Senate elections committee advances several election bills but rejects vote-by-mail opt‑in measure SB335

At a session of the California State Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee, members advanced multiple election-related bills to the Senate Appropriations Committee and the Senate Education Committee and rejected SB335, a proposal to make vote-by-mail an opt-in system.

SB335, which would have required voters to request a vote‑by‑mail ballot rather than receive one automatically, failed on a 1‑4 committee vote. Senator Tom (Strickland) (presenting the bill) said, “SB335 is a simple bill. It requires that voters must request a vote by mail ballot or apply to become a permanent vote by mail voter,” and described finding “6 to 7 live ballots” in a Huntington Beach PO box as motivating the measure. He argued the bill would improve voter confidence by reducing opportunities for improper collection of ballots.

Opponents, led by Dora Rose, deputy director of the League of Women Voters of California, argued the change would roll back recent expansions in ballot access. Rose told the committee that “the right to vote is foundational,” and said voting by mail and the Voter’s Choice Act have increased participation and accessibility, citing that roughly 80% of California voters cast ballots by mail in recent elections.

Other bills on the committee’s agenda moved forward. The panel approved, by recorded votes, measures requiring clearer processes for signature collecting and curing, expanded language access for ballots, faster disclosure of post‑election signature‑curing expenditures, limits on some local campaign contributions, a clarification to behest‑payment reporting for officials encouraging charitable giving, and a high‑school preregistration measure. Key actions and outcomes are listed below.

Signature‑gathering and curing transparency Senate Bill 3 (signature‑gathering standards and penalties) was presented as a follow‑up to an informational hearing the committee held in March. The author said the bill would require the Secretary of State to publish a uniform signature‑carrying form, add a reminder on vote‑by‑mail envelopes that signatures will be compared with registrars’ records, impose penalties for fraud or intimidation in signature‑curing contexts, and require county registrars to provide updated results twice weekly during a campaign. The committee voted 5‑0 to pass SB3 to the Appropriations Committee.

Language access (SB266) SB266, a narrower successor to a previously vetoed bill (AB884), would require translated, votable ballots for additional limited‑English‑proficient (LEP) populations where state thresholds are met. The author and supporters cited Census and American Community Survey figures they said show 43.3% of California households speak a language other than English and estimated roughly 3.2 million eligible Californians identify as LEP (about 12.3% of the electorate). Supporters said the bill would provide votable ballots — not only reference material — for communities currently excluded under federal thresholds. The committee passed SB266 as amended to Appropriations, 5‑0.

Post‑election reporting for signature‑curing expenditures (SB321) SB321 would extend 24‑hour disclosure requirements to expenditures related to post‑election signature‑curing activity, aiming to give the public contemporaneous transparency around paid or organized signature‑curing after Election Day. The committee passed SB321 to Appropriations, 5‑0.

Campaign contribution limits for local offices (SB644) SB644 would extend the $5,900 contribution limit that applies to many local offices to judicial, community college district and school board races. Senator Blake Spear presented the bill and argued parity would reduce large single‑donor influence. Dora Rose of the League of Women Voters testified in support, saying, “Money presents one of the greatest threats to democracy today.” Opponents — including representatives of labor who oppose the measure — argued contribution limits could push more spending into independent expenditures and increase duplicative, costly activity. The committee voted to move SB644 to the Senate Education Committee, 4‑1.

Reporting and charitable appeals (SB716) A bill presented by Senator (Allen) would narrow the behest‑payment reporting trigger for elected officials who make broad public appeals for donations to nonprofits. The author said the change would protect officials who publicly encourage support for charities during emergencies when the official has no personal or financial connection to the organization. Committee members expressed interest in clarifying reporting and compliance details with the Fair Political Practices Commission. The committee approved SB716, 3‑0.

High school preregistration (SB316) SB316 would expand access to pre‑registration in high schools so 16‑ and 17‑year‑olds can be automatically registered on their 18th birthday and would provide information to students already 18. Student witnesses and civic groups testified in strong support; one student said, “Bills like SB316 remove voting barriers and engage young people early in their high school careers.” The committee approved SB316 as amended to Appropriations, 4‑1.

Consolidating county board of education elections (SB249) SB249 would consolidate county board of education elections with the statewide general election to increase participation. The League of Women Voters supported the bill and cited statewide turnout data — primary turnout about 35% vs. general election turnout about 71% in 2024 — as a reason to move these contests to November. County board representatives from Orange County opposed the bill, arguing the change would impose state control over local election timing and that a longer November ballot could cause voter fatigue. The committee moved SB249 to Appropriations, 3‑1.

Consent calendar and other procedural outcomes The committee advanced a consent calendar of six measures (SB482, SB621, SB408, SB91, SB851, SB852) by unanimous vote and moved other measures to appropriations or education committees as noted above.

Why this matters The committee’s actions affect ballot access, ballot language availability, disclosure and campaign finance rules, and youth engagement — all issues that shape who votes, how votes are counted, and how voters learn about candidates and measures. Several bills now go to the Appropriations or Education committees for further review; SB335’s defeat in committee means the opt‑in vote‑by‑mail proposal will not advance from this panel.

What’s next Bills that passed the committee will be scheduled in their next committees of referral (noted above) where they could be amended, held, or advanced further. Several authors said they will continue to consult with stakeholders and state agencies as their measures move forward.