WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SB 1369

Recall petitions.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Eloise Reyes

SB 1369 strengthens recall transparency by requiring paid signature gatherers to disclose payments and by mandating perjury-attested reasons, plus a fixed 80-day deadline for judge

From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 6. Noes 2.) (July 1).
#recallpetitions
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SB 1369

Overview

SB 1369 is a California bill concerning recall petitions for elective officers and related signatures. It adds disclosure requirements for paid signature gatherers, tightens the recall statement of reasons with a perjury oath, modifies timing for local recall petitions of superior court judges, and addresses state-mandated local cost reimbursements. The bill is currently in the Assembly after passing the Senate and undergoing amendments.

Main purpose and intent

  • Strengthen transparency and integrity in recall petitions by requiring disclosures from paid signature gatherers.
  • Increase accountability for proponents of recall by requiring a perjury-certified statement of reasons.
  • Normalize petition timing for a specific recall scenario (superior court judges) to a fixed deadline.
  • Clarify budgetary reimbursement rules related to state-mandated local costs.

Key provisions and changes

  1. Paid signature gatherer disclosure

    • For recall (as well as initiative and referendum) petitions requiring voter signatures, paid signature gatherers must orally disclose to each potential signer, before the signer signs, that the person is being paid to circulate the petition.

  2. Perjury oath for statement of reasons (recall proponents)

    • When proponents file and publish the notice of intention to circulate a recall petition, the statement of reasons for the proposed recall must be signed under penalty of perjury.
    • This creates a new potential crime element and constitutes a state-mandated local program.

  3. Recall petition filing deadline for superior court judges

    • For recall of a superior court judge, the petition must be submitted within 80 days after the clerk notifies proponents that the form and wording meet requirements, regardless of the jurisdiction’s number of registered voters.
    • This replaces the prior rule which tied the deadline to the size of the jurisdiction.

  4. Reimbursement for mandated costs

    • The bill states that no reimbursement is required under the California Constitution for the specified aspects of this act.
    • This clarifies funding mechanics for local agencies and school districts.

Who or what would be affected

  • Proponents of recall petitions (and other petition types) and signature gatherers (paid or volunteer) would face new disclosure and procedural requirements.
  • Local elections officials who process recall petitions, especially for superior court judges, would apply the fixed 80-day deadline.
  • Individuals signing recall petitions could receive explicit notice of being paid to circulate the petition.
  • Local agencies and school districts could see changes in mandated-cost reimbursement obligations (potentially no state reimbursement for these new requirements).

Procedural and timeline aspects

  • Legislative progress: Introduced, referred to committees, amended by the Senate, passed the Senate, then moved to the Assembly. Most recent activity shows “In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.”
  • Key dates in action history include:
    • March 26, 2026: Senate amended and re-referred to the Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments.
    • April 7, 2026: Committee-approved passage and re-refer to Public_Safety (as indicated in the action history, then subsequently moved).
    • April–May 2026: Passed the Senate after additional readings, moved to Assembly.
    • May 19–20, 2026: Assembly activity, with the bill having been read and filed; final status noted as “In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.”

Summary

SB 1369 seeks to enhance disclosure and accountability in recall processes by requiring oral disclosure from paid signature gatherers, mandating perjury-attested statements of reasons for recalls, standardizing the timing for recall petitions of superior court judges, and clarifying cost reimbursement rules for local entities. If enacted, these provisions would increase transparency around who is circulating petitions, potentially deter false or frivolous recall claims, and standardize certain procedural timelines in statewide and local recall efforts.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.