Bill would move county board of education elections from primaries to general elections to increase turnout

Sen. Tom Umberg on Tuesday presented Senate Bill 249 to the California State Assembly Education Committee, saying the bill would move elections for county boards of education from primary ballots into the statewide general election to increase voter turnout and broaden the electorate.

Umberg told the committee that primary turnout is “significantly smaller” than general election turnout and gave county examples—Riverside (about 409,000 primary vs. 959,000 general in the last election) and Alameda (about 330,000 primary vs. 683,000 general)—to argue that consolidating the contests would produce more representative results.

The bill’s chief supporter, Savannah Jorgensen of the League of Women Voters of California, said SB 249 would “strengthen our democracy” by ensuring more Californians, especially historically underrepresented groups, have a meaningful voice in choosing county board members. She cited secretary of state turnout figures showing primary turnout at 35% of registered voters in 2024 versus 71% in the 2024 general election.

A long line of education stakeholders and teachers registered support in the hearing room, including representatives of the California School Employees Association and California Teachers Association, classroom teachers, and local union leaders who said higher turnout in the general would lead to more accountable, representative boards.

Representatives of the Orange County Board of Education, including Board President Mary Barkey and board liaison Brandon Guevara, testified in opposition. Barkey said the board had repeatedly been surprised by the bill’s recurrence and argued that holding the contests in the primary affords the county board an opportunity to explain its role to voters and to distinguish the county board’s appeals and oversight functions from local district offices. She called the proposal an unnecessary statewide priority when the state faces other pressing issues.

Tom Sheehy, speaking for the Orange County Board of Education and citing experience with the Department of Finance and the Commission on State Mandates, said Legislative Counsel has labeled the bill a mandate. Sheehy warned committee members that local jurisdictions would likely file claims for reimbursement if the state requires them to change election administration practices. He said Orange County alone could incur “several hundreds of thousands of dollars” in one-time and ongoing costs for ballot cards, IT, staffing and related work; multiplying by five counties that would be affected could push costs into the millions.

Assemblymembers asked proponents and opponents about cost estimates, the policy trade-offs between turnout and voter attention, and whether voters understand that some county board contests are decided in the primary (a plurality contest in many counties). Umberg said the question before the committee is not whether consolidation ensures “better” representatives but whether a larger and more diverse electorate should choose county boards. Several committee members pressed opponents on the mandate issue and on whether meaningful cost estimates exist.

The committee took SB 249 under submission because a quorum was not present earlier in the hearing; when a quorum was reached later the committee voted to pass SB 249 as amended to the Appropriations Committee by a 7–2 vote. The committee record shows several public supporters and a small number of opponents.

Ending: The author urged an I vote; with the committee’s action, SB 249 will proceed to the Appropriations Committee for further review of its fiscal and implementation details.