AB21 would require common interest developments (HOAs) to adopt a defined set of election operating rules, creating a single baseline for how associations run campaigns, qualify candidates, select election inspectors, and keep election records. The bill pushes associations away from ad hoc practices toward a prescriptive checklist intended to increase transparency and consistency across developments.
The practical effect is to change everyday HOA operations: boards and managers must revise bylaws and operating rules, train staff or vendors on new procedures, and — in many places — adopt electronic voting systems or expanded mail-out processes. For homeowners and candidates, the bill aims to secure greater access to association channels and clearer rules for participation; for associations, it imposes new administrative tasks and potential compliance risks.
At a Glance
What It Does
Requires associations to adopt election operating rules (following Article 5 procedures) that cover campaign access to association media and common-area meeting space, inspector-of-elections selection, retention and member verification of candidate and voter lists, and the use of electronic secret ballots with opt-in/opt-out mechanics. It also prohibits denying ballots except where a person is not a member when ballots are distributed, and limits last-minute changes to election rules.
Who It Affects
Homeowners associations (boards and managers), election inspectors and vendors, homeowners running for office (including non-board-endorsed candidates), members who vote by power of attorney, and developers where voting power and nominations remain governed by development-era rights.
Why It Matters
Creates statewide minimums that replace widely varying HOA practices, raising the bar on access and recordkeeping while forcing many associations to change established procedures, adopt technology, or expand mailings — and creating new points of legal and operational friction around inspector independence, voter privacy, and electronic voting security.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB21 lays out a laundry list of mandatory election-related operating rules associations must adopt. The rules must ensure equal access to association communications and, where available, common-area meeting space during campaigns; set candidate qualifications and nomination procedures; define voting power, proxy rules, and voting periods; provide methods for selecting one or three inspectors of elections; and require retention of both a candidate registration list and a detailed voter list.
The bill ties those operating rules to the Article 5 procedures in Chapter 3, so associations must follow that process when adopting or amending the rules.
On recordkeeping and timing, the bill requires associations to let members verify their information on the candidate and voter lists at least 30 days before ballots go out and to correct reported errors within two business days. It also bars amendment of election operating rules less than 90 days before an election.
The bill requires delivery of the ballot and a copy of the election operating rules at least 30 days before an election; posting the rules on a website with the address printed on the ballot counts as delivery.AB21 defines who can be disqualified from nomination: nonmembers at nomination time, people who have reached an association’s term limits, directors who cease to be members, and nominees who fail specified qualifications that associations may adopt in their bylaws or operating rules — such as being current on regular and special assessments (with carve-outs for payments under protest and compliant payment plans), minimum membership duration, joint-ownership conflicts, and criminal convictions that would affect the association’s required insurance. The bill also requires associations to provide internal dispute resolution opportunities before disqualifying somebody.The bill permits, but tightly regulates, electronic secret ballots.
Associations may adopt a rule to use electronic secret ballots (not permitted for votes on assessments), but the rule must allow members to switch between electronic and written ballots no later than 90 days before the election and must keep a voting-method list that the association reports in its annual statement. Members must provide a valid email to vote electronically; if an association lacks a member’s email, it must mail a written ballot.
Electronic votes are effective when transmitted to the system designated by the inspector and cannot be revoked. For quorum purposes, an electronically voting member counts as present at the meeting, but once quorum is established, the bill limits substantive voting to items specifically identified in the electronic vote.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires associations to keep two election materials: a candidate registration list (names and addresses of nominees) and a voter list (name, voting power, and physical address or parcel number), and to let members verify their entries at least 30 days before ballots are distributed.
Associations must correct any reported errors to either list within two business days after the inspector is notified.
The inspector-of-elections can be chosen by board appointment, elected by members, or by any other method the association adopts; inspectors may appoint independent third parties to verify signatures and tabulate votes if those persons meet the statutory independence requirements.
Associations may adopt electronic secret-ballot rules, but members must be allowed to opt in or out (or change methods) no later than 90 days before the election; electronic ballots require a valid email and are effective when electronically transmitted and may not be revoked.
An association may disqualify nominees for nonpayment of regular or special assessments, but not for unpaid fines or third-party costs; the nonpayment disqualification does not apply if the member paid under protest or is complying with a court- or association-approved payment plan.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Mandatory content for election operating rules
This subsection lists the minimum items each association’s election operating rules must include: equal access to association media for candidates and members advocating viewpoints, access to common-area meeting space during campaigns, candidate qualification criteria, rules defining voting power and proxies, methods for selecting inspectors of elections, authority for inspectors to oversee additional independent workers, and retention of candidate and voter lists. Practically, this forces associations to codify a comprehensive election playbook rather than relying on custom or informal practices.
Membership and developer exceptions
This provision disqualifies anyone who is not a member at the time of nomination, bars directors who stop being members from continuing to serve, and allows developers to nominate nonmember candidates consistent with their statutory voting power. It also permits a legal entity that holds title to appoint a natural person to act as the member for election purposes. These mechanics preserve developer-era voting structures while clarifying how corporate ownership and membership status interact with eligibility.
Permitted disqualifications and payment-related limits
These paragraphs let associations disqualify nominees for specific, narrowly described reasons: unpaid regular/special assessments (but not fines or third-party costs), simultaneous service with a co-owner, membership under one year, or criminal convictions that would imperil required insurance. Importantly, the bill requires parity — if nominees can be disqualified for assessments, current directors must meet the same requirement — and protects members who have paid under protest or are on an approved payment plan. It also requires internal dispute resolution be offered before disqualification, adding procedural safeguards.
Ballot rights, power of attorney, and delivery duties
The statute forbids denying a ballot except where the person is not a member when ballots are distributed, validates ballots returned by a person holding a general power of attorney, and requires the inspector to deliver ballots and the election operating rules to members at least 30 days before the election — either by individual delivery or by posting the rules online and printing the URL on the ballot. It also prevents election operating rules from being amended within 90 days of an election, locking in procedures ahead of ballots.
Electronic secret-ballot framework and limits
This section authorizes electronic secret ballots subject to detailed conditions: a 90-day cut-off for changing voting method, identical content between electronic and written ballots, email requirements for electronic voters, required notices (including how to access and use the electronic system) delivered 30 days before the election, and mailing written ballots to members without email. It explicitly excludes assessment votes from electronic secret-ballot use, treats electronic votes as effective upon electronic transmission and irrevocable, and counts electronically voting members as present for quorum.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Housing across all five countries.
Explore Housing 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
- Non-endorsed candidates and advocacy-minded members — gain guaranteed access to association newsletters, websites, and meeting spaces during campaigns, reducing board gatekeeping of campaign messaging.
- Homeowners seeking transparency — get formal access to candidate registration and voter lists and the chance to verify their records ahead of elections, which should reduce clerical errors and disputes over ballots.
- Election inspectors and neutral vendors — receive a clear statutory role and authority to appoint independent workers and run electronic systems under defined notice and timing rules, creating a predictable market for election services.
Who Bears the Cost
- Association boards and professional managers — must update governing documents and operating rules, run additional mailings or electronic-notice campaigns, maintain lists and respond to corrections within tight timelines, and possibly pay for secure electronic voting platforms.
- Smaller associations with limited budgets — face disproportionate compliance costs if they must implement electronic voting systems, expand mail services, or hire inspectors to meet the new procedural standards.
- Association legal counsel and dispute-resolution bodies — will likely see more pre-election challenges (to disqualifications, ballot access, or inspector independence) and must advise boards on narrow carve-outs like payment-under-protest and IDR compliance.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma in AB21 is balancing greater member access and election transparency against election-security and administrative feasibility: the bill grants candidates broad access and requires tight recordkeeping and notice timelines to protect voters, but those same measures increase the operational burden on associations and leave open how to ensure inspector independence and technical security for electronic voting.
AB21 tries to thread a difficult needle: it increases member access and standardizes recordkeeping while leaving significant choices to associations (for example, how inspectors get chosen and whether to adopt electronic voting). That makes enforcement and litigation likely: boards could select inspectors by board appointment (permitted), which raises independence concerns the statute does not resolve, and the bill prescribes tight operational deadlines — 30-day notice and two-business-day corrections — that could be hard for volunteer-run associations to meet without paid staff or vendors.
The electronic secret-ballot provisions are operationally detailed but normatively light on technical standards. The statute requires secrecy and integrity but does not define minimum security controls, audit trails, or certification standards for electronic voting systems; instead it relies on inspectors and vendor practices.
The bill also increases transparency by requiring voter lists with physical addresses or parcel numbers, which helps verification but raises privacy and data-handling questions that the text does not address (retention, redaction, or access limits). Finally, the interplay between a default allowance of nominations from the floor and the later prohibition on floor nominations where an association adopts electronic-ballot rules creates an internal tension in the statute that associations must reconcile in drafting their rules.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.