SB1164 - Elections.

Amended IN Assembly August 20, 2026 Amended IN Assembly August 13, 2026 Amended IN Assembly July 02, 2026 Amended IN Assembly June 24, 2026 Amended IN Senate May 14, 2026 Amended IN Senate April 27, 2026 Amended IN Senate April 14, 2026 Amended IN Senate March 25, 2026 CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2025–2026 REGULAR SESSION Senate Bill No. 1164 Introduced by Senator Cervantes (Principal coauthors: Assembly Members Bryan and Jackson) (Coauthor: Senator Rubio) (Coauthor: Assembly Member Garcia) (Coauthors: Senators Rubio and Weber Pierson) (Coauthors: Assembly Members Ahrens, Caloza, Garcia, Sharp-Collins, and Solache) February 18, 2026 An act to amend Sections 10010, 14026, 14027, 14028, 14029, 14030, and 21130 of, to add Sections 14033 and 14034 to, to add Article 1.5 (commencing with Section 19219.5) to Chapter 3 of Division 19 of, and to repeal Section 14032 of, the Elections Code, relating to elections. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST SB 1164, as amended, Cervantes. Elections. The California Voting Rights Act of 2001 (CVRA) prohibits a political subdivision from imposing or applying an at-large method of election for members of the political subdivision’s governing body in a manner that impairs the ability of a protected class to elect candidates of its choice or its ability to influence the outcome of an election, as specified. Existing law requires courts to implement appropriate remedies, including the imposition of district-based elections, for violations of the CVRA. This bill would revise the CVRA. The bill would prohibit a political subdivision or state agency from implementing, imposing, or enforcing any election policy or practice, as defined, that results in, or is likely to result in, voter suppression. An election policy or practice would result in voter suppression if it (1) causes a material disparity in voter participation, access to voting opportunities, or the opportunity or ability to participate in the political process for members of a protected class, which is defined as any race, color, or language-minority group; or (2) based on the totality of circumstances, causes an impairment of the equal opportunity or ability of members of a protected class to participate in the political process. An election policy or practice would not violate the prohibition on voter suppression if the political subdivision or state agency demonstrates, by clear and convincing evidence, that the election policy or practice is necessary to significantly further a compelling and particularized governmental interest and there is no reasonable alternative that comparably furthers the governmental interest and results in a smaller disparity between members of a protected class and other members of the electorate. The bill would also prohibit a political subdivision from employing any method of election, as defined, that has the effect, or will likely have the effect, of diluting the vote of protected class members. Vote dilution would be established if there is an impairment of the equal opportunity or ability of protected class members to nominate or elect candidates of their choice, as provided, and another method of election or a change to the existing method of election would likely mitigate the impairment. The bill sets forth various factors that courts could, and could not, consider when evaluating whether voter suppression or vote dilution exists within a political subdivision. The Attorney General, or any voter who is a member of a protected class and who resides in a political subdivision where a violation is alleged, would have standing to bring an action, and those actions would be given priority over other civil matters. action in a superior court of competent jurisdiction or any county in which the Attorney General has an office. The bill would require a potential plaintiff, before filing an action alleging voter suppression or vote dilution, to send a notice letter to the political subdivision identifying the potential violation and how the party’s proposed remedy would address it. For allegations of voter suppression, the bill would permit the potential plaintiff to file an action if the political subdivision has not enacted a remedy within 45 days of receipt of the notice letter or if the political subdivision’s remedy would not redress the alleged violation. For allegations that a political subdivision’s method of election results in vote dilution, the bill would permit the potential plaintiff to file an action if the political subdivision has not, within 60 days, passed a resolution outlining its intention to make changes to its method of election or petitioned a court for authorization to implement a different, appropriate remedy. Notwithstanding the notice requirement, the bill would authorize a potential plaintiff to file an action against a political subdivision at any time if the action is for a preliminary injunction with respect to an election that will occur within 180 days, another party has already submitted a notice letter alleging a substantially similar violation arising out of the same set of facts and the required number of days have passed, or the prospect of obtaining relief would otherwise be futile. If the political subdivision provides some or all of the relief sought in a potential plaintiff’s notice letter, the bill would authorize the potential plaintiff to recover their costs, which would be capped at an amount equal to the present value of $30,000 in 2016, subject to an annual inflation adjustment. The bill would prohibit any political subdivision from enacting or administering any covered practice without obtaining preapproval from the Attorney General, if the political subdivision, within the previous 10 years, has entered into a settlement agreement admitting liability for a violation of, or been found by a court to have violated, this bill, the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965, or any other state law concerning the right to vote for protected class members. Under the bill, covered practices would include new or modified methods of election, annexations and deannexations, or reductions in language assistance. The bill would authorize the Attorney General to grant preapproval to a political subdivision only if the covered practice will not diminish the equal opportunity or ability of members of the protected class to participate in the political process or elect candidates of choice and the covered practice is unlikely to violate the provisions of the bill. The bill would require any law, regulation, charter, ordinance, or other enactment of any political subdivision relating to voting to be construed liberally in favor of the right to vote. Existing law generally prohibits using a voting system unless it has been certified or conditionally approved by the Secretary of State before any election at which it is to be used. This bill would require the Secretary of State to examine and test a voting system and, if the Secretary of State determines that it meets the applicable requirements, certify or conditionally approve the system for use in an election conducted using a method of election adopted to remedy a violation of the CVRA, as provided. Existing law requires the adoption of new election district boundaries for a legislative body that is elected using district-based elections following each federal decennial census. This bill would require a districting body responsible for the adoption of new election district boundaries to comply with the requirements of this bill when adopting new boundaries following the decennial census. By increasing the duties of local elections officials, the bill would create a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above. Digest Key Vote: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: YES Local Program: YES Bill Text The people of the State of California do enact as follows: SECTION 1. (a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: (1) Election practices, procedures, and methods that deny or impair the equal opportunity of voters based on their race, color, or as a member of language minority groups to participate in the political process and elect candidates of their choice are inconsistent with the fundamental right to vote and the rights and privileges guaranteed by the California Constitution. (2) The State has the power to organize elections and political subdivisions in a manner of the state’s choosing: (A) In California, as elsewhere, cities, counties, and other political subdivisions are creatures of the state and exist only at the state’s sufferance. Bd. of Supervisors v. Loc. Agency Formation Com., 3 Cal. 4th 903, 914, 838 P.2d 1198, 1205 (1992). Com. (1992) 3 Cal. 4th 903, 914. (B) The California Supreme Court recognizes that “Municipal corporations are political subdivisions of the State, created as convenient agencies for exercising such of the governmental powers of the State as may be entrusted to them.... The number, nature and duration of the powers conferred upon these corporations and the territory over which they shall be exercised rests in the absolute discretion of the State.... The State ... at its pleasure may modify or withdraw all such powers.” Fullerton Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Educ., 32 Cal. 3d 779, 810, 654 P.2d 168, 189 (1982). Educ. (1982) 32 Cal. 3d 779, 810. (C) The United States Supreme Court has also recognized that municipal corporations derive their authority from the State and that the states have “extraordinarily wide latitude ... in creating various types of political subdivisions and conferring authority upon them.” Holt Civic Club v. Tuscaloosa (1978) 439 U.S. 60, 71, 99 S.Ct. 383, 390, 58 L.Ed.2d 292; 71; United Bldg. & Const. Trades Council of Camden Cnty. & Vicinity v. Mayor & Council of City of Camden, 465 U.S. 208, 215, 104 S. Ct. 1020, 1026, 79 L. Ed. 2d 249 (1984). Camden (1984) 465 U.S. 208, 215. (D) Courts in California have held that implementation of the California Constitution’s equal protection clause and voting rights provisions are issues of statewide concern. The Legislature has a greater interest in ensuring vote dilution and voter suppression do not occur than any political subdivision has in their electoral method of election. Jauregui v. City of Palmdale, 226 Cal. App. 4th 781, 800 (2014). Palmdale (2014) 226 Cal. App. 4th 781, 800. (E) Courts in California have also held that integrity in the electoral process is an issue of statewide concern, and that local “[e]lectoral results lack integrity where a protected class is denied equal participation in the electoral process because of vote dilution.” Jauregui v. City of Palmdale, 226 Cal. App. 4th 781, 800 (2014). Palmdale (2014) 226 Cal. App. 4th 781, 800. (F) In Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U.S. 684 (2019), Cause (2019) 588 U.S. 684, the United States Supreme Court recognized that the states are actively able to address issues of voting rights and redistricting and can provide standards and guidance for state courts to apply. (G) The Legislature enacts this bill pursuant to its power to reconfigure and control the methods of election utilized by the political subdivisions of the state. See City of Emeryville v. Cohen, 233 Cal. App. 4th 293, 312, 182 Cal. Rptr. 3d 578, 592 (2015) Cohen (2015) 233 Cal. App. 4th 293, 312 (“The Legislature is free, within the confines of the California Constitution, to reconfigure and redistribute authority to its subdivisions as it chooses.”; chooses.”); Star-Kist Foods, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1986) 42 Cal.3d 1, 6, 227 Cal.Rptr. 391, 719 P.2d 987; 6; Mallon v. City of Long Beach (1955) 44 Cal.2d 199, 209, 282 P.2d 481.) 209. (H) Courts have recognized that “remedial legislation is to be liberally [and] broadly construed.” Jauregui v. City of Palmdale, 226 Cal. App. 4th 781, 807-08 (2014). Palmdale (2014) 226 Cal. App. 4th 781, 807–08. The voter suppression, vote dilution, and pre-approval provisions of this act are remedial legislation. Consistent with California’s aforementioned powers and interest over issues of statewide concern, it is the intent of the Legislature that this act provide a broader basis for relief from vote dilution and voter suppression than available under the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965. (b) (1) It is the intent of the Legislature to resolve concerns raised by political subdivisions regarding the potential financial implications of receiving a notice letter under the California Voting Rights Act of 2001, while strengthening that act’s effectiveness and ensuring equitable enforcement. (2) It is the intent of the Legislature, unless expressly stated otherwise, that this act not be construed to abrogate, invalidate, or otherwise diminish the precedential effect or applicability of cases interpreting the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 prior to the enactment of this act, including, but not limited to, Sanchez v. City of Modesto (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 660; Higginson v. Becerra (9th Cir. 2019) 786 Fed.Appx. 705, Jauregui v. City of Palmdale (2014) 226 Cal.App. 4th 781, and Pico Neighborhood Association v. City of Santa Monica (2023) 15 Cal. 5th 292. SEC. 2. Section 10010 of the Elections Code is amended to read: 10010. (a) A political subdivision that makes changes to its method of election in response to a notice letter pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 14027, shall do all of the following before a public hearing at which the governing body of the political subdivision votes to approve or defeat an ordinance establishing or modifying a method of election: (1) Hold at least two public hearings over a period of no more than 45 days, at which the public is invited to provide input regarding the method of election to be adopted. Prior to and at such hearings, the political subdivision shall provide a specific description of how elector votes shall translate into candidate selection under any method or methods of election being considered, including, if a district-based method of election is being considered, the composition of the districts. Before these hearings, the political subdivision shall conduct outreach to the public, including to non-English-speaking communities, to explain the election methods being considered, to explain the implementation process, and to encourage public participation. (2) After receiving public input, the political subdivision shall publish and make available for release a draft Change to Method of Election Plan that includes, but is not limited to, all of the following: (A) A detailed analysis of the [Text truncated for display. Full text available on Congress.gov.]