SB 1369 amends California’s Elections Code to change three features of recall petitions. It requires any paid signature gatherer to tell each potential signer, orally and before handing over the petition, that they are being paid; it requires the short statement of reasons for a recall to be signed by the proponents under penalty of perjury; and it sets a uniform 80‑day calendar for submitting recall petitions to remove superior court judges.
These are procedural changes with real compliance and enforcement consequences. The oral-disclosure rule forces training, language and accessibility accommodations for circulators; the sworn‑statement requirement converts certain recall paperwork into potential criminal evidence; and the 80‑day deadline compresses the organizing window for judge recalls, advantaging professional gatherers and increasing pressure on local election offices to process filings quickly.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds an oral disclosure duty for paid petition circulators, requires proponents to sign the recall statement of reasons under penalty of perjury (limited to 200 words), and prescribes an 80‑day filing period for petitions to recall superior court judges. It keeps existing notice text and formatting requirements for petitions.
Who It Affects
Paid signature gatherers and the firms that employ them, proponents of recall petitions, county clerks and elections officials who process filings, and any campaign or organization planning a recall of a superior court judge.
Why It Matters
SB 1369 moves parts of recall campaigning from administrative regulation toward criminal exposure and operational compliance. That changes risk calculations for grassroots organizers and commercial circulator firms, and it creates new practical burdens for election administrators and multilingual or accessibility accommodations.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 1369 works through three code sections to change how recall petitions are presented, sworn, and timed. First, it modifies the petition-notice rules so that, beyond the printed disclosure already required on petitions, any paid circulator must orally tell each person—before handing over the petition—that they are being paid.
The bill is absolute: the disclosure must be made regardless of whether the signer asks. That language is aimed at increasing on-the-spot transparency about who is being compensated to collect signatures.
Second, the bill changes the notice of intention that recall proponents file. The short statement of reasons — capped at 200 words in existing law — must now be signed by the proponents under penalty of perjury.
That turns a previously administrative declaration into a sworn statement whose falsity could support criminal charges. The bill leaves the 200‑word limit intact but adds the legal exposure that comes with perjury law, and it retains existing requirements for proponents to provide printed names, signatures, and residence addresses.Third, SB 1369 standardizes the submission window for petitions to recall superior court judges: petitioners will have 80 days from the clerk’s (or Secretary of State’s) notification that petition language is acceptable to file signatures, regardless of how large the jurisdiction is.
For other local offices the bill keeps the graduated schedule tied to registered‑voter counts. The 80‑day rule compresses the timeline for judge recalls compared with the longest existing deadlines in large jurisdictions and could alter strategies for signature collection.Finally, the bill contains a technical fiscal note: it declares that the state need not reimburse local agencies because the act creates or changes a crime or infraction.
Practically, that means local governments may bear the costs of any enforcement actions that arise from the new perjury exposure or related litigation. Together, the changes shift recall law from purely administrative mechanics toward an environment where disclosure compliance and sworn statements carry enforceable legal consequences.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Section 101 requires paid circulators to orally disclose to each person, before providing the petition for signature, that they are being paid — and to do so even if the signer does not ask.
Section 11020 requires the recall’s statement of reasons to be signed by the proponents under penalty of perjury and preserves the existing 200‑word cap on that statement.
Section 11020 also keeps minimum-proponent thresholds tied to jurisdiction size: generally 50 proponents (or five times the nomination‑paper signatures) for state and large local offices, 30 proponents for smaller local offices.
Section 11220 retains the graduated filing windows tied to registered‑voter counts for most local recalls but imposes a flat 80‑day filing deadline for petitions seeking to recall a superior court judge, regardless of jurisdiction size.
The bill’s final section asserts no state reimbursement is required because the new perjury signing requirement creates a change in criminal law, which shifts potential enforcement costs to local agencies.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Petition notice and oral paid-circulator disclosure
This section preserves the petition formatting and printed notice requirements (11‑point type, a boldface NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC, and a printed line that the petition may be circulated by paid gatherers) and adds an absolute oral-disclosure duty. Practically, employers of paid circulators must train staff to deliver the disclosure before handing over petitions and document compliance practices. The bill does not create a private right of action or specify penalties for failing to disclose, so enforcement would rely on existing administrative complaint processes or prosecution under other statutes.
Signed, sworn statement of reasons and proponent information
This provision changes the notice of intention by requiring the 200‑word statement of reasons to be signed under penalty of perjury by the listed proponents and keeps the name, signature, and residence address requirements. That modification imports perjury law into the recall‑filing process: false statements could trigger criminal investigations. Campaigns and proponent groups will need legal review workflows to vet the wording and ensure each listed proponent understands the criminal exposure before signing.
Filing deadlines for recall petitions (flat 80 days for judge recalls)
Section 11220 keeps the tiered filing windows tied to registration counts (40, 60, 90, 120, 160 days) for most local recalls but explicitly makes the filing window 80 days for petitions targeting a superior court judge, irrespective of jurisdiction voter totals. That creates a one‑size‑fits‑all timeline for judge recalls that shortens the maximum period available in very large counties and imposes a uniform planning horizon for proponents and elections officials.
Fiscal effect and reimbursement declaration
The bill declares no state reimbursement is required under the California Constitution because the act changes the definition or penalties of a crime (the perjury signing requirement). The clause signals that local agencies would likely absorb enforcement or litigation costs tied to the new criminal exposure rather than receive state compensation. That affects county budgets and legal offices that may be asked to investigate or defend related cases.
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 seeking transparency — they get an on-the-spot, oral statement when a paid circulator is involved, which reduces the chance of being misled about who is collecting signatures.
- People targeted by meritless or deceptive recall campaigns — the perjury requirement raises the legal risk for false claims, creating a stronger deterrent against dishonest statements in the notice of intention.
- County election officials handling judge recalls — a uniform 80‑day rule simplifies the calendar and standardizes internal processing expectations across jurisdictions for that class of recall.
Who Bears the Cost
- Paid signature gatherers and the firms that hire them — they must train circulators to make oral disclosures, track compliance, and may face complaints or enforcement risk if disclosures are missed.
- Proponents of recalls — they now sign the reasons under penalty of perjury, which increases legal exposure and will likely prompt campaigns to obtain legal review before filing.
- County and local governments — while the bill disclaims state reimbursement, counties may face more complaints, inspections, or prosecutions related to perjury claims and will need to field administrative inquiries and possible litigation.
- Grassroots organizers and volunteer-driven campaigns — the combination of sworn statements and stricter timelines (for judge recalls) favors professionally managed signature drives and raises the bar for low-budget efforts.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill balances voter-protection and campaign-integrity goals against the risk of criminalizing ordinary political speech and raising practical barriers to participation: it makes recall filings more legally enforceable and transparent, but in doing so it increases legal exposure for grassroots actors and shifts compliance costs onto local administrators and circulators.
The perjury requirement converts a short political statement into potential criminal evidence, which creates practical and legal uncertainty. Proving perjury requires establishing that a signer knowingly made a false statement; that mens rea standard can be hard to meet in politicized contexts, and it may produce selective enforcement or chill legitimate political complaints.
Campaigns will likely add prefiling legal review to avoid exposure, increasing transaction costs for recall proponents.
The oral disclosure rule is simple on paper but messy in practice. The bill does not define what constitutes adequate disclosure for non‑English speakers, people with hearing impairments, or contexts where the circulator and signer do not speak the same language.
It also does not set a penalty for failure to disclose; enforcement appears to depend on complaints or prosecution under related statutes. Finally, the bill’s change to an 80‑day clock for superior court judges standardizes the timeline but may advantage commercial circulator operations that can mobilize quickly and disadvantage small, volunteer-driven efforts that cannot compress signature gathering without paid help.
There are also textual and drafting oddities in the petition-notice language that could generate confusion in implementation (for example, an inserted line about ‘‘OFFICIAL TOP FUNDERS’’ that reads like a drafting error). Election officials will need guidance or rulemaking to interpret how the printed and oral disclosures interact and to develop procedures for handling disputes, complaints, and potential criminal referrals arising from signed statements.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.