Elections: names of candidates.
Summary
Existing law requires the translation of ballots and ballot materials into languages other than English when specified circumstances exist. This bill would require that, if a jurisdiction provides a translation of the candidates' alphabet-based names into a character-based language, such as Chinese, Japanese, or Korean, phonetic transliterations of the alphabet-based names of candidates be provided. The bill would also permit a specified jurisdiction that provides translations of candidates' names to establish a process by which specified candidates may appeal the translation of his or her alphabet-based name in addition to procedures available under current law. This bill would provide an exception for a candidate who has a character-based name by birth or has verifiably been known by a character-based name for at least 2 years to permit him or her to use that name on the ballot instead of a phonetic transliteration. This bill would require that, if a jurisdiction provides separate ballots containing translations of the candidates' names in different languages, both the alphabet-based names and the translations of the candidates' names appear on the translated ballot. This bill would also require a county to purchase voting equipment that permits compliance with this section as a part of any new purchase of voting equipment. Because the bill would impose additional duties on local elections officials, it would impose 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 these statutory provisions.
Bill status
vetoed
4 of 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2009
Committee Review
Jul 2009
Senate Passage
May 2009
Assembly Passage
Aug 2009
Vetoed
Oct 2009
Introduced Feb 24, 2009
Vetoed Oct 11, 2009
Floor votes · Senate Aug 24, 2009 · Assembly Aug 17, 2009
How they voted
39–0
Passed · 1 other
Total votes 40
Aug 24, 2009
D
Democratic25
96% Yea
R
Republican15
100% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
36
Key actions
6
Committee
6
Amendments
1
Oct 11, 2009
Vetoed
In Senate. To unfinished business. (Veto)
upper
Oct 11, 2009
Vetoed
Vetoed by Governor.
upper
Aug 24, 2009
Senate · Passed
Senate Vote: pass (39-0-1)
senate
Aug 24, 2009
Introduced
Senate concurs in Assembly amendments. (Ayes 39. Noes 0. Page 1924.) To enrollment.
upper
Aug 17, 2009
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (70-0-3)
assembly
Jul 2, 2009
Lower · Passed
(Heard in committee on July 1.)
lower
Jul 2, 2009
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 15. Noes 0.)
lower
Jun 24, 2009
Lower · Passed
(Heard in committee on June 23.)
lower
Jun 24, 2009
Committee
From committee: Do pass, but first be re-referred to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
Apr 27, 2009
Upper · Passed
From committee: Be placed on second reading file pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8.
upper
Mar 31, 2009
Committee
From committee: Do pass, but first be re-referred to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 0. Page 382.) Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
upper
Feb 24, 2009
Introduced
Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
upper
1 primary · 1 co-sponsor
Sponsors
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about SB 288
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand SB 288. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline