Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee
Key Moments
Thomas Umberg — Called during roll call.
Thomas Umberg — Called in the roll call.
Thomas Umberg — Recorded as voting aye.
Thomas Umberg — Introduced as the presenter for file item 2, SB 46.
Thomas Umberg — Presented SB 46 and explained that it is intended to reinforce the two-term limit for U.S. presidents.
Thomas Umberg — Acknowledged for his long legislative experience.
Thomas Umberg — Referred to as the author of the bill being asked to respond to the Secretary of State's concerns.
Thomas Umberg — Senator Umberg was called during the roll and recorded as voting aye on the motion/SB 73.
SB73 — Senate Bill 73 is introduced and presented to the committee as the first bill heard. The presentation explains that the bill is intended as a response to alleged attacks on election systems and further clarifies that it builds on SB 851 by restricting federal access to voting machines.
SB851 — Cited as prior legislation that strengthened California's election defenses.
SB851 — SB 851 is referenced as the prior bill that SB 73 builds upon.
SB73 — SB 73 is discussed as an urgent measure intended to ensure protections are in place for the June statewide primary election. The author asks for an aye vote, later reiterates that the bill will help local governments and the Secretary of State respond to federal attacks, and the committee then moves the bill on a due pass motion to the Committee on Appropriations.
Lindsay Nakano — Lindsay Nakano, Senior Legislative Counsel for the FPPC, was introduced as available to answer technical questions. She then explained that the FPPC had no position on the bill at the moment and clarified the technical issue regarding the extension period, stating that the duration of any extension would be determined case by case based on the emergency circumstances rather than by a fixed deadline or limit.
Ms. Nakano — Invited to provide additional commentary on the technical question.
Scott Wiener — Scott Wiener announces that this is his final hearing serving as Chair of the committee and says he looks forward to seeing everyone in his new role in Appropriations. Other speakers respond by praising his long service, institutional memory, and good work on the committee and on the bill, framing the exchange as a farewell and transition moment.
Scott Wiener — Senator Scott Wiener, serving as Chair, was noted as voting aye; the Chair and Vice Chair both voted aye.
Carrie — Carrie is warmly acknowledged and praised for her years of work with the chair in the Assembly, including late-night votes and policy discussions, and is further described as an exceptional asset to the committee, the body, and the Senate, with a career marked by accomplishments few achieve.
DRIDA / Ritter — Praised for keeping the committee on track and noted as having been profiled as a rising star by Capitol Weekly.
Ritter — Described as dedicated, a leader, and a rising star in the Capitol community.
SB46 — SB 46 is introduced and described as a bill intended to reinforce the U.S. Constitution’s two-term limit for presidents. The discussion then turns to testimony on the bill’s constitutionality, followed by concerns that the bill as written politicizes the Secretary of State’s role and grants discretionary investigative authority.
SB46 — Described as the bill amending the Elections Code to give the Secretary of State authority to remove constitutionally ineligible presidential or vice presidential candidates from the ballot.
Deborah Perlin — Deborah Perlin of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) is introduced as a supporting witness and then testifies in support of SB 46, explaining that the bill would authorize the Secretary of State to remove constitutionally ineligible candidates after investigation and due process.
Matthew Coles — Matthew Coles, a professor of constitutional law at UC Law San Francisco, appears as a supporting witness and testifies in favor of SB 46, arguing that the bill is constitutional.
Tim Corwani — Testified on behalf of Secretary of State Shirley Weber, saying the office is not in opposition but has significant concerns about investigative authority.
Professor Coles — The discussion turns to Professor Coles for his view on the insurrection/Section 3 issue, and he explains that under current Supreme Court precedent the Secretary of State could not enforce Section 3 disqualification without a statute passed by Congress.
Professor Coles — Thanked for testimony and included in the closing request for an aye vote.
Ms. Perlin — Thanked for testimony in support.
Sabrina Cervantes — Called for quorum and responded present.
Sabrina Cervantes — Identified as the author of the first bill being heard.
Sabrina Cervantes — Votes aye.
Sabrina Cervantes — Voted aye on the motion.
Sabrina Cervantes — Addressed at the start of the witness's testimony.
Sabrina Cervantes — Voted aye.
Steven Choi — Steven Choi is called for quorum and confirms his presence, is then identified as Vice Chair and asked to take the gavel, and is subsequently thanked for presiding over the presentation.
Steven Choi — Votes no.
Steven Choi — Acknowledged by the chair for the current vote status and discussion.
Steven Choi — Raised an initial concern about the breadth of the FPPC's authority, then noted the bill's definition narrows that concern.
Steven Choi — Continued questioning the scope and mechanics of the bill's deadline extension authority.
Steven Choi — Asked for clarification on how long extensions could last and whether the FPPC would determine the duration.
Steven Choi — Expressed concern that the bill is vague because it does not specify extension length or criteria.
Steven Choi — Said the issue comes down to trust in the FPPC's judgment and suggested further defining discretion with the author.
Steven Choi — Voted aye on the motion; likely Vice Chair Steven Choi.
Steven Choi — Steven Choi questions the bill’s constitutional basis and argues it would improperly let state Secretaries of State decide federal eligibility issues, such as whether a presidential candidate is qualified to appear on the ballot. He says the committee seems to be acting like a constitutional court, expresses confusion about whether it is the proper body to make such determinations, and uses himself as an example to illustrate how eligibility disputes could become subjective or politically fraught. He suggests the issue should be handled by a centralized federal authority rather than by 50 different states, warning that state-by-state ballot decisions could create chaos.
Benjamin Allen — Called during roll call.
Benjamin Allen — Benjamin Allen is first called during roll call, then noted as having just stepped in, and immediately afterward presents SB 401 on behalf of Senator Hurtado, explaining that Hurtado asked him to present the bill.
Benjamin Allen — Senator Allen was asked to close on the bill and then responded by acknowledging the discussion, agreeing it raised a fair point, and saying he would speak with the author and the author’s office about clarifying the bill.
Benjamin Allen — Raised questions for the author about the Secretary of State's implementation concerns.
Benjamin Allen — During the roll-call vote on SB 73, Senator Allen was called amid some transcript noise and was recorded as voting aye.