AB 868 amends California’s Elections Code to change how county nonpartisan offices are decided. The bill removes the ability for many county offices to be elected outright at the primary; instead, the two highest vote‑getters at the primary advance to the general election.
It also fixes the timing for district attorney and sheriff elections to the presidential primary and creates limited authority for county boards of supervisors to hold certain county officer elections with the presidential primary rather than the statewide gubernatorial primary.
This is a structural reform aimed at reducing the number of county contests decided during low‑turnout primaries and putting more local decisions before larger general‑election electorates. The change affects election calendars, candidate strategy, and county election administration, and it creates carve‑outs for existing charter provisions and transitional terms for certain offices elected in 2022.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill replaces majority‑wins‑at‑primary for county nonpartisan offices with a top‑two nomination system: the two highest vote‑getters at the primary appear on the general ballot. It schedules district attorney and sheriff elections with the presidential primary and allows county boards to opt to hold many county officer elections with the presidential primary instead of the statewide primary for Governor.
Who It Affects
County election officials, county officers and candidates (sheriffs, district attorneys, supervisors, registrars), voters in county contests—especially groups underrepresented in primary turnout—and county boards of supervisors that may choose to change election timing.
Why It Matters
Shifting decisive local contests into higher‑turnout general elections is intended to improve representativeness of outcomes, but it also extends campaign windows, increases administrative costs, and creates uneven timing and exemptions for charter counties—issues that affect budgeting, ballot planning, and campaign strategy.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 868 amends two parts of the Elections Code to move many county contests out of low‑turnout primaries and into the general election. It does this by taking county nonpartisan offices out of the existing majority‑wins‑at‑primary rule and making the primary function as a nominating contest: the top two finishers advance to the general election.
The effect is that local offices that were frequently decided during spring primaries will now be decided in the November general, where turnout is typically higher.
The bill separately addresses timing for district attorney and sheriff elections by tying their cycle to the presidential primary. If those offices are not finally decided under the nomination rules referenced in the Elections Code, AB 868 treats the earlier election as the primary and requires the final contest to be held with the presidential general election.
The statute also allows county boards of supervisors to opt to hold most county officer elections (excluding county superintendent of schools) with the presidential primary rather than the statewide gubernatorial primary, giving local governments limited flexibility over timing.AB 868 preserves several procedural points: write‑in candidacies remain possible in the general where the primary did not occur because only one or two candidates filed; charter counties that had already specified election timing in their charters before January 1, 2021, keep those charter provisions; and the bill sets a transitional rule that a district attorney or sheriff elected in 2022 will serve a six‑year term, with the next election scheduled for the 2028 presidential primary. Together, these changes alter when contests are decided, who appears on which ballot, and how counties must plan ballot content and election budgets.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Section 8140 is changed so county nonpartisan offices no longer can be elected outright at the primary; instead the two highest vote‑getters at the primary proceed to the general election.
If only one or two candidates file for a county nonpartisan office, the primary is waived and those candidate(s) appear directly on the ensuing general election ballot.
Section 1300 requires elections for district attorney and sheriff to be held with the presidential primary, and if those offices are not finally decided at that stage a county general election will be held with the presidential general.
A county board of supervisors may adopt an ordinance to move the election for any county officer (except county superintendent of schools) to the presidential primary in lieu of the statewide gubernatorial primary.
Charter counties that had expressly set election timing in their charters on or before January 1, 2021, remain exempt from the new timing requirement; write‑in candidacies for the general election are preserved where primaries are bypassed.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Legislative findings on primary turnout and representation
This prefatory section compiles data and conclusions about turnout gaps between primaries and generals—particularly for Latino, Asian American, young, and low‑income voters—and frames the bill’s purpose as correcting representational inequities by changing when certain local offices are decided. Practically, the findings establish the statutory intent that underpins the timing and nomination changes in later sections, which matters for interpreting ambiguous implementation questions.
Schedules DA and sheriff elections; defines follow‑up general timing
Section 1300 now fixes district attorney and sheriff elections to the presidential primary year and says that if a final selection procedure in the Elections Code does not produce a winner at that stage, the earlier vote will be treated as the primary and the final county contest will take place with the presidential general. It also clarifies that the rule applies to general law and charter counties except those already locked in by charter language before Jan 1, 2021, and includes a special transitional six‑year term for DAs and sheriffs elected in 2022.
Carve‑out: majority‑wins rule excluded for county nonpartisan offices
Section 8140(a) preserves the existing majority‑at‑primary rule for many nonpartisan offices generally but explicitly excludes county nonpartisan offices from that rule. Mechanically, that means a candidate who previously could be ‘elected’ by securing a primary majority will no longer win outright if the office is a county nonpartisan post—the primary becomes nominating rather than decisive for such offices.
Establishes top‑two advancement and primary waiver
This subdivision requires that for county nonpartisan offices the two candidates with the highest primary vote totals proceed to the general election (top‑two). It also includes a practical shortcut: if two or fewer candidates file, the primary is unnecessary and the filing candidates simply appear on the ensuing general ballot. The provision preserves write‑in access for the general election where the primary did not occur and clarifies applicability across charter counties and charter city/county exceptions.
Transition timing and charter exceptions
The bill builds in specific transition language—a 2022 DA or sheriff will serve six years with the next election in 2028—to align cycles with the new schedule. It also protects charter counties that had already set election timing in their charters before Jan 1, 2021, and excludes county superintendent of schools from the board of supervisors’ opt‑in authority. Those carve‑outs create a patchwork of timing rules that counties must reconcile against existing charters and local ordinances.
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 in historically underrepresented groups (young, Latino, Asian American, low‑income, renters): moving decisive contests to higher‑turnout general elections increases the likelihood that these voters are part of the electorate deciding local offices.
- Candidates who rely on broader, general‑election electorates: challengers who struggle to mobilize a small primary base may gain access to a larger voter pool in November.
- Civic organizations and get‑out‑the‑vote groups focused on general elections: the reform concentrates more consequential races in the general where their existing outreach infrastructure is usually stronger.
Who Bears the Cost
- County election offices: more contests carried into the general will increase ballot length, printing and postage costs, staffing needs, and vote‑counting workload during busy November cycles.
- Incumbent candidates who previously benefited from low‑turnout primaries: officials used to winning at spring primaries face longer campaigns, higher fundraising demands, and greater exposure to broader electorates.
- Candidates and campaigns generally: extending the competitive window to the general raises campaign costs and may advantage better‑funded challengers, consultants, and outside groups.
- Boards of supervisors and county governments: if counties choose to alter election timing via ordinance, they must manage calendar changes, legal review for charter conflicts, and potential voter education costs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill confronts a classic trade‑off: increase equity by moving decisive local contests into high‑turnout general elections, while accepting higher administrative costs, longer and more expensive campaigns, and a risk that better‑resourced actors dominate the extended November contests—there is no guarantee the shift will produce more informed or better representation, only a different electorate and a different set of winners and losers.
AB 868 advances representational aims by moving many county decisions into higher‑turnout elections, but it does so by reassigning when contests are final and who bears the administrative load. Practically, counties will need to update calendars, budgets, and ballot‑design processes; counties that opt into presidential primary timing must reconcile that calendar with other offices and potential county‑specific charter language.
The bill’s exemptions—most notably for charter counties with pre‑2021 charter timing and for county superintendents of schools—create a mixed landscape where neighboring counties could operate on different schedules, increasing voter confusion and complicating regional coordination.
Policy trade‑offs also matter at the electoral level. Shifting to top‑two for county posts reduces the chance that a small, engaged primary electorate decides offices, but it lengthens the campaign season and increases costs for candidates.
That can advantage better‑funded campaigns and outside spenders, potentially substituting one representational problem for another. The statute leaves unanswered operational questions: how counties should sequence mail and vote‑center outreach across a longer campaign season, how special elections or vacancy appointments interact with the new cycles, and whether state reimbursement will match the higher costs counties incur in November.
Finally, the interaction between these changes and other nominations rules referenced (for example, Sections 8140 and 8141) may generate interpretive disputes that require guidance from the Secretary of State or litigation if calendars or charter provisions are ambiguous.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.