Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill that would have helped people receive voting materials in their first language.
Voting advocates said the bill, if passed, would have eliminated language barriers faced by many communities by expanding language requirements set by federal and state law.
Access to translated ballots has come a long way since the National Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965. That act required translations at the polls, but it only applied to Spanish, Asian, Native American and Alaska Native languages.
California has since expanded the national law to include more languages. In San Diego, voter materials are available in 10 languages.
But for six of those languages, translated voting materials aren’t on the actual ballots. Instead, they’re on reference ballots, also called facsimile ballots, and that’s not enough, said Deanna Kitamura, managing attorney for voting rights with the Asian Law Caucus.
“In general, we heard that facsimile ballots, which are translated reference ballots, were better than nothing, but they were confusing, difficult to use,” he said.
The bill, co-authored by Reps. Sabrina Cervantes (D-Corona) and Evan Low (D-Cupertino), would have fixed that, according to Rahmo Abdi, director of organizing and campaigns at the Association for the Advancement of New Americans. (UNTIL).
The bill was intended to replace facsimile ballots with voteable ballots for state-required languages. Abdi said that could have made a big difference for the communities he works with.
“Rather than actually comparing a facsimile ballot to the English ballot, or just using community members or their children to go vote, this should be a fundamental right for everyone,” Abdi said.
But election officials raised concerns, including the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials.
“We’ll probably double the number of languages we would have to be able to provide,” said Jesse Salinas, president of the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials. “And one of the real challenges we would have is translation.”
Salinas said technology, vendors and funding could not meet the bill’s new requirements. For example, he said, they estimated that in Los Angeles it would cost more than $25 million.
Cynthia Paes, the San Diego County Registrar of Voters, declined to comment on the bill but said even offering referral ballots requires a lot of work.
“There are 700 variations of that ballot that have to be supported by our vendor’s ballot marking device,” Paes said. “It also needs to be available in an audio ballot format for those ballot marking devices. So right now, with our budget and the time available and the technology that we have and the languages that our vendors can support, we follow California state law and federal law.”
These additional costs are ultimately why Newsom decided to veto the bill.
“While I support the author’s goal of expanding language access and resources in our elections, this bill would create new and ongoing pressures on the general fund for tens of millions of dollars that are not included in the 2024 Budget Act,” he said in a statement. statement.
Abdi and Kitamura said the decision leaves advocates disappointed but not discouraged.
“The veto of AB 884 is a missed opportunity for justice, but we will not give up,” Abdi said. “Our communities deserve to be seen and heard, and we will continue to work to break down the barriers that prevent full participation in our democracy.”
Advocates plan to regroup and strategize, with plans to reintroduce AB 884 or similar legislation next year.
