Senate elections committee advances suite of election bills on counting deadlines, accessibility, recounts and redistricting

At a meeting of the California State Senate Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments, members advanced multiple election-related bills, including AB 5 (ballot-count deadlines), AB 287 (accessible parking and curbside voting), AB 9 30 (vote-by-mail receipt deadline and recount procedures), AB 3 3 1 (clarifying certification duties and unlawful return envelopes), AB 7 75 (behested-payment reporting), AB 14 41 (Merced County citizens redistricting commission) and AB 13 92 (candidate privacy protections). Several authors and outside witnesses testified and committee members asked detailed questions about implementation and local impacts.

The committee’s votes send most measures on to fiscal or policy committees for further review; some items generated sustained debate over the balance between accessibility, administrative burden and local control. The package addresses three recurring election issues raised during the hearing: (1) when and how ballots should be counted and cured, (2) how to ensure polling places and vote centers are accessible to voters with disabilities, and (3) governance issues including local redistricting and protections for candidates and election workers.

AB 5 — counting deadlines: Assemblymember Berman told the committee that AB 5 would “create clear and achievable metrics for when the vast majority of ballots must be counted.” He urged a requirement that “the vast majority of ballots [be] counted by the thirteenth day after the election.” The bill allows an elections official to request an extension by notifying the Secretary of State if unforeseen circumstances prevent meeting the deadline. Tim Cromartie, testifying for Secretary of State Shirley Weber, said the office remains opposed and recommended a longer deadline, saying in part: “The recent amendment extending the deadline to 13 days is helpful…our best judgment is that 15 days would be more prudent.” Committee members expressed differing views about pacing and feasibility; Senator Choi said faster processing is desirable and noted other bills that would allow earlier handling of mail ballots.

AB 8 27 and AB 16 — signature curing and earlier ballot processing: Assemblymember Berman also carried AB 8 27 to set a uniform cure deadline for signature defects on vote-by-mail return envelopes (proposed as the 20th day after the election) and to move notification timelines so voters have a date-certain cure window. Assemblymember Alanis presented AB 16 to clarify and confirm authority for elections officials to begin processing vote-by-mail ballots earlier in the timeline. Both bills received supportive remarks from county elections officials; committee members voiced general support for reducing processing delays.

AB 287 — accessible parking and curbside voting at vote centers: Assemblymember Tom Lackey said AB 287 requires vote centers to provide accessible parking that accommodates curbside voting for voters with disabilities. Erin Navarres of the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder’s office described gaps in space for curbside voting and equipment storage and asked for support. Paul Spencer of Disability Rights California testified in support, saying, “for a person with a disability that's coming to vote in person, knowing that there's accessible parking there is a key component of whether or not they can come to this voting location.” The Los Angeles Unified School District offered technical concerns and asked for amendments, noting that “about 80% of our schools are currently under parked” and that in some older sites providing temporary curbside parking could displace staff or students with disabilities. Committee members and the author discussed implementation questions, including whether the bill would override local parking controls (the author said it would not) and how counties and site providers would coordinate in practice.

AB 3 3 1 — certification duties, misleading return envelopes, and voter guides in jails: Assemblymember Pellerin presented AB 331, sponsored by the Attorney General’s Office, to clarify that certification duties are ministerial and nondiscretionary, to criminalize distribution of misleading unofficial ballot return envelopes, and to ensure voter information guides can be delivered to county jails in a format the facilities can accept (for example, without staples). Tiffany Brokaw, deputy attorney general, described reports the office received about confusing unofficial envelopes and about guides held together with staples that could not be delivered to inmates. Committee members asked about whether California was unique in allowing jailed residents to vote; witnesses said California permits incarcerated people in county jails who remain eligible to vote and that the bill harmonizes delivery practices.

AB 502 — deepfakes and digitally altered election communications: Assemblymember Pellerin also carried AB 502 as a follow-up to last year’s AB 28 39. He said the bill tightens and clarifies labeling and remedy provisions related to materially deceptive, digitally altered election communications so the law better survives constitutional challenge. Leora Gershinson of the California Initiative for Technology and Democracy (CITED) said the bill is a narrowly tailored cleanup to address court concerns and to better protect elections from malicious generative-AI deepfakes.

AB 9 30 — mailed ballots and recount rules: Assemblymember Ward presented AB 9 30 to extend the timely receipt deadline for mailed ballots from three days to seven days after election day (for ballots postmarked by election day) and to modernize recount rules, including new procedures for requesting and conducting recounts and posting recount results online. Kristen Connolly, Contra Costa County registrar and co-chair of the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials (CACEO), testified in support and said AB 9 30 “does not allow individuals who are not U.S. citizens to participate in vote tallying” and that it aligns procedures with current practice. Senator Choi expressed opposition on policy grounds, saying: “I don't think I can support this bill,” arguing for shorter canvass periods and stressing voter responsibility to return ballots earlier. The author cited postal delays and overseas service members as reasons for the extension.

AB 7 75 — behested-payment reporting: Assemblymember Fong presented AB 775 to modernize behested-payment filing deadlines and require online filing with the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), lower incremental reporting thresholds and to post local reports online. Adam Silver, chair of the FPPC, testified in support. California Common Cause said it supported the bill if amended to lower the secondary reporting threshold (from $1,000 to a smaller amount such as $250) to improve transparency.

AB 14 41 — Merced County citizens redistricting commission: Assemblymember Soria introduced a district bill to establish an independent citizens redistricting commission in Merced County. Supporters (including the League of Women Voters) said a local commission would increase transparency and compliance with the Voting Rights Act. Josh Pedrozzo, chairman of the Merced County Board of Supervisors, and representatives of other rural counties opposed imposing a state-prescribed commission on Merced, calling it costly, duplicative of local work, and an unfunded mandate; he advocated for an advisory local solution. Members discussed size, timing (the measure would take effect for the 2030 redistricting cycle), and potential state funding for local implementation.

AB 13 92 — candidate confidentiality for safety: Assemblymember Sharp Collins carried AB 13 92 to allow county elections officials to redact or make private certain candidate contact information (residential address, phone, email) to protect candidates and their families from threats. Tim Cromartie, on behalf of the Secretary of State, framed the bill as a response to escalating threats: “The escalating trend of violence…makes this legislation both urgent and necessary.” Committee members acknowledged the security concerns and asked about county workload and costs.

Votes at a glance - AB 5 (Berman) — advanced as amended to the Committee on Appropriations; early roll calls recorded a 3-0 favorable vote during the hearing; committee later carried the item forward for further review. - AB 8 27 (Berman) — advanced as amended to the Committee on Appropriations; committee voiced support for signature-curing uniformity. - AB 16 (Alanis) — advanced as amended to the Committee on Appropriations; clarifies authority to begin early ballot processing. - AB 287 (Lackey) — advanced as amended to the Committee on Appropriations; drew technical opposition from Los Angeles Unified School District and questions on implementation. - AB 331 (Pellerin) — advanced as amended to the Committee on Public Safety; clarifies ministerial duty to certify, addresses misleading return envelopes, and requires jail-friendly voter guides. - AB 502 (Pellerin) — advanced as amended to the Committee on Rules; cleanup to last year’s law addressing digitally altered election communications. - AB 94 (Bennett) — advanced as amended; clarifies that recalled local officials cannot be reappointed to the same office. - AB 930 (Ward) — advanced as amended to the Committee on Appropriations; generated a recorded committee split during roll call and disagreement over extending mailed-ballot receipt deadlines (members voiced both support and opposition). - AB 775 (Fong) — advanced as amended to the Committee on Appropriations; FPPC supported the measure; advocates asked for a lower incremental threshold for additional payments. - AB 1441 (Soria) — advanced as amended to the Committee on Local Government; drew organized opposition from Merced County supervisors and rural counties who urged a local advisory model instead of a state-imposed commission. - AB 1392 (Sharp Collins) — advanced as amended to the Committee on Judiciary; committee members expressed bipartisan concern about threats to candidates and supported additional confidentiality protections.

What to watch next: Each bill will proceed to the committee noted above for fiscal or policy analysis. Several measures (AB 5, AB 9 30, AB 287, AB 14 41, AB 13 92) will require follow-up language or amendments to address operational concerns raised by county officials, school districts, or the Secretary of State.

Sources and evidence: This article is based on witness testimony and roll-call statements from the committee hearing, including presentations by authors and supporters and explicit comments from agency representatives and local officials. Quotations and procedural descriptions are drawn from the official hearing transcript.