniors would only have to apply once instead of annually. Representative Billington said the current yearly paperwork burdens older residents on fixed incomes and can contribute to them losing their homes. Some members supported simplifying the process, but others and the Missouri Association of Counties opposed the bill as written, arguing annual recertification helps ensure only eligible taxpayers receive the credit and that counties need a way to verify continued eligibility. Questions also focused on how to handle deaths, moves, and possible recapture of improperly granted credits. No action was taken. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 1786/2060, a joint short-term rental property tax classification proposal from Representatives Brown and Vernetti. The sponsors argued that single-family homes used as short-term rentals should remain classified as residential, not commercial, and said some assessors have reclassified them in a way that sharply raises taxes. They cited case law and IRS treatment to support their position and said the bill would protect homeowners and local tourism economies. The Missouri Hotel Lodging Association opposed the measure, saying short-term rentals used as a business should be taxed accordingly, while the Missouri Realtors supported it. Testimony highlighted concerns about local control, the effect on housing availability, and whether short-term rentals should be treated differently based on frequency of use. No vote was taken on this bill either.

Transcript Highlights:

• Are you a primary witness? No.
• By providing statutorily defined election procedures, it will allow voters to propose a special tax through
• Well, election procedures are already in place for cities, counties, and special districts, but in the
• And so... as a election worker.
• Every election, he’s like, ‘Sorry I can’t come to celebrate your election night.

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 will take up to two primary witnesses in support and up to two primary witnesses in opposition for
• Any primary witnesses in opposition? Thank you. Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition?
• Any primary witnesses in opposition? Opposition at all?
• Any primary witnesses in opposition? No opposition?
• I love special districts, and as you mentioned, there are a lot of very important special districts.

Committee: House Local Government

Summary: The Assembly Local Government Committee heard a long agenda of bills, with testimony largely focused on housing, Brown Act teleconferencing, local government authority, transit funding, and cybersecurity. The chair opened by emphasizing in-person testimony rules and public order. AB 39, requiring larger cities and counties to plan for electrification and EV charging infrastructure, drew broad support from clean energy, utility, environmental, and local government groups and passed 7-0 to the Utilities and Energy Committee. AB 76, clarifying affordable housing requirements for Chula Vista’s University Innovation District, also passed, 6-1, to Housing and Community Development. The committee then approved several Brown Act-related bills extending or modernizing remote participation rules: AB 259 to extend AB 2449 teleconferencing flexibilities for local agency board members, AB 409 for community college student body associations, and AB 467 for Los Angeles neighborhood councils. Supporters said these measures improve participation, safety, and access; some members raised concerns about overuse and the need for physical quorum and screen-on requirements. All three measures advanced with committee support and were left open for additional members to add on. Other measures advanced included AB 428, allowing water corporations to join joint powers authorities for pooled insurance if it lowers rates or improves service; AB 1007, shortening the housing permit “shot clock” for responsible agencies from 90 to 45 days; AB 632, giving local governments an expedited way to collect penalties for serious code violations such as unsafe housing, fire hazards, and illegal cannabis operations; AB 670, allowing local governments to count preservation of existing affordable housing toward housing goals and requiring broader demolition reporting; AB 761, authorizing Monterey-Salinas Transit to place a sales tax measure before voters with board approval; and AB 810, requiring special districts and JPAs to migrate public websites and email to .gov or ca.gov domains by 2031. AB 810 drew the most opposition over cost and implementation concerns, but it still passed 7-1 after amendments removed school districts from the bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:03:34.640><c> related</c> have is specifically election related have is specifically election
• </c> implementing the presidential primary implementing the presidential primary and<00:04:18.000><c>
• </c> general account of the state elections general account of the state elections campaign<00:05:26.880
• Roberts said about elections policy.
• Districts I don't collect Special Districts I don't collect special<00:27:07.080><c> district</c><00

Transcript Highlights:

• office or running for elected office.
• Seeing none, we'll move on to primary witnesses in opposition. Any primary witnesses in opposition?
• This includes strict prohibitions on mass mailings featuring elected officials to ensure that elected
• I find it peculiar that they'd be concerned about election sites because anybody that's going to an election
• Each election, millions of Californians cast a vote-by-mail ballot, and each election, tens of thousands

Summary: The Assembly Elections Committee met as a subcommittee until quorum was established, then heard a series of election- and public-trust-related bills. Early items included AB 2592, which would move lobbyist training from legislative ethics committees to the FPPC starting in 2029 and make it available online on demand; it drew support from the FPPC and an oppose-unless-amended request to make the training public and ensure lobbyists pay fees. AB 2573 would refine California’s confidential voter registration protections for candidates and elected officials, with support from the Secretary of State and county election officials after amendments narrowed some family-member coverage. AB 2753 would bar registered sex offenders from running for or holding local or state office; it prompted extended debate about public trust, second chances, and where to draw the line, but was ultimately advanced on a 5-0 vote with one member not voting. AB 2691 similarly would expand disqualifying felony convictions to include sexual assault and human trafficking, and it also passed 5-0 after testimony from victim advocates and discussion about survivors, restorative justice, and the power dynamics involved in public office. The committee also advanced AB 2413, which would prohibit public funds from being used for large-format ads featuring elected officials, and AB 2281, which would direct the Office of Election Cybersecurity to assess replacement resources after federal cybersecurity support cuts and allow consultation with academic researchers. AB 1664 would require local election officials to notify the Secretary of State and Attorney General within one business day of warrants, subpoenas, or investigations involving election records or voting systems; supporters said it would help the state respond quickly to improper seizure of election materials, and it passed 5-0. AB 2484, concerning San Diego MTS, would let voters authorize a local sales tax initiative for transit funding and exempt it from an existing cap; it drew support from transit leaders and labor, opposition from the Realtors, and a lengthy exchange over Prop. 13, Prop. 218, and whether the measure created a special deal, before passing 6-1. The committee then heard AB 2230, which would create buffer zones around voting centers and child care facilities to keep immigration enforcement away from those locations. The author said the bill was meant to reduce fear and intimidation for voters and families, while the opposition argued it was unenforceable, lacked evidence of a problem, and would interfere with federal officers doing their jobs. Members supporting the bill cited reported ICE profiling and intimidation in California communities, while others raised jurisdictional and practical concerns. The transcript ends during this debate, with no final vote shown for AB 2230.

Transcript Highlights:

• fund, and then in FY27 there's a special, also $15 million from the election fund.
• it's the regular local election or the primary election coming.
• to the election fund for the primary election to put $15 million there.
• , and I haven't heard this discussion too much now in the primary election, right?
• But I was not elected.

Bills: HB1

Committee: House House Appropriations & Finance

Keywords: feed bill, legislative appropriations, legislative branch, New Mexico Legislature, general fund, legislative council service, legislative finance committee, legislative education study committee, house chief clerk, senate chief clerk, per diem, mileage, session expenses, interim committees, district staff, capitol complex, capital outlay data system, legislative processing system, redistricting, census redistricting

Transcript Highlights:

• We will take up to two primary witnesses in support and up to two primary witnesses in opposition for
• Seeing no one else, is there any primary opposition to this bill? Primary opposition, please.
• Is there any primary opposition?
• Any primary opposition?
• I was just saying the auditor is appointed or elected? Elected.

Summary: The committee heard a long agenda of local government and housing-related bills, with testimony often centered on regional coordination, permitting reform, and local control. SB 802 by Senator Ashby would require Sacramento-area jurisdictions to form a joint powers authority to coordinate homelessness and housing response; supporters argued the region has long lacked accountability and coordination, while Sacramento County, Folsom, and others opposed the mandate as an unprecedented state-imposed JPA. The bill drew extensive support from local officials, business groups, service providers, and advocates, and opposition from county, city, and nonprofit representatives who said a local process was already underway. Committee members expressed support for the concept, but the bill was held pending a quorum and later discussed again with strong encouragement for regional collaboration. The committee also heard SB 222, SB 677, SB 908, SB 226, SB 828, and SB 1193. SB 222 would streamline permitting for residential heat pump and water heater installations; supporters said it would lower costs and speed clean-energy adoption, while local government groups argued the main barrier is upfront cost, not permits. SB 677 would curb what the author described as abusive appeals and delays in affordable housing approvals, with developers testifying about frivolous subdivision map appeals and TEFRA hearing delays; the California Native Plant Society sought an amendment to preserve appeals on habitat lands. SB 908 would simplify permits for energy-code-compliant window replacements, and SB 226 would clarify financing authority for a West Sacramento baseball stadium proposal; both passed unanimously. SB 828, prompted by the Esparto fireworks warehouse explosion, would tighten fireworks storage and licensing rules, expand inspection and seizure authority, and increase fines; it also passed unanimously after testimony from fire officials and a pyrotechnic operator who opposed it unless amended. SB 1193, a county-specific Alameda County transparency bill, generated the sharpest debate. The author argued it would prevent waste, favoritism, and conflicts of interest in discretionary spending by requiring board approval, a public spending log, and clearer whistleblower procedures. Alameda County and county associations opposed it as overly broad and burdensome, saying existing processes already provide transparency and that the bill would reduce flexibility during fiscal stress. After committee questions about the bill’s purpose and the county’s current practices, the measure passed 7-0, with the author indicating willingness to accept an amendment restoring a four-fifths vote threshold. The committee then moved out of order to SB 1090, which would impose a temporary moratorium on state housing density laws in Altadena through 2030 in response to post-fire displacement concerns. The author said the bill is intended to protect long-term residents from investor-driven redevelopment after the Eaton Fire, while acknowledging amendments to align the moratorium with affordable housing development timelines. The transcript cuts off during the presentation of this bill, so no final action is shown for SB 1090 in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• The rest of us, all are who are up for election, all fall under the election restrictions.
• Maybe it's the primary.
• So then once you—oh, the August primary. So it's always the August primary.
• Only the people who are not up for elections. Okay.
• This is a primary example.

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:

• schedule fixed dates for a special primary election and special election.
• a special election date if the governor does not comply with the deadlines for ordering a special election
• Delayed special elections deny representation.
• cost for that special election is $1.3 million—dollars that would The cost for that special election
• forbid, you know, a special election, a special election in the middle of March.

Bills: S0460 , S0748 , S1180 , S1334

Committee: Senate Ethics and Elections

Summary: The Committee on Ethics and Elections met with a quorum and took up several election-related bills. CS/SB 1180 by Senator Arrington, which creates a recall framework for elected community development district board members and also addresses synthetic turf regulation and CDD eligibility, was presented briefly and then approved unanimously. SB 460 by Senator Polsky, requiring the governor to call special elections within set deadlines after vacancies and allowing judicial relief if deadlines are not met, also passed unanimously after members discussed flexibility for emergencies and the cost of delayed elections. The committee then heard SB 748 by Senator Bracy Davis, which would add constitutional voting-rights restoration language to the sentencing score sheet given to felony defendants. Supporters said it would improve clarity and notice without changing eligibility, and the bill was favorably reported unanimously. The committee also confirmed several appointees, including Jim Milliken and Alicia McShea to the Juvenile Welfare Board of Pinellas County, Robert P. Estalas as Director of the Agency for Persons with Disabilities, and additional gubernatorial appointees listed on the agenda, all by favorable votes. The longest discussion centered on Senator Grall’s strike-all amendment for SB 1334, an elections bill dealing with citizenship verification, Real ID and SAVE database use, paper-ballot voting, candidate qualification rules, and related election administration changes. Supporters argued it would streamline verification and ensure only citizens vote, while opponents warned it would create burdens, disenfranchise eligible voters, and impose costs and administrative confusion. After extensive public testimony both for and against, the committee adopted an amendment to allow supervisors of elections to observe holidays when not otherwise required to be open, then approved the strike-all as amended by a 6-2 vote, with Senators Polsky and Bernard voting no. The meeting then adjourned after members recorded their votes on earlier items.

Transcript Highlights:

• schedule fixed dates for a special primary election and special election.
• election date if the governor does not comply with the deadlines for ordering a special election...
• Delayed special elections deny representation.
• No one has any idea when the special election is.
• No one has any idea when the special election is.

Committee: Senate Ethics and Elections

Transcript Highlights:

• The rest of us, all are, who are up for election, all fall under the election restrictions.
• Maybe it's the primary.
• So then once you—oh, the August primary. So it's always the August primary.
• Only the people who are not up for elections. Okay.
• This is a primary example.

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.