The bill stipulates that any actions resulting in a settlement or court-approved agreement regarding elections must be reported at least 14 days prior to the execution of such agreements. This change is designed to bring more transparency to the electoral process and ensure that there is oversight by state authorities during significant electoral disputes. Additionally, it emphasizes the ministerial nature of several existing duties of election officials, underlining their obligation to carry them out without discretion.
Summary
Senate Bill 851, introduced by the Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments, aims to amend various sections of the Elections Code pertaining to the administration of elections in California. One of the key changes introduced by this bill is the requirement for state or local agencies involved in electoral proceedings to notify the Secretary of State and the Attorney General within three days of being served with a court action that contains claims arising under federal law. This provision enhances oversight concerning legal actions that may affect the integrity and administration of the electoral process.
Sentiment
The sentiment surrounding SB 851 is largely focus on enhancing the accountability and transparency of election procedures in California. Proponents of the bill advocate that it will strengthen the electoral framework and restore public confidence in the integrity of elections. Conversely, concerns have been raised about the potential implications for local governance and how these mandates might affect the autonomy of local election bodies in managing election processes.
Contention
Notably, the bill broadens the definition of existing electoral crimes, which may face opposition in terms of its implications on individual rights and the operational freedom of local election officials. The expansion of the scope to include actions concerning unauthorized individuals near polling locations or election offices raises the potential for contentious debates about election security. Furthermore, the bill establishes a state-mandated local program, which could invoke discussions regarding funding for its implementation, particularly with respect to compliance and the associated costs for local jurisdictions.