Assembly Elections Committee advances several election-related bills; electronic-signature measure fails

The California State Assembly Elections Committee on April 30, 2025, voted on a package of election-related bills, moving most to the Committee on Appropriations while rejecting a measure to permit electronic signatures for citizen initiatives.

The most immediately consequential actions included the committee voting to approve AB 930 (Ward) updating recount and vote-by-mail rules, AB 699 (Stephanie) allowing jurisdictions to refer detailed financial explanations for tiered local tax or bond measures to the voter guide, AB 1188 (Ortega, presented by Stephanie) to list top funders on statewide ballot labels with an as‑of date and link, AB 827 (Berman) to set a date‑certain deadline for ballot cure forms and add ballot tracking links, and AB 1079 (Avila Ferrios) to limit appellate stays in California Voting Rights Act cases. The committee voted against AB 459 (DeMio/DeMello), the bill that would have allowed electronic signatures for initiative circulation. AB 351 (McKenna), which would raise the Levine Act contribution threshold, was left on call/reconsideration for further work.

Why it matters: these bills change when and how ballots are counted, how voters receive financial information about measures, how counties administer cures and recounts, and how some election litigation can be implemented while appeals are pending. Together they affect voters, county elections offices and groups that organize ballot measures.

AB 930 — recounts and vote‑by‑mail deadlines Assemblymember Kevin Ward presented AB 930 as an update to the Elections Code to reflect modern voting practices and to make recount procedures clearer and more consistent. Ward said the bill would, among other provisions, “allow vote by mail ballots postmarked by election day to be counted if they arrive within 7 days,” give requesters greater control over the order of precinct or county recounts, require counties to post recount results online, and strengthen ballot‑handling protections during recounts.

James Koos, Fresno County Clerk and Registrar of Voters, testified as sponsor on behalf of the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials and described the bill as aligning state law with current practices and reducing unnecessary recount costs and delays. The committee approved AB 930 as amended and re‑referred it to Appropriations (final committee tally shown in the votes section below).

AB 459 — electronic signatures for initiatives (failed) Assemblymember DeMio presented AB 459 as a modernization of the initiative circulation process to allow electronic signatures, arguing the change would lower costs and help grassroots organizers. He framed the bill as bringing signature collection into the “twentieth and twenty‑first centuries” and said it would “save millions of dollars a year” by reducing county processing burdens.

The Secretary of State’s office, represented by Tim Corote, opposed the bill, saying implementation would require significant, currently unbudgeted technology and security investment and estimating costs “upwards of $25,000,000.” Kobi Pizzati of the California Association of Psychiatric Technicians, Sarah Flock of the California Federation of Labor and others also registered opposition, citing fraud, transparency and unfunded‑mandate concerns.

DeMio closed by reiterating that “the technology does exist.” The committee voted not to advance AB 459 (motion failed 2–4; see votes at a glance). The author moved for reconsideration during the hearing; the bill remains a point of ongoing debate and was placed on the committee’s reconsideration schedule as noted below.

AB 699 — ballot wording for tiered tax and bond measures Assemblymember Stephanie presented AB 699, a bill to let local jurisdictions use the voter information guide to provide detailed, plain‑language financial explanations for tiered local tax and bond measures while keeping concise ballot labels.

JT Harichmack of the Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California and multiple housing and school district groups testified in support, arguing clearer explanations in the voter guide would help voters understand complicated bond revenue and rate structures and could increase passage rates for measures that fund affordable housing and facilities. Opponents, including the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the Howard Drivers Taxpayers Association, argued the change could reduce on‑ballot transparency and effectively hide costs from voters.

The committee passed AB 699 as amended and sent it to Appropriations.

AB 1188 — top funders on statewide ballot labels Presented on behalf of Assemblymember Ortega, AB 1188 would require listing the top three funders supporting and opposing a statewide initiative or referendum on the ballot label, coupled with an “as‑of” date and a link to the latest funder disclosures. Proponents (including the California Clean Money Campaign and labor groups) described the bill as increasing transparency at the moment voters make decisions.

The California Association of Clerks and Election Officials opposed the measure on administrative and printing‑space grounds and warned of unfunded county costs; opponents also raised concerns about longer ballot questions and voter confusion. The author accepted committee amendments intended to limit administrative disruption and add a link to up‑to‑date funder information. The committee approved AB 1188 as amended and re‑referred it to Appropriations.

AB 827 — ballot cure process and deadlines Assemblymember Berman described AB 827 as a measure to reduce rejections of vote‑by‑mail ballots for signature problems by setting a date‑certain cure deadline (the sponsor described it as “the 20 second day after the election” as the fixed deadline for accepting cures), improving ballot‑tracking functionality by including a link to the cure form, permitting one designated drop box at county election offices for cure forms after the election, and requiring prompt processing of cure forms.

Berman said the bill would “provide greater certainty and consistency to ballot curing,” and the committee passed the bill as amended and sent it to Appropriations.

AB 1079 — California Voting Rights Act appellate stays AB 1079, presented by Assemblymember Avila Ferrios, would eliminate automatic appellate stays of trial court judgments in cases brought under the California Voting Rights Act and the Fair Maps Act so that a jurisdiction found to be violating the law would not be able to delay implementation indefinitely by filing an appeal. Supporters, including Palmdale City Councilmember Andrea Alarcon, described the bill as closing a loophole that allowed jurisdictions to continue holding unlawful at‑large elections during long appeals, disenfranchising communities of color.

The author accepted committee amendments to reimburse county elections officials for any additional costs and to preserve a reviewing court’s power to issue a stay in appropriate cases. The committee recommended AB 1079 be passed as amended and re‑referred to Appropriations.

AB 351 — Levine Act contribution threshold (on call / reconsideration) Assemblymember McKenna presented AB 351 to raise the Levine Act contribution threshold for local officials to $1,500 and tie it to CPI adjustments. Supporters, including Kelly Johnson of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, argued the change would reduce administrative burdens and allow local candidates to communicate more effectively with voters. Opponents, including the California Clean Money Campaign, the League of Women Voters, and California Common Cause, argued the law’s recent, carefully negotiated changes (which raised the threshold to $500) are untested and that a substantial increase risks “pay‑to‑play” perceptions.

Committee members expressed divided views about the dollar amount and the timing of further change so soon after last year’s amendments; the bill was placed on call and then referred for reconsideration and further negotiation rather than being finally advanced at this hearing.

Votes at a glance AB 930 (Ward) — Recount and vote‑by‑mail updates: Passed as amended; re‑referred to Appropriations (committee action recorded during the hearing). AB 459 (DeMio/DeMello) — Electronic signatures for initiatives: Did not pass the committee (committee vote recorded as failing 2–4); author moved for reconsideration and the item was placed on call for further work. AB 699 (Stephanie) — Ballot wording for tiered local tax/bond measures: Passed as amended; re‑referred to Appropriations. AB 1188 (Ortega/presented by Stephanie) — Top funders on statewide ballot labels: Passed as amended; re‑referred to Appropriations. AB 827 (Berman) — Ballot cure deadline & ballot‑tracking links: Passed as amended; re‑referred to Appropriations. AB 1079 (Avila Ferrios) — CVRA/Fair Maps appellate stays: Passed as amended; re‑ferred to Appropriations. AB 351 (McKenna) — Levine Act threshold to $1,500 and CPI adjustment: Placed on call / reconsideration for further negotiation; no final committee endorsement at this hearing.

What’s next All bills the committee passed as amended were re‑referred to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations; those measures will require an appropriations committee recommendation before proceeding to the Assembly floor. AB 459 remains subject to further work and possible reconsideration; AB 351 is being held on call to allow additional stakeholder negotiations.

The committee heard extensive testimony from county clerks, voter‑registration and election administrators, civil‑society groups, labor unions, taxpayer associations and local officials. Several members asked that authors continue negotiating with county elections officials to minimize administrative burdens and printing or mailing costs for counties.

The committee adjourned after lifting calls on the remaining items for absent members to be recorded and noting additional follow‑up between authors, stakeholders and the judiciary committee on matters that overlap other jurisdictions.

Ending The Assembly Elections Committee’s actions reflect a mix of incremental administrative reforms (cure deadlines, recount procedures, ballot wording), transparency reforms (top funders on ballot labels), and a continued policy debate over technology and campaign finance. Several measures will next face the Appropriations Committee and additional stakeholder negotiations before any final changes become law.