AB 1513 amends multiple sections of the California Elections Code to change how certain election‑related notices, affidavits, and communications must be sent. The bill replaces numerous requirements to use registered mail with certified mail (often with return receipt requirements), and it authorizes electronic delivery for specified communications between local elections officials and the Secretary of State.
It also systematically replaces references to “trial courts” with “superior courts” in the recall provisions and clarifies which officials and boards administer recalls of superior court judges.
Practically, the bill standardizes proof‑of‑mailing procedures for candidates, petitioners, and parties, mandates e‑delivery and receipt confirmations for several interagency exchanges (for example, randomized alphabet drawings and recount requests), and contains a conditional provision tying a separate AB 930 amendment into the recount rules. The measure creates a state‑mandated local program subject to possible reimbursement if the Commission on State Mandates finds costs are imposed on local governments.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires certified mail for specified election notices and contest-related mailings and permits electronic delivery (with written confirmations) for certain communications between local officials and the Secretary of State. It also updates recall statutes to refer to superior courts and defines the administrative roles when recalling a superior court judge.
Who It Affects
County elections officials, the Secretary of State’s office, candidates and petition circulators, litigants in election contests, and superior courts all face changed service and notification procedures. Local governments must implement e‑delivery and new recordkeeping and may see a state‑mandated local program determination.
Why It Matters
Switching to certified mail plus explicit e‑delivery pathways alters how officials prove notice and can speed exchanges while creating new operational, cost, and security responsibilities. Reclassifying recall mechanics for superior court judges changes jurisdictional administration and signature‑threshold calculations that affect how recalls are mounted.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 1513 rewrites a set of delivery and jurisdictional rules across the Elections Code to make election administration more standardized and more electronic. When a candidate is served through the Secretary of State or a county elections official under the agent‑for‑service rule, the bill requires those officials to forward the paperwork to the candidate by certified mail with return receipt.
That change applies across several contexts: notices of party disqualification, contestant filings in election contests, and statutory service steps tied to recounts and challenges.
For a subset of interagency communications — notably notifications about off‑cycle local election dates, randomized alphabet drawing results, and statewide recount requests — the bill requires electronic delivery and an electronic confirmation of receipt. The Secretary of State must both accept and transmit those items electronically to the relevant county elections officials and receive written confirmation back by electronic delivery, which formalizes an electronic workflow for procedures that formerly relied principally on postal delivery or informal notice.On recalls and jurisdiction, the bill systematically treats judges of superior courts as county officers for recall purposes.
It designates county elections officials and boards of supervisors as the responsible officials and governing boards for recalls of superior court judges, and it ties the signature‑requirement rules for recalling those judges to the constitutional thresholds used for state officers, with a special calculation when the office never appeared on the ballot. Those changes shift how petitions are prepared, where they are filed, and which vote totals or registration figures are used to compute signature thresholds.The bill also clarifies several contest procedures: contestants must serve contest affidavits on defendants by certified mail (and file affidavits of mailing), and county elections officials must post copies upon filing; the defendant then has a short opportunity to respond and expand the precincts included in a recount.
Finally, the bill contains a conditional provision that incorporates parallel amendments proposed by AB 930 to the recount statute only if both bills pass and AB 930 is enacted first, and it preserves the Commission on State Mandates reimbursement process if the act imposes state‑mandated costs on local entities.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill replaces required use of registered mail with certified mail (frequently with return‑receipt or affidavit‑of‑mailing requirements) for candidate notices, party disqualification notices, and election‑contest mailings.
It requires electronic delivery (and written confirmation by electronic delivery) for specific interoffice items: notifications of certain local election dates, randomized alphabet drawing results, and statewide recount requests sent by the Secretary of State to county elections officials.
AB 1513 reclassifies judges of superior courts as county officers for recall purposes, makes the board of supervisors the governing board for such recalls, and ties signature thresholds for those recalls to the constitutional formula applied to state officers (with a special alternative for offices that never appeared on the ballot).
Any voter may request a statewide recount by filing within five calendar days beginning on the 31st day after the official canvass of a statewide election; the Secretary of State must then promptly e‑deliver copies of the request to each county where the recount is sought and receive electronic confirmations.
The bill contains a conditional incorporation of AB 930’s proposed change to the recount provision (operative only if both bills pass and AB 930 is enacted first) and includes a provision that subjects any local costs to the Commission on State Mandates reimbursement process.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Agent for service: forwarding by certified mail
When a candidate designates the Secretary of State or a county elections official as their agent for service, this section requires that the official promptly forward any process received to the candidate at the address on file by certified mail with request for return receipt. Practically, that replaces prior registered‑mail language and creates a uniform proof‑of‑mailing step for candidate notice that election officials must record and track.
Party disqualification notices by certified mail
The Secretary of State must serve notices of intent to disqualify a party by certified mail on the state central committee chairperson and publish notice in counties. The change to certified mail formalizes the evidentiary trail for service on parties when the state proposes to block primary or presidential general election participation.
Recall framework: replace ‘trial courts’ with ‘superior courts'
These coordinated amendments update definitions and roles across the recall division so that references to trial courts now read as superior courts. The practical result is that judges of superior courts are explicitly treated as county officers for recall administration, and county elections officials become the responsible officials for handling petition processes tied to those judges.
Signature thresholds for recalls involving superior court judges
This section separates signature‑count rules: most local officers use the percentage grid tied to registered voters, but for state officers and judges of superior courts the bill applies the constitutional threshold found in Article II, Section 14(b). It also includes a fallback formula when a superior court office has never appeared on the ballot or didn’t at its last election, tying the percentage to votes cast for the countywide office with the fewest votes. That creates a different numerical target for petitions against superior court judges than for other local officers.
Electronic notification for off‑cycle elections and alphabet drawings
Local officials calling special elections must notify the Secretary of State by electronic delivery of election dates and filing deadlines; the Secretary of State confirms receipt electronically and conducts randomized alphabet drawings and transmits results by e‑delivery. The bill further permits a single drawing to cover multiple local elections on the same date and requires confirmations back to the Secretary of State, which institutionalizes a two‑way electronic acknowledge/confirm workflow for ballot‑order administration.
Statewide recount requests: timing and e‑delivery
Following the official canvass, any voter may file a written request for a statewide recount within five calendar days beginning on the 31st day after the election; the request must name counties and state whether it supports or opposes a candidate or measure. The Secretary of State must immediately e‑deliver copies to the county elections officials where the recount is sought and obtain electronic confirmations. The bill also retains cross‑references to the rest of the recount article, so existing recount mechanics continue to apply.
Contest service and certified mail procedures
Contest filings and affidavits must be served on defendants by certified mail to the address in the registration affidavit, and contestants must file an affidavit of mailing the same day. County elections officials must post filed affidavits, and defendants have a limited three‑day window to file responsive affidavits designating additional precincts for recount. These changes tighten the documentary record around contest service and require additional recordkeeping by county officials.
AB 930 incorporation clause and state‑mandated cost rule
Section 14 makes a narrowly conditional incorporation of AB 930’s proposed amendment to Section 15621 — it becomes operative only if both bills pass and AB 930 is enacted first. Section 15 preserves the statutory route for local reimbursement if the Commission on State Mandates finds the bill imposes state‑mandated costs, directing reimbursement pursuant to existing Government Code procedures.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Elections across all five countries.
Explore Elections in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Voters and petitioners seeking recounts or contest remedies — they get clearer, trackable proof of when contest filings and notices were mailed, and faster transmission of initial recount requests through e‑delivery.
- Secretary of State and county elections offices — standardized e‑delivery and certified‑mail rules reduce ambiguity about acceptable methods of notice and create an auditable trail for interoffice communications like alphabet drawings and recount requests.
- Candidates and circulators — certified mail with return receipts and required affidavits of mailing create stronger documentation of service that can reduce disputes over whether a party received timely notice or a petition met procedural prerequisites.
- Administrators of ballot order processes — the bill authorizes coordinated electronic workflows for randomized drawings, which can reduce delay and inconsistent practices across counties.
- Litigants in election contests — the recordkeeping requirements and certified‑mail rules improve the evidentiary footing for service and can shorten procedural disputes about sufficiency of notice.
Who Bears the Cost
- County elections officials — they must implement and document certified‑mail processes, adopt or expand secure e‑delivery channels, confirm receipts, post additional records, and handle more administrative steps within tight timelines.
- Local governments lacking e‑infrastructure — smaller counties and special districts may need to procure secure e‑delivery systems or pay vendors to meet the new confirmation and transmission requirements.
- Candidates, petitioners, and contestants — they may incur higher costs from frequent certified mailings and the administrative effort to prepare accurate filings and affidavits of mailing within compressed schedules.
- Secretary of State’s office — scaling, securing, and maintaining formalized electronic workflows and confirmation systems will require staff time and possibly new technical resources.
- County clerks and court clerks — added posting and recordkeeping duties for contest affidavits and tighter procedural timelines will increase day‑to‑day workload, at least during election cycles.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill forces a trade‑off between reliability and speed on one hand (certified mail plus electronic delivery creates a faster, trackable notice regime) and cost, technical capacity, and legal fragility on the other (new obligations raise expenses for local officials, introduce cybersecurity and authentication questions for e‑delivery, and create new opportunities for procedural challenges).
The shift from registered mail to certified mail and the authorized use of electronic delivery look simple on paper but raise several operational and legal questions. Certified mail provides a solid proof‑of‑mailing trail and a return‑receipt mechanism, but it does not guarantee acceptance at the recipient’s door; officials will need clear internal rules about when certified‑mail evidence suffices as proof of service versus when further personal service is required.
Adding mandatory affidavits of mailing and same‑day filing deadlines for contest mailings tightens timelines, increasing the risk of technical or human error turning into procedural grounds to dismiss or delay contest actions.
The formalization of e‑delivery between county elections officials and the Secretary of State speeds exchanges and reduces postage costs, but it creates a new dependability and security surface. The bill requires electronic confirmations, but it does not prescribe authentication standards, encryption requirements, minimum retention rules, or fallback procedures when transmissions fail.
That gap leaves counties to decide how to meet the obligation in a way that will withstand later legal scrutiny. Smaller jurisdictions may struggle to implement reliable, auditable e‑delivery quickly, and the conditional reimbursement mechanism means they may shoulder costs upfront while awaiting a Commission on State Mandates determination.
On recalls, moving superior court judges into the county‑officer framework and applying constitutional signature thresholds creates a tension between uniformity and local accountability. The alternate calculation for offices that never appeared on the ballot is technically precise but could produce unexpectedly high or low signature targets depending on the countywide office chosen as the comparator.
Finally, the conditional incorporation of AB 930 adds implementation complexity: county and state officials must track the enactment order of two bills to know which countdown, timing, or wording applies to recount requests, which could generate short‑term confusion if both bills pass around the same time.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.