Assemblymember Sabrina Cervantes, a Democrat representing Corona, is currently campaigning for a spot in the state Senate. However, her voting record this year shows that she has missed nearly two-thirds of her available voting opportunities, totaling 1,647 out of 2,510, as determined by her committee assignments and participation in floor sessions.
According to her staff, the majority of these absences were due to two “excused” reasons: one was related to a death in her family, and the other occurred after she fell ill at the Democratic National Convention in August. An analysis by CalMatters’ Digital Democracy indicates that six additional lawmakers also missed over a quarter of their voting chances this year, with similar circumstances surrounding their absences, mainly due to health issues or family emergencies.
The California Legislature does not differentiate between lawmakers who are absent, whether excused or unexcused, and those who are present but abstain from voting. All are categorized under “No Vote Recorded” (NVR), which counts the same as a legislator casting a “no” vote. Sean McMorris, a program manager for California Common Cause, expressed concerns that this lack of clarity regarding absences might foster skepticism among the public regarding the integrity of lawmakers.
Amid a legislative body primarily composed of Democrats who generally vote in favor of measures, the instances of close votes are relatively few. However, data reveals that 45 bills were effectively stalled this year because NVRs were interpreted as “no” votes. During peak times, such as the Democratic National Convention when 21 legislators were absent for a busy week, lawmakers acknowledged that these absences can significantly impact legislative outcomes.
Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas and Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire chose not to engage in interviews about the implications of how absences and abstentions are recorded. Nevertheless, some legislators, like Assemblymember Chris Holden from Pasadena, indicated that the rules could benefit from a thorough discussion aimed at improving transparency.
Lorena Gonzalez, who leads the California Labor Federation after her tenure as an Assemblymember, highlighted the difficulties her organization faces in ranking lawmakers due to the ambiguities surrounding non-voting situations. For example, although Cervantes received a perfect score from Gonzalez’s group in 2023, she still missed eight votes on 12 priority bills. González believes in Cervantes’ commitment to labor issues, yet the uncertainty surrounding how legislators’ absence is classified complicates the process of assessing their performance.
Absent voting policies differ in other states. Colorado records votes separately for absent members versus those abstaining while still counting all as “no” votes. Hawaii, on the other hand, offers legislators an option to vote “yes with reservations,” which is treated as an affirmative vote.
The California Legislature’s session spans approximately seven months annually, with crucial voting concentrated around specific deadlines—particularly the “house of origin” cutoff in late spring and the last week of sessions before adjournment in August or September. These periods often demand that lawmakers face over 200 votes in a single day, contributing to Cervantes’ high missed vote tally despite her being ranked fourth in total days absent.
This year, seven legislators missed over a quarter of their voting chances, often due to health-related issues. Notably, Assemblymember Megan Dahle, a Republican from Redding, missed 88 days recovering from a stroke, leading to a significant voting loss of 1,206 opportunities—or 54%—while also indicating that many absentees suffered from various personal or medical challenges. Other legislators also had notable absences for personal reasons, stress on the system of documenting votes emerged.
Legislators in California cannot vote remotely, a rule that drew attention during a 2020 incident involving Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, who had to bring her newborn to the Capitol after being denied a remote voting option. When absent, legislators are prohibited from designating a staff member or another member to vote on their behalf, emphasizing the rigid protocols governing participation.
The sole public record of “excused” absences can be found in the “Daily Journal” published by each chamber’s clerk’s office. Legislators are not entitled to a per diem if they miss votes due to personal matters without officially seeking an excused absence. A trip to Chicago for the Democratic National Convention saw 21 legislators attend, leading them to miss critical votes during a key legislative period, as they returned just in time for important speeches.
Senator Dave Cortese expressed that these missed votes could have shifted results on contentious legislation he was navigating, suggesting many decisions may have swung differently had more members been present to contribute.
Not all absences stem from personal emergencies; Assemblymember Bill Essayli, a Republican from Corona, stated that he often refrains from voting even when present as a courtesy to avoid offending bill sponsors. He articulates that not every bill warrants a definitive “yes” or “no” vote.
McMorris commented that abstaining could sometimes be a strategic choice to maintain colleagues’ favor, although he suggested constituents may question lawmakers’ decision to avoid voting based on their personal convictions. Assemblymember Corey Jackson highlighted the importance of transparent voting, asserting that clear stances are essential for addressing challenges like homelessness and rising living costs in California, regardless of the potential backlash from various interests.
As California contends with pressing legislative challenges, the implications of lawmakers’ voting habits and attendance are sure to remain a topic of scrutiny and debate.