Political Reform Act of 1974: refunding and transferring contributions: voter information guide.

Committee on Elections frames AB 1511 as a reform of California’s voter-information regime, weaving author and policy substance together in its opening stance by tying the measure to the state’s voter guide framework. The bill would replace references to ballot pamphlets with state voter information guides and county voter information guides and would reorganize the guide’s content and presentation to govern what voters receive, how it is displayed, and how it intersects with disclosure and analysis requirements.

On refunds and contribution transfers, the measure tightens the conditions under which campaign funds may be kept or redirected. It narrows the circumstances in which refunds are required after a primary defeat or withdrawal in the general election context by providing that a candidate is not required to refund general or special election contributions and may transfer those funds if the candidate’s name was not listed on the primary ballot and did not qualify to have write-in votes counted. The bill also clarifies that such funds may be transferred to a committee for the same or a different office, subject to existing attribution rules, and allows separate primary and general election campaign accounts. It adds an explicit exception to transferability in jurisdictions that impose county or city contribution limits.

The reform of the voter-information process expands both content and presentation. The measure would require the state voter information guide to include a complete copy of each state measure, the provision(s) repealed or revised by the measure, and the arguments for and against, together with the analysis of the measure and related materials such as tables of contents, indexes, graphics, and other aids deemed to improve usability. It also requires notices about additional copies upon request, incorporation of the Voter Bill of Rights, and, when relevant, information on United States Senate and presidential elections. For referenda, the act would mandate the display of the top funders, with specific formatting and identification rules, and would mandate that the top funders be determined no later than the date the referendum qualifies for the ballot.

In addition to the content changes, the bill intricately reorganizes how information is presented and analyzed. A concise, front‑of‑guide summary of yes/no votes would be prepared by the Legislative Analyst and placed near the front, with the analyst’s statements designated as not comprehensive but useful for voter understanding. The Legislative Analyst’s impartial analysis would be required to show the net state and local government financial impact, and it would undergo a pre-submission review by a five-member public panel chosen by the Analyst, including at least one education specialist, one bilingual member, and one professional writer. The measure also prescribes ordering and formatting for the guide’s pages, requires a separate front-page placement for the top funder list in referenda, and mandates printing standards such as font size, paper quality, and a certificate of correctness. It further requires the statute to allow the Legislature to amend the chapter to add further information in the state voter information guide.

Contextually, the authors cite concerns about campaign finance influence, information accessibility, and enforcement gaps, and they indicate that the changes are designed to align with prior advice from the Fair Political Practices Commission and related interpretations. The bill specifies that no new appropriation is requested and that certain fiscal and legal processes accompany the revisions, including an explicit acknowledgement that the measure would not establish a new local program. The overall framework situates the reform within a broader objective of clarifying roles, standardizing content, and enhancing transparency in how voters receive information about measures, candidates, and related accountability.