Secretary of State outlines funding requests, warns federal laws could cause mass disenfranchisement

Secretary of State Dr. Shirley Weber and agency staff told the Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 5 on State Administration that the office needs one-time and federal spending authority to modernize campaign and voter systems, and warned that pending federal measures could force California to shoulder large, unspecified costs to protect voters.

Weber, the state’s chief elections officer, opened the subcommittee hearing saying California ran “an amazing election” despite threats and that “we take this task of being your secretary of state, particularly in terms of election very seriously.” Tamara Johnson, chief financial officer for the Secretary of State, then presented three budget-change proposals (BCPs), including requests connected to the state’s campaign disclosure and voter-registration systems.

The agency requested a one-time $15,000,000 General Fund authorization to continue the Cal Access replacement project (CARS), which Johnson said is operating within an approved project budget and is expected to roll out to users in November 2026. Johnson described CARS as “the Cal Access replacement project” that will implement a data-driven replacement of the current, forms-driven campaign disclosure system required by the Political Reform Act. The agency also requested one-time federal trust fund spending authority of $10,900,000 to support VoteCal maintenance and security work and other Help America Vote Act (HAVA)-related activities, Johnson said.

On federal threats to state election administration, agency staff warned the subcommittee that if a pending presidential executive order and the SAFE Act (federal legislation discussed in the hearing) were enforced together the state lacks the resources to avoid “massive voter disenfranchisement.” Tamara Johnson said the short answer to whether California has the resources to protect voters if those federal requirements are imposed is “no,” and described multiple likely impacts: millions of additional requests to county recorders for birth certificates, costly upgrades to county information technology systems, and the need for significant additional staffing to verify documentary proof of citizenship, process records and run expanded outreach.

Jenna Lee, chief of the Elections Division, said noncitizen registrations are “extremely rare,” and described current safeguards: citizenship is attested by registrants under penalty of perjury and federal law protections for overseas and military voters (UOCAVA) remain in place. LAO analyst Nick Schroeder told the subcommittee that the constitutional structure of U.S. elections makes states responsible for administration and that if the state imposes new requirements on counties it may be treated as a reimbursable state mandate, which could create additional state fiscal exposure.

Weber and staff emphasized voter-access programs and the scale of California’s electorate: Weber said more than 83 percent of eligible Californians are registered to vote and the state has over 22 million registered voters. Officials repeatedly said they have not produced a dollar estimate of the cost to comply with the proposed federal changes; Johnson said the “cost and impacts would be significant and extremely costly” and “we do not have any dollar estimates at this time.”

Why it matters: The subcommittee is considering budget authority for systems that underpin campaign disclosure and the official statewide voter file. The combination of program funding decisions (CARS and VoteCal operations) and the possibility of federal mandates that change documentary proof requirements positions both the state and 58 counties to face uncertain and potentially large implementation costs.

The secretary of state’s office asked the subcommittee for continued funding to complete CARS and for federal spending authority for VoteCal maintenance. Subcommittee members pressed staff about fee revenue streams (for example, the $50 annual committee fee written into the Political Reform Act and a lobbyist registration fee) as potential offsets to general-fund requests; Kira Rasmussen, assistant division chief of the Political Reform Division, said the $50 fee is deposited to the Political Accountability and Transparency fund and has not been revisited in statute. Johnson said federal HAVA funds supporting VoteCal are currently placed into an interest-bearing account when drawn down and that the office does not believe those federal funds are at immediate risk of clawback.

The hearing produced no final votes. The requests were presented for committee consideration and staff answered subcommittee questions; officials said more fiscal detail on specific fees and collections could be provided to legislative staff.

Ending: Committee members expressed strong support for protecting voting access and for completing system modernization, while also pressing for follow-up detail on fee collections and clearer estimates of potential costs if federal documentary proof requirements were enforced. The subcommittee did not take an immediate vote on the BCPs during the hearing.