Elections.

Removed all amendment history headers (dates from March through August 2026) and coauthor information, replacing them with passage dates and clerk signatures indicating the bill has been enrolled.

Removed line-number tracking markers (e.g., 'line 1', 'line 2') that were used to track amendments during the legislative process.

Added enrollment language including 'Passed the Senate August 27, 2026,' 'Passed the Assembly August 25, 2026,' signature lines for the Secretary of the Senate and Chief Clerk of the Assembly, and a blank line for the Governor's receipt date and time.

The notice period before a party may file suit was extended from 45 days to 60 days, giving political subdivisions more time to respond to alleged violations.

The waiting period after a political subdivision passes a resolution of intention was extended from 90 days to 120 days before a party may file an enforcement action.

Public hearing periods were extended: the first set of hearings was changed from a maximum of 30 days to 45 days, and the second set from 45 days to 60 days.

The cost reimbursement cap for prospective plaintiffs was changed from a fixed two-part cap ($25,000 for attorneys' fees and $50,000 for external expenses) to a single cap equal to the present value of $30,000 in 2016 dollars, adjusted annually for inflation.

Standing to bring an action was narrowed. The prior version allowed 'any individual or entity aggrieved by a violation' to sue; the amended version limits standing to the Attorney General or any voter who is a member of a protected class and resides in the political subdivision where the violation is alleged.

The preapproval requirement trigger was narrowed. Previously, a prior finding of violation under the federal Voting Rights Act, the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, or the First, Fourteenth, or Fifteenth Amendments would trigger preapproval. The amended version limits this to prior violations of the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 or any other state law concerning voting rights.

The liberal construction provision was narrowed to apply only to enactments of political subdivisions, removing references to state-level laws and regulations.

New principal coauthors (Assembly Members Bryan and Jackson) were added, along with additional coauthors including Senator Weber Pierson and Assembly Members Ahrens, Caloza, Sharp-Collins, and Solache.

The futility exception allowing early filing was expanded with more specific criteria: it now clarifies that a formal majority vote of the governing body, conclusive statements by a majority, or a statement by an official with unilateral authority can establish futility, while an individual member's expression of opinion alone does not.

References to the 'California Voting Rights Act of 2026' in operative text were changed back to 'California Voting Rights Act of 2001,' and the bill's scope description no longer states it repeals and re-adds Sections 14027-14030, instead amending them directly.

The bill's framing changed from 'repeal and replace' the CVRA to 'revise' it. References to the 'California Voting Rights Act of 2026' were changed to 'California Voting Rights Act of 2001' in multiple places, indicating the existing 2001 act is being amended rather than replaced with an entirely new statute.

Individual voters who are members of a protected class and reside in the political subdivision where a violation is alleged now have standing to bring an action, in addition to the Attorney General and other aggrieved parties.

The waiting period before filing suit after sending a notice letter was extended from 45 days to 60 days. The period after a political subdivision passes a resolution of intention was extended from 90 days to 120 days. The initial public hearing window was extended from 30 days to 45 days, and the additional hearings window from 45 days to 60 days.

The cap on external expenses (such as expert or consultant fees) that a political subdivision must reimburse a prospective plaintiff was reduced from $50,000 to an amount equal to the present value of $30,000 in 2016, subject to annual inflation adjustment.

The preliminary injunction exception for 'an upcoming election' was narrowed to 'an election that will occur within 180 days.' The substantially similar violation exception now requires the actions to arise out of the same set of facts. The futility exception was expanded to include cases where the political subdivision has indicated it will not adopt the proposed remedy or will not comply with the act.

A new provision allows a political subdivision that elects its governing body by district with a citywide elective mayor (authorized under Section 34886 of the Government Code) to cure an alleged violation by adopting additional districts while retaining the citywide elective mayor, without needing a court order or admission of liability.

Actions under the act would now be given priority over other civil matters in court proceedings. The court petition process for non-standard remedies was expanded to allow unopposed consideration, evidence submission by plaintiffs, and explicitly states the political subdivision is not required to submit the remedy to voters for approval.

A new Section 1 with legislative findings and declarations was added, including statements that the act should provide a broader basis for relief than the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965, that it should not abrogate prior CVRA case law, and that the Legislature intends to resolve financial concerns of political subdivisions regarding notice letters.

Notice letter requirements were expanded to require a detailed description of the alleged violation, a detailed description of the proposed remedy, and (for non-district-based methods) an explanation of how votes translate into candidate selection. The Statewide Database posting requirement now specifies transmission within 30 days of receipt.

The voter suppression prohibition no longer covers policies motivated by intent to suppress. The standard is now limited to policies that 'result in, or are likely to result in, voter suppression,' removing the third prong about discriminatory intent.

The vote dilution prohibition no longer covers methods of election motivated by intent to dilute. The standard is now limited to methods that 'have the effect, or will likely have the effect, of diluting the vote,' removing the intent-based prong.

The resolution options available to a political subdivision after receiving a notice letter are consolidated from three separate tracks (at-large to district transition, district modification, or court approval) into two: pass a resolution to make changes to its method of election, or seek court approval if the change is not authorized under state law.

A provision requiring courts to grant preliminary relief before an upcoming election (if the plaintiff was more likely than not to succeed and a remedy could be implemented in time) has been entirely removed from the bill.

Section 10010(a) now applies to any political subdivision that 'makes changes to its method of election' rather than specifically listing at-large-to-district transitions, establishing district-based elections, or modifying district-based methods. This broadens coverage to all method changes while removing the specific at-large/district framing.

The definition of 'method of election' in Section 14026(e) removes 'semi-proportional' from the list of included systems, now reading 'proportional, share-based, or other method of election.'

Section 10010(d) no longer cross-references definitions for 'at-large method of election' and 'district-based-election,' only retaining 'method of election' and 'political subdivision.'

The cost reimbursement cap language changes from '$50,000 for all other costs, external expenses' to '$50,000 for external expenses,' narrowing what falls under that cap by removing 'all other costs' as a separate category.

Added 'share-based' methods of election to the definition of 'method of election,' defined as a system where different groups of voters may each elect their preferred candidates based on relative share of votes cast. This expands the bill's reach beyond traditional at-large, district-based, proportional, and semi-proportional systems.

Added amendment to Elections Code Section 21130 requiring the Secretary of State to examine, test, and certify or conditionally approve voting systems used in elections conducted under a method adopted to remedy a CVRA violation.

Added new Article 1.5 (Section 19219.5) to Division 19 of the Elections Code requiring districting bodies to comply with CVRA requirements when adopting new election district boundaries following each federal decennial census.

Replaced the simple draft map publication requirement with a comprehensive 'Change to Method of Election Plan' that must include: detailed analysis of voter registration and turnout statistics by American Community Survey categories, an explanation of how the proposed method will impact identified disparities, at least one draft map (for district-based methods), a voter outreach and education plan for a minimum of two election cycles, and a timeline and implementation plan.

Public hearings and outreach now cover 'method of election to be adopted' and must include a specific description of how voter votes translate into candidate selection under any method being considered, rather than focusing solely on district composition and the redistricting process.

Broadened the vote dilution remedy options: a political subdivision can now pass a resolution to 'make changes to its method of election' rather than being limited to transitioning from at-large to district-based elections or making changes to its district-based method specifically.

Added provision allowing courts to apply the public process requirements at their discretion to court-imposed changes to a political subdivision's method of election, while clarifying that courts may order implementation regardless of whether the political subdivision complied with the section's requirements.

Added clarification that if a political subdivision intends to make any change to the method of election not authorized under state law, it shall seek court approval, and that an admission of liability is not required for court approval.

Expanded cost reimbursement for parties who send notice letters: the cap now covers 'attorneys' fees and associated costs' (previously just attorneys' fees) and 'all other costs, external expenses such as expert or other consultant fees necessary to meet the requirements' (previously just 'all other costs including consultant fees').

Changed reference from 'members of the districts' to 'impacted community members' when determining the sequence of staggered district elections, broadening whose preferences must be considered.

New Section 14027(d) provides that ongoing civil actions filed before the effective date continue to be governed by the legal standards of the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 for purposes of establishing liability. This is a savings clause that prevents the new law from retroactively changing the rules in cases already pending.

The act's short title was changed from 'California Voting Rights Act of 2001. 2026' to 'California Voting Rights Act of 2026,' removing the awkward dual-year reference.

Multiple cross-reference corrections in Section 14027: 'under paragraph (b)' was changed to 'under paragraph subdivision (b)' and similar fixes in subsections (c)(3)(C) and (c)(3)(D) to clarify whether the reference is to a paragraph or a subdivision.

In Section 14027(a)(2)(b), the reference to 'the California Voting Rights Act of 2001' was updated to 'the California Voting Rights Act of 2001, 2026' to reflect both versions of the law.

In Section 14029(b)(1), redundant and contradictory notice letter language was consolidated. The old text contained two overlapping descriptions of what the notice letter must say; the new version keeps only the clearer formulation: 'asserting how the political subdivision's election policy or practice may violate subdivision (a) of Section 14027 and how the type of remedy the party proposes would address the violation.'

In Section 14027(e)(1), grammatical errors were fixed: 'asserting that how' was changed to 'asserting how' and 'the party believes may proposes would address' was changed to 'the party proposes would address.'

In Section 14027(b)(5), the phrase 'faces an undue burden to their opportunity or ability' was changed to 'faces an undue burden to on their opportunity or ability,' which appears to introduce a drafting error (double preposition) rather than fix one.

The voter suppression and vote dilution provisions previously housed in separate sections (14027 for suppression, 14028 for dilution) are consolidated into a single section 14027. Section 14030.5, which was being added in the prior version, is no longer included.

Section 14030.5 is no longer being added to the Elections Code. The prior version included this as a new section; it has been dropped from the bill's scope.

The pre-suit notice letter requirement is strengthened. Previously, a party needed to identify 'the type of remedy' they believed might address the violation. Now the party must explain 'how' the political subdivision's method may violate the law AND 'how' their proposed remedy would address the violation, making the notice more substantive and specific.

The bill's short title (Section 14025) is updated from 'California Voting Rights Act of 2001' to 'California Voting Rights Act of 2001. 2026.' reflecting the year of this major amendment. Duplicate section references and transition markup from prior amendments are cleaned up.

The bill reorganizes its core prohibitions: old Section 14027 (at-large method vote dilution) is repealed and replaced with a new Section 14027 that combines both voter suppression (subdivision a) and vote dilution (subdivision b) into one section. Old Section 14028 content is absorbed into the new structure.

The California Voting Rights Act name is updated from 'California Voting Rights Act of 2001' to 'California Voting Rights Act of 2001. 2026,' reflecting the substantial amendments being made.

The 'protected class' definition no longer references the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 and instead stands alone as 'any group of individuals who are members of any race, color, or language-minority group.' The 'racially polarized voting' definition is simplified, removing references to federal VRA case law methodologies.

The reimbursement cap for parties who send notice letters is changed from an overall $30,000 cap to a split of $25,000 for attorneys' fees and $50,000 for all other costs (including consultant fees), effectively raising the maximum recoverable amount from $30,000 to $75,000.

The fiscal committee designation changes from 'no' to 'yes' and the state-mandated local program designation changes from 'no' to 'yes,' indicating the bill now imposes recognized state costs on local agencies that require reimbursement procedures.

Public outreach before districting hearings is changed from optional ('may conduct outreach') to mandatory ('shall conduct outreach'), requiring political subdivisions to actively reach non-English-speaking communities and encourage participation.

New language clarifies that direct or circumstantial evidence of intentional discrimination can establish a violation, but intent is not required - this applies to both voter suppression and vote dilution claims.

A new provision allows a voter suppression violation to be established if an eligible voter faces an undue burden due to incarceration or a prior criminal conviction (Section 14027(a)(3)(5)).

The vote dilution standard in new Section 14027(b)(3) requires both a showing of impairment (via racially polarized voting or totality of circumstances) AND that an alternative method of election would likely mitigate the impairment - a two-prong test that was not as explicitly structured before.

The bill now prohibits any political subdivision or state agency from implementing, imposing, or enforcing any election policy or practice that results in, is likely to result in, or is motivated by the intent to result in voter suppression - a far broader prohibition than the original CVRA which only addressed at-large election methods.

The original CVRA provisions (Sections 14027-14030) are repealed and replaced. The old framework only prohibited at-large election methods that impaired a protected class's ability to elect candidates of choice, requiring racially polarized voting as the primary evidence standard.

The bill now applies to state agencies in addition to political subdivisions (for voter suppression provisions), and covers all stages of the political process rather than just election methods. The 'protected class' definition is expanded beyond race and color to explicitly include language-minority groups.

New definitions added for 'election policy or practice,' 'method of election,' 'governing body,' 'protected class' (expanded to include language-minority groups and Census-recognized minimum reporting categories), 'racially polarized voting,' 'vote'/'voting,' and 'voting location.'

Pre-suit notice letter requirement: before filing a vote dilution action, a party must send a notice letter to the political subdivision identifying the violation and proposed remedy. The party cannot file within 45 days of sending the letter unless exceptions apply (preliminary injunction for upcoming election, another party already filed, or futility).

Public participation requirements for redistricting: political subdivisions transitioning to district-based elections must hold at least two public hearings before drawing draft maps (over no more than 30 days) and at least two additional hearings after maps are drawn (over no more than 45 days), with outreach to non-English-speaking communities.

Construction mandate: any state or local law relating to voting must be construed liberally in favor of making voting more accessible, safeguarding voting rights of all voters, and ensuring protected class members have full access to relief from discrimination.

Standing is granted to any individual or entity aggrieved by a violation, plus the Attorney General. Entities can bring claims if their membership includes aggrieved individuals or their mission would be frustrated. Courts must grant preliminary relief if the plaintiff is more likely than not to succeed and a remedy can be implemented before an upcoming election.

Attorney General preapproval required: any political subdivision that within the previous 10 years has been found liable for or settled a voting rights violation must obtain AG preapproval before enacting new or modified methods of election, annexations/deannexations, or reductions in language assistance.

Expedited proceedings: all actions under the new chapter receive automatic calendar preference and expedited pretrial, trial, and appellate proceedings.

Cost reimbursement provision: if a political subdivision adopts a remedy after receiving a notice letter, the party who sent the notice may recover costs capped at $25,000 for attorneys' fees and $50,000 for all other costs (including consultant fees), adjusted annually by CPI.