California Assembly Elections Committee advances several elections, ballot-measure and campaign finance bills; some measures placed on call

SACRAMENTO — The Assembly Elections Committee on April 30, 2025, advanced several election- and ballot-measure-related bills to the Committee on Appropriations, debated changes to the initiative-signature process, and considered a proposal to adjust local campaign contribution thresholds. Committee members approved new recount and vote-by-mail procedures and voted to require disclosure of top funders on statewide ballot measures; they left other measures on call or failed one after a motion to reconsider.

The committee heard 13 bills on its agenda and spent the morning and early afternoon taking testimony from authors, county election officials, labor and government groups, and good-government organizations. Chair Pellerin opened the hearing, explained witness rules and the committee’s online position-letter portal, and appointed a substitute member for the day before calling roll to establish a quorum.

AB 930 — recounts, vote-by-mail deadlines

Assemblymember Ward, the author of AB 930, said the bill updates California’s Elections Code to reflect current voting practices and to clarify recount procedures. The bill would: extend the acceptance window for vote-by-mail ballots that are postmarked by Election Day to arrive up to seven days after the election; require recount requesters to specify in writing the materials they wish to review before a recount begins; require counties to post recount results online; and strengthen protections for voter privacy during recounts. James Koosh, Fresno County Clerk and Registrar of Voters, testified in support on behalf of the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials, saying the bill aligns code with modern processes and could reduce recount costs.

The committee voted to pass AB 930 as amended and re-refer it to Appropriations; the chair later reported the bill out of committee by a 5-to-2 margin.

AB 459 — electronic signatures for citizen initiatives

Assemblymember DeMio presented AB 459, which would allow electronic signatures for initiatives, referendums and recalls and create a state-managed process for collecting those signatures. DeMio argued the measure would modernize direct democracy and reduce the cost and burden of signature gathering for grassroots organizers. Opponents included a representative of Secretary of State Shirley Weber, who testified that the office lacks a ready, secure solution and estimated substantial implementation costs; and groups including the California Federation of Labor and California Association of Psychiatric Technicians, which raised concerns about fraud, special-interest abuse, and unfunded local costs.

Committee members expressed divided views on AB 459. After debate and a motion, the committee ultimately failed a reconsideration motion and the bill did not advance out of committee at this hearing (members recorded a 2-to-4 vote against moving it forward on reconsideration).

AB 699 — ballot labels for tiered local tax and bond measures

Assemblymember Stephanie sponsored AB 699, which would let local jurisdictions direct voters to the voter information guide for detailed, plain-language explanations of tiered tax or bond measures (rather than compressing complex rate, revenue and duration estimates into the 75-word ballot-label limit). Supporters — including affordable housing groups, school districts and local governments — argued the change improves voter understanding and can help local measures succeed by placing financial detail where it can be explained properly. Opponents said moving details off the ballot could reduce transparency and that the correct fix is to raise the word limit on ballot labels.

The committee voted to pass AB 699 as amended and re-refer it to Appropriations; the chair later reported the bill out of committee 4-to-2.

AB 1188 — top funders on the ballot

AB 1188 would require the top three funders supporting and opposing a statewide initiative or referendum to be listed directly on the ballot. The author’s office described the bill as a transparency measure designed to help voters evaluate backers at the moment they vote. Support came from unions and the California Clean Money Campaign; opponents included the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials (CACEO), which said the measure would disrupt petition processing, impose unfunded mandates on counties, and add lines of text that could increase printing and mailing costs and decrease readability.

The committee passed AB 1188 as amended and re-referred it to Appropriations; the chair later reported the bill out 4-to-1. CACEO and other county officials said they would continue to work with the author on implementation details, including limits on added text and timing of petition reviews.

AB 827 — signature curing and ballot-tracking changes

Assemblymember Berman presented AB 827 to clarify and standardize ballot “cure” procedures for vote-by-mail envelopes with missing or nonmatching signatures. Proposed changes included a definitive post-election cure deadline tied to certification timing (a county’s 20th day after the election in the bill text as presented to the committee), changes to notification timing, a link in ballot-tracking messages to the cure form, authorization for a single post-election drop box at an elections office for cure forms, and a requirement that cure forms be promptly processed. Supporters said the bill will reduce rejected ballots and provide voters and counties with clearer, consistent deadlines; the bill drew little organized opposition at the hearing.

The committee voted to pass AB 827 and re-refer it to Appropriations; the chair reported it out unanimously (4-to-0).

AB 351 — Levine Act amendments (campaign contribution threshold)

Assemblymember McKenna presented AB 351, which would raise the monetary threshold in the Levine Act (a law that can require recusal by local officials who receive contributions from persons or entities with matters before them). McKenna and witnesses from Los Angeles County argued raising the threshold to $1,500 with an automatic CPI adjustment would reduce administrative burdens on local governments and focus enforcement on larger contributions.

Opponents — including the California Clean Money Campaign, the League of Women Voters and Common Cause — said the Levine Act was recently and carefully revised through bipartisan negotiations and warned a larger threshold would weaken anti–pay-to-play safeguards and reduce public trust. Committee members debated but did not resolve remaining concerns; the bill was left on call for absent members and was not finalized at this hearing.

AB 1079 — appellate stays in California Voting Rights Act cases

Assemblymember Avila Farias presented AB 1079 to eliminate the automatic appellate stay of trial judgments in certain California Voting Rights Act cases; the bill would allow a trial court judgment finding an at-large system unlawful to take effect while an appeal proceeds, while preserving court authority to issue a stay and providing for reimbursement of county election costs for changes ordered by a court. Supporters, including an elected official who said her district was created after CVRA litigation, said lengthy appeals delay relief for historically disadvantaged voters. Opponents, including the City of Santa Monica, warned the measure could force localities to implement court orders that might be reversed on appeal and urged carefully tailored amendments. The committee passed AB 1079 as amended and re-referred it to Appropriations; the chair reported it out 4-to-1.

What the votes mean and next steps

Several bills that the committee passed as amended now go to the Appropriations Committee for fiscal review; others were left on call for absent members or failed on reconsideration. County election officials, the secretary of state’s office, and various stakeholder groups signaled the need for further technical fixes or funding language on several bills before they reach the Assembly floor.

The committee emphasized it would continue negotiations with county elections officials and stakeholders to resolve implementation and cost concerns, especially for measures that add new administrative steps or require statewide technical systems. The committee also noted that the Appropriations Committee will review the fiscal effects of measures before they advance further.

Votes at a glance

- AB 930 (Ward) — Updates recount and vote-by-mail rules: Passed as amended; reported out of committee to Appropriations, 5–2. - AB 459 (DeMio) — Allow electronic signatures for initiatives/recalls/referenda: Failed to advance after reconsideration, 2–4 (remains not advanced at this hearing). - AB 699 (Stephanie) — Ballot-label option to refer complex tiered-tax/bond detail to voter guide: Passed as amended; reported out of committee to Appropriations, 4–2. - AB 1188 (Ortega, presented by Stephanie) — Top three funders listed on statewide ballots: Passed as amended; reported out of committee to Appropriations, 4–1. - AB 827 (Berman) — Signature-curing deadlines, ballot-tracking improvements: Passed as amended; reported out of committee to Appropriations, 4–0. - AB 351 (McKenna) — Revise Levine Act threshold (campaign contribution limits for recusal): Placed on call for absent members; not finalized at this hearing. - AB 1079 (Avila Farias) — Remove automatic appellate stay in CVRA cases (with court discretion preserved; reimburse county costs): Passed as amended; reported out of committee to Appropriations, 4–1.

The committee closed the hearing after lifting calls on pending items and recording votes for absent members when possible. Several authors and stakeholders said they will continue negotiations and technical drafting before bills proceed to the fiscal committee or the Assembly floor.

Ending

The committee’s actions set a path for changes in California election administration, ballot information and local-government conflict-of-interest rules, while highlighting outstanding concerns about cost, implementation and voter clarity that will be addressed in further negotiations and fiscal review.