Transcript Highlights:

• It also includes information like the time the ballot was read, the date and time the ballot was read
• It also includes information like the time the ballot was read, the date and time the ballot was read
• <00:32:07.720> um private data to keep your ballot um private data to keep your ballot um
• <00:40:11.839> and ballot and ballot and therefore<00:40:14.040> um<00:40:14.960> we
• She said they spend a lot of time disconnecting ballot envelopes from ballots to protect ballot secrecy

Keywords: 1183, house

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:

• and vote-by-mail ballots.
• and vote-by-mail ballots.
• We're counting your ballot.
• We use ballot tracks, and that notifies you when your ballot gets back to us.
• No ballots were in there.

Summary: The committee heard a presentation from several county supervisors of elections and the Florida Supervisors of Elections Association on the 2024 election cycle and priorities for the 2025 session. They described very high turnout in the presidential election, major operational planning needs, and the heavy reliance on seasonal workers, list maintenance, ballot-on-demand systems, and secure chain-of-custody procedures. They also discussed the impact of recent legislative changes on voter-roll maintenance, including inactive voter removal, and said Florida’s election administration has improved to what they called a “platinum standard.” The supervisors outlined several legislative requests: allowing more than one non-government “wild card” early voting site to improve access and emergency flexibility; requiring newly naturalized citizens to update driver’s license information so voter records match DHSMV data; exempting home addresses of certain election workers and ballot transporters from public records to improve safety and recruitment; restoring a checkbox on vote-by-mail return envelopes so voters can stay on the vote-by-mail list for the next cycle; aligning base salaries for supervisors, property appraisers, and clerks with other constitutional officers; and reducing ballot length by removing precinct committee races from the ballot. They also said they expect a committee bill to carry some of these proposals. Members questioned the panel about ballot transport security, signature verification, vote-by-mail expiration, public records transparency, and the petition process for constitutional amendments. The supervisors said ballots are transported under detailed county plans with tamper-evident seals, chain-of-custody logs, trained workers, and in some cases two-person transport teams. On petitions, they said the process is labor-intensive and expensive, that fraud has occurred in some cases, and that they favor reforms such as requiring more personal identifying information and having initiative sponsors mail petitions to voters rather than making supervisors handle the mailing. They also said signature mismatches can be cured within 72 hours after Election Day and that voters are notified when possible. After the supervisors’ presentation, the committee also heard brief public testimony from Kathleen Griffiths, who urged adoption of commercial-style risk management standards in election systems and referenced several election-related bills her group supports.

Transcript Highlights:

• And they were accustomed to, ‘I always get my ballot in the mail,’ and now they didn't get their ballot
• “Eighty-six percent of voters vote by mail-in ballot, and I think 276,000 people drop off their ballot
• And if you're handing over your ballot at the polls, does the current early ballot signature account,
• And if you're handing over your ballot at the polls, does the current early ballot signature account,
• This is a ballot referral. This is going on to the ballot if it passes in final form.

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The Senate opened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, roll call, and routine journal and calendar actions, including referral of a gubernatorial nomination and several bills. The chamber then resolved into Committee of the Whole to consider four measures: SB 1038 on election conduct and cast vote records, SB 1133 on nominating procedures and candidate financial disclosures, SB 1247 on assisted living centers, and SCR 1001, a constitutional election-requirements referral. Each measure received committee amendments and was reported out do pass, with SB 1133 and SB 1247 treated as emergency measures. Most of the debate centered on SCR 1001. Supporters said it would speed election results, strengthen election security, require proof of identity, and preserve legislative authority over election procedures. Opponents argued it would reduce access to voting by changing mail-ballot rules, eliminating the active early voting list, limiting Election Day ballot drop-offs, and potentially creating long lines and confusion, with disproportionate impacts on rural voters, voters of color, and people with disabilities. The Senate adopted the Committee of the Whole report and then took third-reading votes. On final passage, SB 1038 passed 17-9-1, SB 1133 passed 23-6-1, SB 1247 passed 28-1-1, and SCR 1001 passed 17-12-1. Senators explained votes on both sides, with supporters emphasizing integrity and faster tabulation and opponents warning of disenfranchisement and reduced mail voting. The Senate also passed SB 1172 and SB 1175 by 28-1-1 each, then announced upcoming committee meetings and adjourned until the next day.

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:

• of where the ballot was mailed. of where the ballot was mailed.
• the questions on the ballot. the questions on the ballot.
• We have two ballots.
• The total number of absentee ballots used as official election ballots.
• ballots at all. ballots at all.

Keywords: 9:00am HB 158 9:10am HB 281 9:20am HB 317 9:30am HB 340 9:40am HB 1062 9:50am HB 1187 10:00am HB 1234 10:10am HB 1300 10:20am HB 1306 10:30am HB 1381 10:40am HB 1541, 928, house, all

Summary: The committee of conference first resolved House Bill 158, which concerns public inspection of absentee ballot lists. The Senate explained a revised approach that removed the broader bill language and instead directed the Secretary of State to review absentee ballot data after each general election for patterns such as common addresses and to report findings to the committees of jurisdiction. The House agreed to the Senate position, and the conference committee voted unanimously to concur. The committee then took up House Bill 281, dealing with a sortable electronic voter checklist. Members debated the Senate’s removal of language that would have included the absentee ballot mailing address when different from the voter’s registration address. Concerns were raised that releasing mailing addresses could expose where voters are not home and could affect overseas and military voters. The committee also discussed a related form for election officials who personally know a voter, including how long the form would be retained and whether it would be subject to public records law. After further discussion, the House agreed to the Senate changes with an additional requirement that the form be signed, and the committee voted to proceed with the amended Senate position. House Bill 317, concerning verification of a person’s identity by a supervisor of the checklist without identification, was also discussed at length. The Senate’s version preserved the ability for election officials to identify people they know, but required a signed form under penalty of perjury and added a nursing home-related provision. Members described the measure as balancing community-based identification with tighter documentation, and a House witness described local problems with inconsistent ID checks and concerns about voting in nursing homes. The House sought one additional change requiring the nursing home verification form to be signed, and the Senate accepted that addition; the committee then voted to move the bill forward on the consent calendar. The conference committee next considered House Bill 340 on electioneering by public employees. The chair presented a replace-all amendment that tied the definition of electioneering to existing law, added a prohibition on expressly or primarily political surveys, and created a civil penalty of up to $1,000 alongside the misdemeanor penalty. Members discussed clarifying when the misdemeanor versus civil penalty would apply and which categories of public employees were covered. After caucus, the Senate agreed to the House’s replace-all approach with the clarifying changes, and the bill was closed. The committee also resolved House Bill 1062 by agreeing to strike a sunset clause from the Senate version authorizing random audits of citizenship qualifications, and it began discussion of House Bill 1187 on the filing window for special-election candidates, where the House proposed requiring local election officials to arrange a filing time on the same day or next business day after being contacted.

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:

• . 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:

• and sample ballots.
• and sample ballots.
• and ballot envelopes.
• process for sample ballots.
• the mailing process for sample ballots. the mailing process for sample ballots.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That is not a provisional ballot, right?
• For instance, provisional ballot procedures.
• Since our November ballot could have as many as 12 ballot questions, can we convince you, our legislators
• I think the process that's being objected to is not so much how the ballot questions get to the ballot
• , but that they are getting to the ballot.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a hearing on Initiative Petition 25-01, H.5-001, an act relative to election day registration. The co-chairs explained the Article 48 initiative process and noted that the committee must report on the petition to the legislature. The hearing focused on how election day registration differs from same-day registration, how it is used in other states, and what implementation would require in Massachusetts. Three expert witnesses testified in support of the concept. A Northeastern University political science professor said the research shows election day registration would likely increase turnout, especially among younger voters, renters, recent movers, and other underrepresented groups, while requiring planning, training, and funding. A National Conference of State Legislatures policy analyst described how election day and same-day registration work in other states, including proof-of-residency and ID requirements, provisional ballot options in some states, and the need for updated voter systems and staffing. An MIT election administration professor said the proposal is mainstream, likely popular with Massachusetts voters, and administratively workable if the state addresses workload, wait times, and system integration. Committee members asked about costs, residency documentation, use of Real ID, provisional ballots, rural polling places, and whether election day registration could increase lines or discourage advance registration. Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin and volunteer proponent Norma Shulman testified in favor of the petition. They argued that election day registration would help eligible voters who miss deadlines or move before an election, reduce reliance on provisional ballots, and improve participation. Galvin said the proposal includes a 10-day reconciliation period and would likely require additional staffing and possibly technology, but he viewed the reform as worth the cost and consistent with broader election reforms. Shulman said voters she encountered during the signature drive strongly supported the measure and viewed it as common sense. In questioning, Galvin said the measure would help voters who move within a community or arrive at the polls unregistered, and he said many provisional ballots are not counted because of eligibility or registration problems. Opponents from the Massachusetts Municipal Association and the Massachusetts Town Clerks Association argued that while expanding access is important, election day registration would add to already heavy workloads for local clerks, who are managing early voting, vote-by-mail processing, and election-day operations with limited staff and resources. They said any major election change should be developed through the traditional legislative process with direct input from local officials, and they urged caution until municipalities receive more administrative and financial relief. The hearing then moved into the public testimony section, beginning with a representative from Mass for Fair Elections.

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:

• 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:

• 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:

• . ballot. ballot.
• secret ballots. secret ballots.
• official ballot. official ballot.
• We determine the number of absentee ballots. ballots. ballots.
• ballots at all. ballots at all.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The committee of conference first took up House Bill 158 on public inspection of absentee ballot lists. The Senate explained that its amendment replaced the original bill with a requirement that the Secretary of State review absentee ballot data after each general election and report findings to the committees of jurisdiction, focusing on unusual patterns such as multiple ballots sent to the same address. After a brief caucus, the House agreed to the Senate position, and members voted individually to concur. The committee then discussed House Bill 281, which concerns making the electronic voter checklist available in a sortable format. The main dispute was whether the public list should include the mailing address where an absentee ballot was sent if it differs from the voter’s registered address. The Senate argued that including mailing addresses could expose where voters actually live or are away from home and could create safety concerns, while the House argued the information could help candidates reach voters and was not primarily a fraud measure. The parties also discussed a related nursing home verification provision and record-retention/public-records questions. After caucusing, the House agreed to the Senate’s position with the added nursing home signing language, and the committee closed the bill on consent. House Bill 340, concerning electioneering by public employees, was then taken up with a Senate amendment that narrowed the definition of electioneering by tying it to existing statutory language, added a prohibition on expressly or primarily political surveys, and created a civil penalty option alongside the misdemeanor penalty. Senators and representatives debated whether the penalties should be mandatory or discretionary and how the language would apply to certain categories of public employees. After further clarification and caucus, the House accepted the Senate’s amended replace-all language, and the committee closed HB 340. Finally, the committee opened House Bill 1062, authorizing the Secretary of State to conduct random audits of citizenship qualifications of registered voters. The Senate explained that its changes removed the need for a permanent audit power by allowing records to be checked against databases and by requiring identification for registration going forward, which is why it added a sunset clause. The House member objected to the sunset and wanted the authority to continue indefinitely, and discussion continued as the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• You go, you get a ballot, you go in there and you fill out the ballot and.
• You go, here's your ballot, you go into your little booth and you mark the ballot and then you bring
• ballots would have had a ballot number on there that have some kind of there's a numbering mechanism
• When a voter checks in, they're handed a ballot or a ballot card.
• Apply with ballot paper.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

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:

• /c><00:15:26.240> by current ballot requirement stating by current ballot requirement stating
• about what is on the ballot.
• Um, but that's not on the ballot.
• Um, but that's not on the ballot.
• Um, but that's not on the ballot.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, this ballot, the single ballot primary, would actually eliminate strategic voting.
• Well, this ballot, the single ballot primary, would actually eliminate strategic voting.
• voter a new ballot.
• That means the ballot is not counted at all; no race on that ballot is counted.
• ballots.

Keywords: 1189, house, all