California 2017-2018 Regular Session

California Assembly Bill AB2352

Introduced
2/13/18  
Introduced
2/13/18  
Refer
3/1/18  
Refer
3/1/18  
Report Pass
4/18/18  
Refer
4/19/18  
Refer
4/19/18  
Report Pass
4/25/18  
Report Pass
4/25/18  
Refer
4/25/18  
Refer
4/25/18  
Refer
5/16/18  
Refer
5/16/18  
Report Pass
5/25/18  
Report Pass
5/25/18  
Engrossed
5/29/18  
Refer
5/30/18  
Refer
5/30/18  
Refer
6/7/18  
Refer
6/7/18  
Report Pass
6/20/18  
Report Pass
6/20/18  
Refer
6/21/18  
Refer
6/21/18  
Refer
8/6/18  
Refer
8/6/18  
Report Pass
8/17/18  
Enrolled
8/29/18  
Enrolled
8/29/18  
Vetoed
9/29/18  

Caption

Elections: reportable events.

Impact

The proposed amendments to the Elections Code will create new responsibilities for county election officials, compelling them to maintain detailed documentation of election-related incidents. This could lead to greater oversight and help prevent errors akin to those reported in previous elections, notably in Santa Clara County. By clearly defining which events must be reported, AB2352 aims to instill more public confidence in the electoral process, thereby addressing concerns regarding electoral integrity. Furthermore, the bill provides for state reimbursement to local agencies for any additional costs incurred due to these mandates.

Summary

Assembly Bill 2352, introduced by Assembly Member Low, aims to enhance the accountability and transparency of election processes in California by establishing a framework for identifying and documenting reportable events during elections. The bill requires counties to specify the boundaries of jurisdictions requesting election services and mandates that county elections officials document certain events that occur during election administration. These reportable events must affect at least 100 individuals or represent 0.01% of registered voters, which helps ensure that only significant issues are officially reported and addressed.

Sentiment

The sentiment around AB2352 appears predominantly positive, as it seeks to strengthen electoral processes and safeguard the integrity of elections. Lawmakers and proponents argue that this bill will foster accountability among election officials and minimize discrepancies during the electoral process. However, despite general approval, there could be contention regarding the potential financial impact on local governments, particularly with regard to the reporting requirements and the state-mandated reimbursements.

Contention

Some concerns may arise regarding the burden this legislation places on local election officials, especially in terms of resources and compliance with new regulations. Additionally, there might be discussions about how effectively these reporting requirements will be implemented and the potential for bureaucratic delays. As the bill progresses, stakeholders may debate whether these measures effectively enhance electoral integrity without overstepping into excessive regulation that could hinder electoral efficiency.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

MS SB2772

Expunction and reenfranchisment; revise procedure for requesting.

MS SB2644

Suffrage; provide for restoration upon completion of sentence or placement on probation.

CA AB969

Elections: voting systems.

MS HB561

Proof of residence; require before voter registration application may be accepted.

LA HB852

Makes revisions to the Election Code

LA HB563

Makes revisions to the Louisiana Election Code (EN SEE FISC NOTE LF EX See Note)

CA AB2982

North County Transit District: City of San Diego.

MS HB1419

Polling places; prohibit from being closed within sixty days before an election.