Bill would direct voters with complex local tax and bond measures to detailed voter guide explanations

AB 699, presented by Assemblymember Stephanie (author name given in the hearing transcript as the bill—s author), would allow jurisdictions to include a short, readable ballot label while directing voters to the voter information guide for fuller, plain-language explanations of tiered taxes and multiphase bond repayment. The bill aims to address limits created by a 75-word ballot-label ceiling that speakers said forces jurisdictions to strip meaningful distinctions from descriptions of tiered parcel taxes and complex bonds.

Proponents said the change is meant to improve transparency, not to remove information from public view. G.T. Harichmack, policy director at the Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California, told the committee local bonds are a major source of revenue for affordable housing and that confusing ballot labels can reduce voter support; he cited Berkeley Measure L as an example where voters defeated a bond and said nearly half of one label—s 75 words were a repayment estimate while the phrase "create affordable housing" used only three words. Rebecca Killeen of the Coalition for Adequate School Housing said school districts rely on local bonds for facilities and that fluctuating tax rates and repayment projections make the 75-word label format inadequate for bonds.

Opponents cautioned that moving detailed disclosures to the voter guide could reduce visibility, because some voters do not consult the guide. Amy Garrett of the California Association of Realtors said she favors expanding the ballot statement rather than redirecting information to a medium fewer voters see. Other organizations, including the League of Women Voters and the California Clean Money Campaign (represented in part by Trent Lang), said they were working with the author on amendments to preserve accessibility and clarity.

Committee discussion touched on whether the change would reduce transparency for an "average" voter who consults printed materials rather than online resources. The author and supporters said the ballot would still identify a measure as a tax or bond and that the bill would explicitly direct interested voters to the voter guide for the individualized breakdowns (for example, by land use, acreage, exemptions for low-income seniors or disabled residents).

No final action could be taken until a quorum was present; when the committee later reconvened and voted, AB 699 was moved out of committee. The final recorded committee tally in the hearing record shows the measure advanced with four yes votes and one no vote.

Votes at a glance: Motion to pass to the committee on Appropriations; final committee result recorded as yes 4, no 1.

Ending: The author said she would continue to work with stakeholders on bond repayment language and other clarifying amendments.