CivixlyCivixly
HomeFederal GovernmentState GovernmentLearnCommunityFeedback
Sign InCreate Account

State Government / California / Legislation / SB 1164

SB 1164Session 20252026SenateStatus unavailable

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 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.

Your view
Official source ↗

Current stage

Status unavailable

Introduced

Feb 18, 2026

Latest action

Sep 3, 2026

Recorded roll calls

8

Topics and classification

Civixly topics

Budget & TaxesEducationJustice & Public SafetyElections & Government

Source subjects

Elections

Document type

Bill

Sponsors

Primary sponsors are listed before cosponsors and other sponsoring entities.

Primary sponsorCervantes
coauthor

Ahrens

principal coauthor

Bryan

coauthor

Caloza

coauthor

Garcia

principal coauthor

Jackson

coauthor

Rubio

coauthor

Sharp-Collins

coauthor

Solache

coauthorWeber Pierson

Action timeline

Newest action first. Action language is supplied by the state source.

The detailed timeline has not been imported yet.

Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 3 p.m.

Roll-call votes

The newest recorded chamber votes appear first. Your own representatives are highlighted when available.

passAug 27, 2026Senate

Unfinished Business SB1164 Cervantes et al. Concurrence

Vote source ↗
29 yes10 no1 other
View 40 recorded positions
Allenother
Alvarado-Gilno
Archuletayes
Arreguínyes
Ashbyyes
Beckeryes
Blakespearyes
Cabaldonyes
Caballeroyes
Cervantesyes
Choino
Corteseyes
Dahleno
Durazoyes
Gonzalezyes
Graysonyes
Groveno
Hurtadoyes
Jonesno
Lairdyes
Limónyes
McGuireyes
McNerneyyes
Menjivaryes
Niellono
Ochoa Boghno
Padillayes
Pérezyes
Reyesyes
Richardsonyes
Rubioyes
Seyartono
Smallwood-Cuevasyes
Sternyes
Stricklandno
Umbergyes
Valladaresno
Wahabyes
Weber Piersonyes
Wieneryes
passAug 25, 2026Assembly

SB 1164 Cervantes Senate Third Reading By Solache

Vote source ↗
59 yes18 no2 other
View 79 recorded positions
Addisyes
Aguiar-Curryyes
Ahrensyes
Alanisno
Alvarezyes
Arambulayes
Ávila Faríasyes
Bainsyes
Bauer-Kahanyes
Bennettyes
Bermanyes
Blanca Rubioyes
Boerneryes
Bontayes
Bryanyes
Calderonyes
Calozayes
Carrilloyes
Castillono
Celeste Rodriguezyes
Chenno
Connollyyes
Daviesno
DeMaiono
Dixonno
Elhawaryyes
Ellisno
Florano
Fongyes
Gabrielyes
Garciayes
Gipsonyes
Hadwickno
Haneyyes
Harabedianyes
Hartyes
Hooverno
Irwinyes
Jacksonyes
Jeff Gonzalezno
Johnsonno
Kalrayes
Krellyes
Lackeyno
Leeyes
Lowenthalyes
Macedono
Mark Gonzálezyes
McKinnorother
Michelle Rodriguezyes
Muratsuchiyes
Nguyenyes
Ortegayes
Pachecoyes
Papanyes
Patelyes
Pattersonno
Pellerinyes
Petrie-Norrisyes
Quirk-Silvayes
Ramosyes
Ransomyes
Rivasyes
Rogersyes
Sanchezno
Schiavoyes
Schultzyes
Sharp-Collinsyes
Solacheyes
Soriayes
Stefaniyes
Tano
Tangipano
Valenciayes
Wallisother
Wardyes
Wicksyes
Wilsonyes
Zburyes
passAug 13, 2026Assembly

Do pass as amended.

Vote source ↗
11 yes4 no0 other
View 15 recorded positions
Arambulayes
Calderonyes
Calozayes
Dixonno
Fongyes
Hooverno
Krellyes
Mark Gonzálezyes
Pachecoyes
Pellerinyes
Sharp-Collinsyes
Solacheyes
Tano
Tangipano
Wicksyes
passJul 1, 2026Assembly

Do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]

Vote source ↗
6 yes2 no0 other
View 8 recorded positions
Bennettyes
Bermanyes
Elhawaryyes
Ellisno
Johnsonno
Pellerinyes
Solacheyes
Stefaniyes
passJun 23, 2026Assembly

Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Elections]

Vote source ↗
9 yes3 no0 other
View 12 recorded positions
Bauer-Kahanyes
Bryanyes
Connollyyes
Dixonno
Harabedianyes
Kalrayes
Macedono
Pachecoyes
Papanyes
Sanchezno
Stefaniyes
Zburyes
passMay 20, 2026Senate

3rd Reading

Vote source ↗
29 yes9 no2 other
View 40 recorded positions
Allenyes
Alvarado-Gilno
Archuletayes
Arreguínyes
Ashbyyes
Beckerother
Blakespearyes
Cabaldonyes
Caballeroyes
Cervantesyes
Choino
Corteseyes
Dahleno
Durazoyes
Gonzalezyes
Graysonyes
Groveother
Hurtadoyes
Jonesno
Lairdyes
Limónyes
McGuireyes
McNerneyyes
Menjivaryes
Niellono
Ochoa Boghno
Padillayes
Pérezyes
Reyesyes
Richardsonyes
Rubioyes
Seyartono
Smallwood-Cuevasyes
Sternyes
Stricklandno
Umbergyes
Valladaresno
Wahabyes
Weber Piersonyes
Wieneryes
passMay 14, 2026Senate

Do pass as amended

Vote source ↗
5 yes2 no0 other
View 7 recorded positions
Cabaldonyes
Cervantesyes
Dahleno
Graysonyes
Richardsonyes
Seyartono
Wahabyes
passMay 4, 2026Senate

Placed on suspense file

Vote source ↗
7 yes0 no0 other
View 7 recorded positions
Cabaldonyes
Cervantesyes
Dahleyes
Graysonyes
Richardsonyes
Seyartoyes
Wahabyes

SB 1164 discussion

0 comments

Sign in to join the discussion.Comments are publicly visible.

Loading comments...

State legislative data provided by Open States and available official sources.

Source data last updated Sep 4, 2026.