GOOD AFTERNOON AND
WELCOME TO THE AUGUST 23RD 2023
HEARING OF THE ASSEMBLY
ELECTIONS COMMITTEE. WE DO NOT
HAVE A QUORUM PRESENT, SO WE
WILL BEGIN AS A SUBCOMMITTEE. IF
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ARE
MONITORING THIS HEARING, PLEASE
COME TO ROOM FOR PORK FOUR WHERE
IT'S VIBRATING A LOT, UH, THE
STATE CAPITAL, AND WE CAN
ESTABLISH A QUORUM. WE HAVE TWO
OPTIONS FOR THE PUBLIC TO
TESTIFY AT TODAY'S HEARING, IN
PERSON OR BY A MODERATED
TELEPHONE SERVICE. THE COMMITTEE
HAS ONE ITEM ON ITS AGENDA, AND
THERE WAS NOTHING ON CONSENT. WE
WILL HAVE A MAXIMUM OF TWO
PRIMARY WITNESSES AND SUPPORT
AND TO PRIMARY WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION OF THE MEASURE. WITH
A LIMIT OF TWO MINUTES PER
WITNESS. AFTER WE HAVE HEARD
FROM THE PRIMARY WITNESSES, THE
PUBLIC WILL HAVE UP TO 15
MINUTES IN TOTAL TIME FOR
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT,
STARTING WITH THE MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC WHO ARE HERE IN THE ROOM.
OTHER WITNESSES ARE LIMITED TO
PROVIDING THEIR NAME THEIR
ORGANIZATION THEY REPRESENT, IF
ANY, AND THEIR POSITION ON THE
BILL. THREE ITEMS NAME.
ORGANIZATION POSITION.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS WILL BE
RULED OUT OF ORDER. IF YOU'RE
UNABLE TO GET THROUGH ON THE
PHONE, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO
SUBMIT WRITTEN TESTIMONY THROUGH
THE PORTAL ON THE COMMITTEE'S
WEBSITE. THIS WRITTEN TESTIMONY
WILL BECOME PART OF THE OFFICIAL
RECORD OF THE BILL. FOR THOSE
WHO ARE WATCHING THIS HEARING
REMOTELY AND WISH TO CALL IN TO
REGISTER YOUR POSITION. THE CALL
IN NUMBER FOR THIS HEARING IS
877 692. 895. AND THE ACCESS
CODE IS 131 54 44. YOU CAN ALSO
FIND THIS NUMBER ON THE ASSEMBLY
ELECTIONS COMMITTEE WEBSITE AS
WELL AS ON YOUR TV OR COMPUTER
SCREEN. IF YOU'RE CALLING IN,
PLEASE ELIMINATE ALL BACKGROUND
NOISE. THIS INCLUDES MUTING YOUR
LIVESTREAM BROADCAST AND YOU'RE
SMART DEVICES TO REDUCE THE
SOUND DISTORTION. IF YOU'RE
HAVING ANY PROBLEMS WITH THE
MODERATOR PHONE SERVICE, YOU CAN
CALL THE COMMITTEE AT 916. 319.
2094 AND THE COMMITTEE STAFF
WILL BE THERE TO TRY TO HELP.
THANK YOU FOR BEARING WITH US AS
WE IMPLEMENT METHODS TO CONTINUE
TO SERVE THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA. DOING THIS YEAR.
OKAY BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE
AGENDA, I HAVE TWO ADDITIONAL
ANNOUNCEMENTS TO MAKE. FIRST I
HAVE A LETTER FROM SPEAKER REVIS
APPOINTING ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S KATE
SANCHEZ. TO REPLACE
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S BILA SALLY ON
THE COMMITTEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF
TODAY'S HEARING ONLY SECOND I
HAVE A LETTER FROM SPEAKER REVIS
APPOINTING A SILLY MEMBER MARK
BERMAN, WHO WAS NOT HERE YET TO
FILL THE DEMOCRATIC VACANCY ON
THE COMMITTEE. FOR THE PURPOSE
OF TODAY'S HEARING, ONLY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S SANCHEZ AND
BERMAN. THANK YOU FOR JOINING
US. WITH THOSE ANNOUNCEMENTS OUT
OF THE WAY WE WILL NOW MOVE ON
TO THE COMMITTEE'S AGENDA. THE
ONLY ITEM ON THE AGENDA TODAY IS
A C A 13 BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
WARD. ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S THANK YOU
FOR JOINING US TODAY AND YOU MAY
PRESENT YOUR MEASURE. THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS. I'M
HERE TO PRESENT A C A. 13 IS A
MEASURE THAT ASKED JUST ONE VERY
SIMPLE BUT IMPORTANT QUESTION IF
A MEASURE IS PROPOSED TO RAISE A
VOTE THRESHOLD TO GREATER THAN A
MAJORITY CERTAIN THE SAME
PROPORTION OF VOTERS BEING
AGREEMENT. CURRENTLY UNDER
CALIFORNIA LAW, ANY BALLOT
MEASURE APPROVED BY A MAJORITY
OF VOTERS COULD SELECTIVELY
REQUIRE A FUTURE SUPER MAJORITY
TO PASS WITH THE FOR A FUTURE
QUESTION. A 13 TO PROTECT AND
RETAINED THE MAJORITY VOTE ACT
WOULD RETAIN THE MAJORITY VOTE
REQUIREMENT FOR PASSAGE OF STATE
AND LOCAL INITIATIVES BY
REQUIRING ANY STATEWIDE
INITIATIVE SEEKING TO INCREASE
THE THRESHOLD TO ALSO BE
APPROVED BY THE SAME HIGHER
THRESHOLD THAT IS PROPOSING.
WITH A PATTERN OF ABUSE OF OUR
INITIATIVE PROCESS TO USE A
LOWER THRESHOLD TO SET HIGHER
THRESHOLDS FOR FUTURE VOTERS AND
WORSE USING THIS TACTIC TO
EXTRACT LEGISLATIVE ACTION FOR
SPECIAL INTERESTS, THE TIME IS
RIGHT FOR THE LEGISLATURE TO
REFLECT THE PROTECTION AFFORDED
IN THE OREGON CONSTITUTION SINCE
1998 AND ADOPT A C 13 TO SEND IT
TO THE VOTERS FOR THEIR
CONSIDERATION. THE SUCCESS OF
THESE TACTICS SPENT MEANS WOULD
MEAN THAT IN FUTURE ELECTIONS,
QUESTIONS WOULD BE DECIDED
THROUGH A VETO PATTERN OF A
MINORITY, NOT THE WILL OF A
MAJORITY, AND THIS IS INHERENTLY
UNDEMOCRATIC. THIS MEASURE HAS
BEEN CHARACTERIZED AS EMINENTLY
SENSIBLE AND IT'S VERY BASIC.
AGAIN IF A MEASURE IS PROPOSED
TO RAISE A VOTE THRESHOLD TO
GREATER THAN A MAJORITY
SHOULDN'T ACHIEVE THE SAME VOTE
THRESHOLD THAT IT PROPOSES TO
ENACT. WE OFTEN SEE THIS ISSUE
PAIRED WITH REVENUE QUESTIONS
AND MAKE NO MISTAKE RAISING THE
VOTER THRESHOLD FOR LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS WITHOUT THE SAME
LEVEL OF SUPPORT OF VOTERS
JEOPARDIZES THEIR ABILITY TO
DELIVER ESSENTIAL SERVICES,
INCLUDING THE FUNDING FOR
SCHOOLS, PUBLIC SAFETY,
HOMELESSNESS, HOUSING AND MORE.
BUT IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT A
REVENUE QUESTION. OHIO ISSUE ONE
ATTEMPTED TO RAISE THRESHOLDS TO
THWART A QUESTION ON
REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS SUPER
MAJORITY VOTES FOR LOCAL HOUSING
POLICY, OR CITING SHELTERS FOR
HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS HAVE ALSO
BEEN FLUID. REALLY ANY SUBJECT
COULD COME UP. THIS MEASURE WILL
PROTECT AND RETAIN THE MAJORITY
VOTE FOR THESE IMPORTANT
QUESTIONS. IT ALSO PROVIDES
CLARITY FOR THE RIGHTS OF LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS TO SUBMIT AN
ADVISORY VOTE TO THE VOTERS
SUBJECT TO A MAJORITY VOTE TO
PROVIDE FEEDBACK ON THEIR
PRIORITIES AS THEY SEE FIT. NOW,
I'D LIKE TO PRESENT MY WITNESSES
AND SUPPORTED THIS MEASURE ANY
CHILD FROM THE CALIFORNIA
TEACHERS ASSOCIATION AND VENTURE
BOTH FROM THE LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA CITIES. AND YOU REACH
OUT TWO MINUTES. MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS ANY CHILD WITH THE
CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION
SUPPORTING A C 13, WHICH
ENSHRINES THE DEMOCRATIC
PRINCIPLE OF ONE PERSON, ONE
VOTE. A C 13 PROTECT SCHOOL
FUNDING AND LOCAL CONTROL. IN
ADDITION TO STATE GENERAL FUND
ALLOCATED TO SCHOOLS, LOCAL
GOVERNMENT HAVE THE ABILITY TO
ADDRESS THEIR NEEDS BY USING
BALLOT MEASURES TO ASK VOTERS TO
APPROVE ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR
SCHOOLS. THIS IS FUNDING FOR
CLASSROOMS TO SUPPORT STUDENTS
AND TEACHERS AND FOR ARTS AND
MUSIC EDUCATION. A LEAK OF
CALIFORNIA, UM, STUDY SHOWED IN
2020 VOTERS APPROVED $2 BILLION
THROUGH LOCAL MEASURES JUST FOR
SCHOOL FUNDING. IT'S INTEGRAL TO
ENSURE THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND
VOTERS RETAIN THE ABILITY TO
RECOGNIZE WHAT THEIR COMMUNITIES
NEED MOST AND CAN ACT ON IT. C T
HAS BEEN ON THE FOREFRONT OF
ENSURING STABILITY IN SCHOOL
FUNDING AND AVOIDING CUTS TO
EDUCATION THROUGH PROP 30 2012
AND ITS EXTENSION PROP 55 IN
2016 PROP 13 PASSED BY 55% VOTES
WITH 55% VOTER TURNOUT AND PROP
55 PASSED BY 63. WITH 59% VOTER
TURNOUT BOTH OCCURRED DURING
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION YEARS WITH
INCREASED VOTER PARTICIPATION
RATES AND PASSED BY A MAJORITY,
BUT BY NO MEANS A SUPERMAJORITY
VOTE. BOTH WOULD HAVE SEEN
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, LOST TWO
SCHOOLS THAT THEY DID NOT PASS.
AT THE TURN OF THE LAST DECADE,
CALIFORNIA WAS RANKED IN THE
MIDDLE THIRTIES AND IN THE
NATION IN PER PUPIL FUNDING,
THANKS TO A FOCUS ON INCREASED
FUNDING THROUGH PROP 30 PROP 55
AS WELL AS LOCAL MEASURES.
CALIFORNIA IS NOW 19TH. BUT THAT
IS NOWHERE NEAR WHERE WE SHOULD
BE WITH THE FIFTH LARGEST
ECONOMY IN THE WORLD. ENSURING
THE PASSAGE OF A C 13 IS
INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT TO PROTECT
STUDENTS AND TEACHERS. AND FOR
THOSE REASONS, CT URGES AND I
VOTE ON THIS PRIORITY BILL.
THANKS MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS,
BENCHER VOGTLI OF CALIFORNIA
CITIES PROUD SUPPORT OF 13
TODAY. AS WE MENTIONED, THE 13
WOULD REQUIRE ANY INITIATIVE
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO
CONFORM WITH ANY INCREASED
BUILDER THRESHOLD THAT IT SEEKS
TO IMPOSE ON FUTURE BALLOT
MEASURES. THIS MEASURE WOULD
ALSO PRESERVE THE RIGHT OF LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS TO PLACE ADVISORY
QUESTIONS ON THE BALLOT TO ASK
VOTERS THEIR OPINION ON ISSUES.
UNDER CURRENT LAW, A SIMPLE
MAJORITY VOTE TO REQUIRE A
SUPERMAJORITY VOTER APPROVAL FOR
FUTURE ACTIONS, EVEN WITH THE
CHORALE OF CORRESPONDING LEVEL
OF SUPPORT. AT THE LOCAL LEVEL.
THIS HAS MADE IT DIFFICULT TO
PASS REVENUE MEASURES DEDICATED
A CRITICAL SERVICES SUCH AS
HOMELESS HOMELESSNESS AND
HOUSING, FIRE, PUBLIC SAFETY AND
ROADS. FOR EXAMPLE, FROM 2001
2018 CITY REVENUE MEASURES WITH
A TWO THIRDS VOTE REQUIREMENT
HAVE ENJOYED ONLY 51% PASSAGE
RATE COMPARED TO A 70% PASSAGE
RATE OF ALL LOCAL REVENUE
MEASURES OVER THAT SAME PERIOD
OF TIME. THE STATUS QUO HAS
PREVENTED CITIES FROM PROVIDING
SERVICES DESPERATELY NEEDED.
REGARDLESS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
FIGHT TO PROTECT PUBLIC SERVICES
SUCH AS 911 DISPATCHERS AND
FIRST RESPONDERS. WE FIGHT TO
ENSURE WE HAVE CLEAN AND SAFE
STREETS, WE FIGHT TO PROVIDE
SHELTER THOSE EXPERIENCING
HOMELESSNESS. A 13 EMPOWERS
VOTERS TO DECIDE IF THEY WOULD
LIKE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL
PROTECTIONS THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT
REVENUE STREAMS AS LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS WERE ON THE FRONT
LINE OF CALIFORNIA'S CRISIS. NOW
IS NOT THE TIME TO TIE YOUR
HANDS BEHIND OUR BACK FOR THESE
REASONS. WE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
MY VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO THE
PRIMARY WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION
AS A REMINDER. EACH PRIMARY
WITNESS HAS A MAXIMUM OF TWO
MINUTES. SO COME ON UP AND HAVE
A SEAT HERE.
GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR AND MEMBERS
VANESSA CHAVEZ WITH THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
REALTORS HERE IN STRONG
OPPOSITION TO A C A 13. A CH 13
WILL FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE THE
INITIATIVE PROCESS BY INCREASING
THE VOTER THRESHOLD REQUIRED TO
PAST FUTURE PROPOSALS ON A
VARIETY OF DIFFERENT ISSUES,
INCLUDING THOSE RELATED TO TAXES
, ANIMAL RIGHTS AND EVEN HUMAN
RIGHTS. A C A 13 WILL
UNNECESSARILY MAKE THE
INITIATIVE PROCESS MORE
DIFFICULT TO NAVIGATE FOR
CALIFORNIANS MEASURES THAT CALL
FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES
ALREADY REQUIRED TO MEET A
HIGHER SIGNATURE GATHERING
STANDARD THAN THOSE THAT SEEK TO
AMEND A STATUTE. THOSE
THRESHOLDS ARE CURRENTLY 574,546
, RESPECTIVELY. MOST CONCERNING
CR IS THAT TO C A. R S THAT A C
A 13 WILL LIKELY HAVE UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES OF MAKING IT EASIER
FOR NIMBY GROUPS TO LIMIT THE
STATE'S PROGRESS. AND ACHIEVING
ITS HOUSING GOALS AND UP AND THE
HARD WORK DONE. AND THE RECENT
YEARS BY THE LEGISLATURE AND
ADMINISTRATION TO ALLEVIATE THE
HOUSING THE STATE HOUSING
CRISIS. FURTHER A C A 13 LIMITS
THE ABILITY OF HOMEOWNERS TO
VOICE THEIR TO HAVE THEIR VOICES
HEARD ON HOW TAXES ARE LEVIED
UPON THEM. AS A LEGISLATURE
CONTINUES ITS MEANINGFUL WORK TO
BRIDGE THE WEALTH GAP ADDITIONAL
TAX INCREASES ON HOMEOWNERS
WOULD MAKE FIRST TIME
HOMEOWNERSHIP LESS ATTAINABLE
FOR WORKING FAMILIES IN OUR
DIVERSE STATE, EFFECTIVELY WHAT
THE PROPONENTS ARE SAYING. WITH
A C A 13 IS THAT VOTERS CANNOT
BE TRUSTED TO MAKE DECISIONS
IMPACTING THEIR COMMUNITY. IF A
MEASURE ONLY NEEDS 50% PLUS ONE
VOTE TO PASS, INTERESTINGLY
ENOUGH, REPUBLICAN LED EFFORTS
IN STATES SUCH AS OHIO, FLORIDA
AND MISSOURI HAVE ATTEMPTED TO
LIMIT THE VOICE OF VOTERS
THROUGH SIMILAR MEASURES.
DEMOCRATS FROM OTHER STATES HAVE
RAISED CONCERNS REGARDING THE
NEGATIVE IMPACTS. THAT THE
PROPOSALS OF THIS NATURE WOULD
HAVE ON THE ABILITY OF VOTERS TO
MEANINGFULLY PARTICIPATE IN THE
INITIATIVE PROCESS. AND FOR
THESE REASONS, WE MUST
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR NOVA
ON A CIA 13. THANK YOU. SCOTT
KAUFMAN. LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR.
HOWARD DRIVERS TAXPAYER
ASSOCIATION IN OPPOSITION. A C
A. 13 REMINDS US OF THE RECENTLY
FAILED EFFORT IN OHIO TO MAKE IT
MORE DIFFICULT TO PASS
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS. IN
OHIO WHEN REPUBLICANS ATTEMPTED
TO RAISE THE VOTER THRESHOLD FOR
ALL CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS,
MANY IN THIS LEGISLATURE
EXPRESSED OUTRAGE. EVEN
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN CALLED IT A
BLATANT ATTEMPT TO WEAKEN
VOTERS, VOICES AND GOVERNOR
GATHERED IN. NEWSOM SAID THE GOP
TRIED TO SILENCE THE WILL OF THE
VOTERS ON LIKE OHIO. THIS
LEGISLATURE HAS NOTABLY EXEMPTED
ITSELF FROM A C 13 AND WOULD
SEEMINGLY ONLY REQUIRE HIGHER
CONSTITUTIONAL THRESHOLD TO
IMPOSE NEW LIMITS ON TAXATION.
MAJORITIES OF CALIFORNIA VOTERS
HAVE ROUTINELY AND CONSISTENTLY
DEMANDED STRONGER REQUIREMENTS
FOR NEW AND HIGHER TAXES,
PROPOSITION 13 AND 1978
PROPOSITION 62 AND 1986
PROPOSITION TO 18 AND 1996
PROPOSITION, 26 AND 2010. HOW IS
CREATING A TWO TIERED SYSTEM FOR
AMENDING THE CALIFORNIA STATE
CONSTITUTION ANY LESS DEMOCRATIC
THAN OHIO? WE WOULD ARGUE A C 13
IS MORE SO A C 13 IS AN ATTACK
ON THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY
FURTHER SINCE OUR STATE
CONSTITUTION WAS PASSED IN 18 49
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS HAVE
REQUIRED A MAJORITY OF MAJORITY
VOTE OF THE ELECTORATE. AT NO
TIME IN THE STATE'S HISTORY HAVE
CONSTITUTIONAL MOVEMENTS HAD
DIFFERENT THRESHOLD FOR VOTER
FOR VOTER APPROVAL, BASED ON
THEIR CONTENT, A SAY 13 IS
ATTACK ON CONSTITUTIONAL NORMS.
IT ALSO BEGS THE QUESTION WHY
THE LEGISLATURE WOULD IMPOSE
SUCH CONTENT BASED DISTINCTIONS
TO PASS CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENTS WHEN NONE HAVE
EXISTED BEFORE. SINCE THERE IS
NO PRECEDENT FOR THIS, IT SEEMS
AN OBVIOUS ATTEMPT TO UNDERMINE
AN INITIATIVE THAT IS ALREADY
QUALIFIED FOR THE BALLOT. THE
TAXPAYER PROTECTION GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT WILL RESTORE
VOTER THRESHOLDS THAT HAVE THAT
THREAT BORDER RESTORE VOTER
THRESHOLDS THAT THE STATE
CONSTITUTION ALREADY REQUIRES.
FOR NEW AND HIGHER TAXES. THESE
THRESHOLDS WERE SET BY VOTERS
WHEN THEY APPROVED PROPOSITION
13 AND 2 18. THEY ARE CENTRAL
TENANTS OF PROPOSITION 13 AND 2
18 AND A C A 13 IS AN ATTACK ON
PROPOSITION 13. BUT NO ONE A C A
13 IS AN ATTACK ON THE WORLD OF
VOTERS, CONSTITUTIONAL NORMS AND
PROTESTANTS PROPOSITION 13. AND
THEN HERE ON THE TABLE, YOU MAY
BE WONDERING. WE HAVE MORE THAN
1800 LETTERS FROM YOUR
CONSTITUENTS AND VOTERS FROM
ACROSS CALIFORNIA ASKING YOU TO
OPPOSE A C A 13 AND PROTECT
PROPOSITION 13. SINCE WE PRINTED
THESE LETTERS WE HAVE COLLECTED
MORE THAN 4000 LETTERS AND LESS
THAN 48 HOURS. IN LESS THAN 48
HOURS. WE URGE YOU TO LISTEN TO
THE THOUSANDS OF YOUR VOTERS AND
OPPOSE A C 13. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. LET'S MOVE ON TO
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES AND SUPPORT
OR OPPOSITION WILL START WITH
THOSE WHO ARE IN THE COMMITTEE
ROOM. AND I WANT TO REMIND YOU
THAT YOU'RE JUST TO PROVIDE YOUR
NAME. THE ORGANIZATION YOU
REPRESENT AND YOUR POSITION ON
THE MEASURE. NICOLE WARDIMAN ON
BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ONTARIO
AND SUPPORT MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
PAULSON'S OFFICE ON BEHALF OF
THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE IN
SUPPORT. HONORABLE CAVA WITH
ALLIANCE OF CALIFORNIANS FOR
COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT AND
SUPPORT. JESSICA WITH THE
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION, PROUD CO SPONSOR
KAREN START WITH POWER
CALIFORNIA ACTION IN SUPPORT.
SYLVIA SO LEASH ON BEHALF OF THE
CITY OF WEST HOLLYWOOD AND
SUPPORT THANK YOU. ERIC TURNER
ON BEHALF OF THE TOWN OF APPLE
VALLEY AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS TRISTAN,
BROWNWOOD, CFT UNION EDUCATORS
AND CLASSIFIED PROFESSIONALS IN
SUPPORT. CARLY SHELBY ON BEHALF
OF THE CITIES OF OAKLAND, PALO
ALTO BRIT BOY IN A PARKING BRAND
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MARCUS DETWEILER WITH
THE CALIFORNIA SPECIAL DISTRICTS
ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. FATIMA IQBAL, SO BEAR WITH
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS
IN SUPPORT. LAUREN REBOVICH ON
BEHALF OF HOUSING, CALIFORNIA
AND SUPPORT GOOD AFTERNOON,
TASIA STEPHENS WITH CATALYST,
CALIFORNIA AND STRONG SUPPORT.
AFTERNOON ERIC LAUREN BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION
OF COUNTIES, AND STRONG SUPPORT,
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, BRIAN
MARY MONTES WITH ASKED ME
CALIFORNIA AND SUPPORT. HE'S AN
EAGLE ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND SUPPORT.
FOR ALL BRODZINSKY ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIA COMMON CAUSE IN
SUPPORT. CRUZ WITH A CALIFORNIA
LABOR FEDERATION IN SUPPORT. I
THINK THEY CHOW WITH CALIFORNIA
CALLS AND SUPPORT MAGGIE TIE ON
BEHALF OF THE ASIAN PACIFIC
ENVIRONMENTAL NETWORK, ASIAN
AMERICAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDERS
FOR CIVIC EMPOWERMENT AND ALSO
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE ALLIANCE, REGISTERING IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. PRESTON
YOUNG FROM THE CALIFORNIA
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE HERE TODAY
IN OPPOSITION. MADAM CHAIR
MEMBERS, MATTHEW HARD OVER THE
CALIFORNIA BUSINESS PROPERTIES
ASSOCIATION HERE TODAY ON BEHALF
OF OUR 10,000 MEMBERS AND
ASSOCIATIONS. NAY UP OF
CALIFORNIA, BOMA, CALIFORNIA
ICSC IRAM, AND I ALSO STAND HERE
TODAY AS A CO CHAIR OF THE
TAXPAYER PROTECTION AND
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY ACT IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. MADAM
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. GOOD
AFTERNOON. ROB LAPSLEY,
CALIFORNIA BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE
ON BEHALF OF OUR ORGANIZATION
AND 47 OTHER ORGANIZATIONS
STATEWIDE WHO ARE NOT INCLUDED
IN THERE IN YOUR ANALYSIS TODAY
, WE WANTED TO BE CLEAR I IN OUR
STRONG OPPOSITION TO THIS
MEASURE. THANK YOU. OKAY BEFORE
WE GO ANY FURTHER, LET'S CALL
THE ROLL AND ESTABLISHED A
QUORUM. PELLERIN HERE, HELEN.
HERE, LACKEY HERE. HE HERE,
BENNETT. SANCHEZ SANCHEZ HERE,
LEE YEAH, I HEAR LOW. BLANCA
RUBIO BLANCA RUBIO HERE, BERMAN.
OKAY RIGHT NOW GOING TO BE
MOVING ON TO THE PHONE LINES AND
WHERE PEOPLE MAY AGAIN TELL US
YOUR NAME, YOUR ORGANIZATION
THAT YOU REPRESENT, IF ANY AND
YOUR POSITION ON THE MEASURE I
WAS JUST TOLD THAT 80. HE HAS A
CAP ON THE NUMBER OF PHONE LINES
THAT COULD CALL IN AND WE'RE AT
THAT CAP. WE'RE WORKING TO SEE
IF WE CAN OPEN IT UP TO MAKE
SURE EVERYONE WHO HAS A POSITION
ON THIS MEASURE CAN HAVE THEIR
POSITION BE KNOWN. AND AGAIN. I
WANT TO REMIND YOU THAT YOU CAN
GO TO OUR WEBSITE WITH THE FOR
THE ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS COMMITTEE
AND REGISTER YOUR POSITION THERE
AS WELL. SO MODERATOR, LET'S GO
AHEAD AND OPEN THE PHONE LINES
AND AGAIN A REMINDER YOUR NAME.
ORGANIZATION IF ANY POSITION AND
ANY OTHER COMMENTS WILL BE RULED
OUT OF ORDER. THANK YOU. ANYWAY
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO QUEUE UP
FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, PLEASE PRESS
ONE THAN ZERO. ONE, THEN ZERO
OUR FIRST WILL COME FROM MIND TO
36. PLEASE GO AHEAD. YOUR LINE
IS OPEN. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR
AND MEMBERS ARE A TOP ON BEHALF
OF THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO AND
SUPPORT NEXT. WE'RE GOING TO
LINE 2 25, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
RODRIGUEZ WILL GROW NOT I'M A
TAXPAYER, RETIRED TEACHER AND I
STRONGLY OPPOSE 88 13. NEXT
WE'RE GONNA GO TO LINE 200.
PLEASE GO AHEAD. MY NAME IS
LINDA. MARCEL I'M CALLING FROM
COUNTY AND EVERYONE I KNOW. AS
OPPOSED TO THIS BILL, UNTIL YOU
KNOW PEOPLE CANNOT GET FOOD TO
YOUR LINE. JUST HER NAME. THANK
YOU IN POSITION. NEXT CALLER. NO
NEXT. WE'RE GOING TO LINE 2 13.
PLEASE GO AHEAD. YOUR LINE IS
OPEN. JOSEPH PRITCHARD. TAXPAYER
I'M AN OPPOSITION OF A C A 13.
NEXT WE'RE GOING TO LINE 2 68,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. YES LINDA RICH
PLASTIC COUNTY. I AM IN STRONG
OPPOSITION. TO H C A 13. NEXT
WE'RE GOING TO LINE 2 35, PLEASE
GO AHEAD. JENNIFER ROLEX WITH
HEALTH ACCESS CALIFORNIA IN
SUPPORT. NEXT IS LINE TO 14.
PLEASE GO AHEAD. MY NAME IS ALAN
. ACCURATE I'M A TAXPAYER AND I
STRONGLY OPPOSE A CH 13. NEXT IS
LINE 1 82. PLEASE GO AHEAD. YOUR
LINE IS OPEN. IF YOU'RE HONEST
CHAMPAGNE ZAMORA WITH THE LEAGUE
OF WOMEN, VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA
AND ON BEHALF OF RUTH DAWSON
WITH A C L U CALIFORNIA ACTION
IN SUPPORT, THANK YOU. NEXT
WE'RE GOING TO LINE 1 93, PLEASE
GO AHEAD. BARRY FRANKLIN,
TAXPAYER OPPOSED TO A C A 13.
NEXT WE'RE GOING TO LINE 1 19,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. DAVID MACK Ó.
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA. TAXPAYER
OPPOSED TO A C 8 13. NEXT WE'RE
GOING TO FIND 203 203, PLEASE GO
AHEAD. HI IS THIS 80 WITH SAN
FRANCISCO RISING AND STRONG
SUPPORT? NEXT WE'RE GOING TO
LINE 1 37. PLEASE GO AHEAD. YOUR
LINE IS OPEN. I AM JODI BASHAM.
I'M A TAXPAYER AND I STRONGLY
OPPOSED A SEE A 1 88 13. NEXT
WE'RE GOING TO LINE 53 IS GO
AHEAD. YOUR LINE IS OPEN. HELLO
MY NAME IS TENNYSON. SEBASTIAN I
REPRESENT CALIFORNIA AND I'M
TAKING WHAT I EXPRESSED STRONG
OPPOSITION TO A C A 13. NEXT
WE'RE GOING TO BUY IN 1 99.
PLEASE GO AHEAD. AND MY NAME IS
ANTONIO BASKET ON AGAIN, WELL,
CALIFORNIA ON THE TAXPAYER, AND
I STRONGLY OPPOSED AND 13. AS A
REMINDER IF YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE
PUBLIC COMMENT, PLEASE PRESS
ONE, THEN ZERO. OUR NEXT COMES
FROM THE LINE. 96 PLEASE GO
AHEAD. TERESA HERMAN STRONGLY
OPPOSED. UM A SORRY. UM A C A
13. WE GOTCHA. YES, THANK YOU.
OKAY OKAY. NEXT WE'LL GO TO LINE
1 48, PLEASE GO AHEAD. MY NAME
IS JONATHAN RATTER FROM SAN
PEDRO AND I AND THE TAXPAYER AND
I STRONGLY OPPOSE A CH 13. NEXT
WE'RE GOING TO LINE 1 72, PLEASE
GO AHEAD. HELLO MY NAME IS INGA
LAWRENSON DORMER AND I'M IN VERY
STRONG OPPOSITION TO A 13. THANK
YOU. NEXT. WE'RE GOING TO LINE 1
70, PLEASE GO AHEAD. RICHARD
GREENE, TAXPAYER OPPOSED A C
1/13. NEXT WE'RE GOING TO LINE 2
57. PLEASE GO AHEAD. YOUR LINE
IS OPEN. HI THIS IS DAVID
JOHANSEN IN CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA
AND REPRESENTING SOME OF MY
NEIGHBORS THAT I'VE DISCUSSED
THIS WITH AND WE'RE ALL IN
STRONG OPPOSITION TO A C A 13.
NEXT WE'RE GOING TO GO TO LINE 1
90, PLEASE GO AHEAD. YOUR LINE
IS OPEN. STEVE GORDON, THE
TAXPAYER VOTER STRONGLY OPPOSED
. NEXT WE'RE GOING TO FIND 2 52
50, PLEASE GO AHEAD. THIS IS
JAMIE NHÀ WITH EPIC EMPOWERING
PACIFIC ISLANDER COMMUNITIES AND
I AM IN SUPPORT. OUR NEXT
COMMENTS WILL COME FROM LINE 1
41, PLEASE GO AHEAD. YOUR LINE
IS OPEN. MY NAME IS KATHLEEN
CALLOWAY. I AM A CALIFORNIA
TAXPAYER, AND I STRONGLY OPPOSE
A C A 13. NEXT WE'RE GOING TO
LINE 2 16. PLEASE GO AHEAD. YOUR
LINE IS OPEN. THIS IS LAURIE
IRWIN. I'M A TAXPAYER AND I'M
OPPOSED TO THE MEASURE. NEXT
WE'RE GOING TO LINE 2 TO 8 TO 28
. PLEASE GO AHEAD. MY NAME IS
ADELE WATKINS. I AM A TAXPAYER
AND CONTRACT PLASTIC COUNTY AND
I STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS MEASURE.
NEXT WE'RE GOING TO LINE 1 54,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. THIS IS MIMI
WILLARD. I AM PRESIDENT OF THE
COALITION OF SENSIBLE TAXPAYERS
. A TRANS PARTISAN ALLIANCE HAS
OVER 1800 RESIDENTS OF MARIN AND
WE STRONGLY OPPOSED UH, THIS AH,
A C A 13 THANK YOU. NEXT WE'RE
GOING TO LINE 2 TO 7 TO 27.
PLEASE GO AHEAD. LINE 2 TO 7.
POSSIBLY YOU HAVE YOUR MUTE
BUTTON ON. MOVING ON. WE'LL GO
TO THE NEXT LINE. IT'S 2 21,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. YOUR LINE IS
OPEN. MY NAME IS KATHLEEN
PRITCHETT. I'M A TAXPAYER AND
ALAMEDA COUNTY STRONGLY OPPOSED
TO KNOW A 13. NEXT WE'LL GO TO
LINE 2 10. PLEASE GO AHEAD. YOUR
LINE IS OPEN. HI MY NAME IS
CHRIS FUEL. I'M A CALIFORNIA
TAXPAYER PAIR AND I STRONGLY
OPPOSE THE CH 13. NEXT TO HIS
LINE. 108108 PLEASE GO AHEAD.
HELLO MY NAME IS JOSH LUX. I AM
A, UH, TAXPAYER HERE IN L. A
COUNTY AND I AM STRONGLY
OPPOSED. A C A 13. NEXT IS LINE
1 84. PLEASE GO AHEAD. YOUR LINE
IS OPEN. MY NAME IS ALAN BAKER
CAMPBELL. I'M A TAXPAYER AND
VOTER IN SAN DIEGO, AND I AM
STRONGLY OPPOSED TO SEE A 13.
NEXT IS LINED TO 18. PLEASE GO
AHEAD. YOUR LINE IS OPEN. MY
NAME IS ARLENE DUGAN. I'M A
TAXPAYER IN CALIFORNIA. AND I AM
OPPOSED TO A 13. NEXT IS LINE
206 206, PLEASE GO AHEAD. MY
NAME IS JOHN WILLING TO HAVE AND
I AM A HOUSING PROVIDER AND A
TAXPAYER. IN CALIFORNIA. AND I
SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO A C A 13.
NEXT IS LINE 1 44. PLEASE GO
AHEAD. YOUR LINE IS OPEN. SEAN
CASEY. CALIFORNIA TAXPAYER
STRONGLY OPPOSED 13. THANK YOU.
NEXT IS LINE 1 50. PLEASE GO
AHEAD. YOUR LINE IS OPEN.
THERE'S MAXIMUM GOING POSITION.
VEHEMENT OPPOSITION 13. NEXT
WE'LL GO TO LINE 1 74, PLEASE GO
AHEAD. YOUR LINE IS OPEN. MY
MAN. AND I SAY OPPOSITION. NEXT
WE'RE GONNA GO TO THE LINE OF
204. PLEASE GO AHEAD. YOUR LINE
IS OPEN. MY NAME IS SHIRLEY
BEASON. I AM A TAXPAYER AND I
STRONGLY OPPOSED A C A 13. NEXT
WE'RE GONNA GO TO LINE 1 29,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. YOUR LINE IS
OPEN. LINE 1 29. YOUR LINE IS
OPEN. THIS IS.
MODERATOR LET'S MOVE ON TO THE
NEXT COLOR. YEAH, THANK YOU.
OKAY THAT WILL BE LINE 1 15,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. MY NAME IS
CONNIE HAMRA LÀ. SCOTUS RESIDENT
. I AM HIGHLY OPPOSED TO A C A
13. NEXT WE'RE GONNA GO TO MINE
TO 47. PLEASE GO AHEAD. HI MY
NAME IS JENNY SANE. I'M A
VIGOROUS TAXPAYER OF VIGOROUS
VOTER AND I VIGOROUSLY SUPPORT
HD A 13. NEXT WE'RE GOING TO GO
TO LINE 2 11 211, PLEASE GO
AHEAD. MY NAME IS JENNIFER CHUCK
, CALIFORNIA RESIDENT TAXPAYERS
STRONGLY OPPOSED. NEXT WE'RE
GOING TO GO TO LINE 1 79, PLEASE
GO AHEAD. YOUR LINE IS OPEN. MY
NAME IS DEBORAH CAVALLARO ON THE
TAXPAYER HERE IN LOS ANGELES.
STRONGLY OPPOSED A C A 13. NEXT
WE'RE GOING TO LINE 2 33. PLEASE
GO AHEAD. YOUR LINE IS OPEN.
LAWRENCE WALKER. TAXPAYER L A
COUNTY NO. ONE A C A 13. NEXT IS
LINE 1 83. PLEASE GO AHEAD. YOUR
LINE IS OPEN. IT'S BRUCE
CORCORAN MARIN COUNTY TAXPAYER
STRONGLY OPPOSED A SEE A 113.
NEXT TO HIS LINE. 1 85, PLEASE
GO AHEAD. MY NAME IS MERRILEES
TERRIBLE. I'M A TAXPAYER AND
VOTER. I'M STRONGLY OPPOSED TO A
13. NEXT WE'LL GO TO LINE 1 36,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. HI MY NAME IS
EDSON FORD. I'M A CALIFORNIA
TAXPAYER, AND I'M STRONGLY
OPPOSED 13. AND NEXT IS LINE 1
86. PLEASE GO AHEAD. SHEILA
BANCO. I'M AN L. A COUNTY, TEXAS
AND CALIFORNIA TAXPAYER AND
VOTER, AND I STRONGLY OPPOSE A C
A 13. THANK YOU. NEXT WE'LL GO
TO MINE. 251 TO 51, PLEASE GO
AHEAD. HI. THIS IS DEBORAH DE
ROCHER. I'M A REALTOR AND SUTTER
COUNTY. I OPPOSED TO SEARCHING.
NEXT IS LINE TO 52 TO 5 TO
PLEASE GO AHEAD. HI MARY DAVIS,
CALIFORNIA TAXPAYER AND EVERY
MAN IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALLING
IN WITH STRONG OPPOSITION TO 13,
THANK YOU. NEXT IS LINE TO 4 TO
242. PLEASE GO AHEAD. HI. THIS
IS CHRIS MADER FROM PLAY DEL
RAY, CALIFORNIA AND I STRONGLY
OPPOSE A C A 13. NEXT IS LINE 1
55. PLEASE GO AHEAD. MY NAME IS
MONA BURNS. SAN MARCOS,
CALIFORNIA I'M A TAXPAYER AND I
WOULD LIKE TO VOTE. NO I'M NOT.
I WANT TO KNOW. VOTE ON 13. NEXT
IS LINE 107. PLEASE GO AHEAD.
YOUR LINE IS OPEN. FIND JEWS.
IT'S HARD FROM FRESNO,
CALIFORNIA, AND I STRONGLY
OPPOSE A C A 13. NEXT IS LINE 1
75. PLEASE GO AHEAD. YOUR LINE
IS OPEN. HI MY NAME IS DIANE
MADER. I'M A TAXPAYER AND I
STRONGLY OPPOSED A C A 13. NEXT
IS LINE TO 56. PLEASE GO AHEAD.
YOUR LINE IS OPEN. YES, DONNA
FOSTER. CALIFORNIA TAXPAYER AND
I STRONGLY OPPOSED A C A 13. AND
I WOULD LIKE TO THINK
ANNOUNCEMENT. IF YOU HAVE MADE
YOUR PUBLIC COMMENT, PLEASE
DISCONNECT FROM THE LINE. SO THE
PEOPLE THAT ARE DIALING AND
BEHIND YOU CAN MAKE THEIR PUBLIC
COMMENT. ONCE AGAIN IF YOU'VE
MADE YOUR COMMENT, PLEASE
DISCONNECT SO WE CAN GET OTHERS
ON NEXT IS LINED TO 59. PLEASE
GO AHEAD. MY NAME IS SUSIE WAS
JACK. I AM A RETIRED CALIFORNIA
TAXPAYER, AND I OPPOSE A 13.
THANK YOU. NEXT IS LINE 102,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. RAYMOND MILKER
TAXPAYER AND I AM STRONGLY
OPPOSED TO A C A 13. OKAY NEXT
IS LINE TO 44. PLEASE GO AHEAD.
YOUR LINE IS OPEN. MY NAME IS
LUKE MILLER CREME. I'M A
CALIFORNIA TAXPAYER, AND I
STRONGLY OPPOSED A 13. THANK
YOU. NEXT IS LINE 2 30 TO 30.
PLEASE GO AHEAD. YOUR LINE IS
OPEN. MY NAME IS ROBERT MARQUEZ
FROM SAN BERARDINO. I'M A
TAXPAYER AND I PROPOSE A C A 13.
NEXT IS LINE 1 17. PLEASE GO
AHEAD. MY NAME IS KATHY GRAVES.
I'M A TAXPAYER AND I AM STRONGLY
OPPOSED TO 88 13. NEXT IS LINE
TO 74. PLEASE GO AHEAD. NO
CALIFORNIA VOTER, A TAXPAYER. I
STRONGLY OPPOSED A C A 13. NEXT
IS LINE 1 26. PLEASE GO AHEAD.
YOUR LINE IS OPEN. MY NAME IS
WENDELL ORION. I'M A TAXPAYER
AND I STRONGLY OPPOSED 13. TEXT
IS LINE 1 56, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
HI I'M GENE. BIGGEST ODD.
ANTICLERICAL COUNTY TAXPAYERS
STRONGLY OPPOSED TO A C A 13.
MODERATOR KITE INTERCEPT
MODERATOR. JUST A SECOND. WE'VE
GOT 25 MORE PEOPLE IN THE QUEUE.
AND WHO'S WINNING THE GAME? MHM
OKAY, 25 MORE PEOPLE IN THE
QUEUE. WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THOSE
CALLS ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO
REGISTER THEIR POSITION. WE HAVE
AN EMAIL YOU CAN SEND TO A E L.
C AS IN CAT. DOT COMMITTEE. AT
ASSEMBLY DOT C A DOT GOV SO
WE'LL CONTINUE THROUGH THE NEXT
25. AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO
BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE.
THANK YOU. OKAY NEXT IS LINE.
202. PLEASE GO AHEAD. YOUR LINE
IS OPEN. YES, SANDRA LAMOREAUX.
CALIFORNIA TAXPAYER STRONGLY
OPPOSING A 30 13. THANK YOU.
NEXT IS LINE TO 24. PLEASE GO
AHEAD. MY NAME IS ARNOLD NG, MY
ORGANIZATION'S APEX COMMERCIAL
REAL ESTATE, CALIFORNIA TAXPAYER
. I STRONGLY OPPOSED 13. THANK
YOU. NEXT IS LINE 1 64. PLEASE
GO AHEAD. YOUR LINE IS OPEN.
PATRICK BARRY. I'M A TAXPAYER
AND VOTER AND I AM STRONGLY
AGAINST A C A 13. RECOMMENDED NO
VOTE. NEXT IS LINE 1 68. PLEASE
GO AHEAD. YES MY NAME IS JUDY
BEN ADIDAS THAT REPRESENTS
ABILITY TO FAMILY. I'M A
TAXPAYER. AND I POST VERY
STRONGLY A NO VOTE ON A 13.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. NEXT IS MINE
TO 23. PLEASE GO AHEAD. HELLO MY
NAME IS MARK HONOR FOR TAXPAYER
PLASTIC COUNTY AS STRONGLY
OPPOSED A C A 13. NEXT IS LINE
207 207, PLEASE GO AHEAD. JAMES
RICHARD ISOA, CALIFORNIA
TAXPAYER STRONGLY OPPOSED THEY.
NEXT WE'LL GO TO LINE 131.
PLEASE GO AHEAD. YOUR LINE IS
OPEN. LINE 1 31. MOVING ON TO
THE NEXT ONE WILL GO TO LINE 1
97, PLEASE GO AHEAD. HI. MY NAME
IS MICHAEL DUNN. WHAT'S ANGELES
COUNTY TAXPAYER AND I POST
ASIANS. 13. THANK YOU. NEXT IS
LINE TO 49. PLEASE GO AHEAD.
LET'S GONZALES ON THE CALIFORNIA
TAXPAYER, AND I STRONGLY OPPOSED
A CH 13. THANK YOU. NEXT IS LINE
1 91. PLEASE GO AHEAD. YEAH THIS
IS CHARLES JOHNSON SOCIETY OF
INDUSTRIAL AND OFFICE, REALTORS
AND DONE COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE
SERVICES AND TAXPAYER STRONG
OPPOSITION OF A C A 13. NEXT IN
LINE TO 84. PLEASE GO AHEAD AND
YOUR LINE IS OPEN. GOOD
AFTERNOON. THIS IS MARYLAND.
BAKER VENTURINI. I'M STRONGLY
AGAINST A 13. AND I MUST SAY,
MATEO COUNTY TAXPAYER, THANK
YOU. NEXT IS LINE TO 37. PLEASE
GO AHEAD. HI MY NAME IS
JOSEPHINE. LIE, JACK. I'M A
RETIRED TAXPAYER AND IN YOUR
COUNTY AND I'M STRONGLY OPPOSED
TO SEE A 13. THANK YOU. NEXT IS
LINE 1 14. PLEASE GO AHEAD. MY
NAME IS SHIRLEY SKILES. I'M
STRONGLY OPPOSED TO SEE A 13.
AND I'M, A TAXPAYER AND RESIDENT
OF CALIFORNIA LONG TIME. AND
NEXT WE'RE GONNA GO TO LINE 1
27, PLEASE GO AHEAD. MY NAME IS
PETER. HI DOES SAN PEDRO
CALIFORNIA TAXPAYER IN
CALIFORNIA? I'M STRONGLY OPPOSED
TO A C A 13. NEXT IS LINE 301,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. SO THIS IS GARY
MARSHALL REPRESENTING LEAVING
HIM IN CALIFORNIA. TAXPAYER
STRONGLY OPPOSED 88 THOÁT. NEXT
IS LINE 2 80. PLEASE GO AHEAD.
MY NAME IS DEBORAH TOBAR. I'M
FROM CAMERON PARK, CALIFORNIA
AND WE'RE ALSO HOME SUPPLIERS
AND WE ARE OPPOSED TO A 13.
TAXPAYERS. AND NEXT WE'RE GOING
TO GO TO LINE 1 25, PLEASE GO
AHEAD. GOOD AFTERNOON. THIS IS
GARY MARTINEZ, COMMERCIAL REAL
ESTATE BROKER WOULD ASK FOR
ASSOCIATES AND EXTREMELY
OPPOSED. TA 1 13. NEXT IS LINE
TO 96. PLEASE GO AHEAD. HI MY
NAME IS SAM WILKENSON WITH GRACE
AND IN CHILD POVERTY IN
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT OF A 13.
THANK YOU. NEXT IS LINE 3. 30,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. JOYCE FOR NOW,
I'M A TAXPAYER, AND I'M STRONGLY
OPPOSED A 13. THANK YOU. NEXT IS
LINE TO 95. PLEASE GO AHEAD. YES
MY NAME IS ELI LITTMAN. I AM
STRONGLY UH, SORRY. I'M STRONGLY
SUPPORT OF A 13 AND A TAXPAYER
IN LOS ANGELES. AND I'M WITH
MOVE. L A THANK YOU. NEXT TO HIS
LINE. 3 52, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
YES. MY NAME IS CARRIE.
FOLLOWING CALIFORNIA. FUNNY IT
TO THIS BILL. NEXT IS LINE TO
86. PLEASE GO AHEAD. HI MY NAME
IS ANDREA HEDSTROM, AND MY
AFFILIATION IS ONE OF MILLIONS
OF DISGRUNTLED CALIFORNIANS AND
MY POSITION ON A 13 IS THAT IF
YOU KEEP FORCING THIS KIND OF
STUFF ON CALIFORNIANS POSITION,
PLEASE ADJUST YOUR POSITION,
PLEASE. THANK YOU. MODERATOR
NEXT CALLER LINE OF 1 76 LINE. 1
76, PLEASE GO AHEAD. HI THIS IS
WENDY MCGAURAN, CALIFORNIAN
TAXPAYER STRONGLY OPPOSED TO A
13. OUR NEXT IS LINE 1 59,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. NAME IS DON
BATTLES CALIFORNIA TAXPAYER AND
I STRONGLY OPPOSED A C A 13.
OKAY SO THAT CONCLUDES OUR PHONE
TESTIMONY IF ANYONE WAS NOT ABLE
TO GET THROUGH ON THE PHONE
AGAIN, PLEASE EMAIL US AT A E. L
C AS IN CAT DOT COMMITTEE. AT
ASSEMBLY DOT C A DOT GOV OR YOU
CAN GO TO THE ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS
COMMITTEE WEBSITE. WE'RE NOW
GOING TO BRING IT BACK TO OUR
COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND SEE IF YOU
HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. HAVE A
COMMENT. WELL TO ME. THIS
APPEARS TO BE ANOTHER URBAN
MUSCLE FLEX. WELL I FIND IT
REGRETTABLE THAT WE'RE REACHING
DISAGREEMENT. I'LL ALWAYS SPEAK
IN OPPOSITION TO BUILD THAT
DILUTE THE VOICE OF RURAL
COMMUNITIES. THE TAXPAYER
PROTECTIONS WITHIN PROPOSITION
13. PRIMARY REASON MANY
CALIFORNIANS REMAIN HERE. IN MY
DISTRICT. THE WEATHER IS NOT
ALTOGETHER THAT DIFFERENT THAN
ARIZONA. AND THE GEOGRAPHY IS
NOT FAR FROM NEVADA. IF WE
ELIMINATE THE LIMITED INCENTIVES
OFFERED WITHIN CALIFORNIA. THERE
WILL BE LITTLE TO NO REASON FOR
RESIDENTS TO REMAIN HERE IN OUR
GREAT STATE. ESPECIALLY AS THE
ECONOMY BECOMES MORE CONDUCIVE
FOR REMOTE WORK. IT'S IMPORTANT.
WE TURN BACK THE CLOCK BEFORE WE
HAD THESE IMPORTANT PROTECTIONS.
SENIOR CITIZENS WERE LOSING
THEIR HOMES AFTER LIVING IN THE
STATE THEIR WHOLE LIVES. DUE TO
A TAX ASSESSMENT. WE CAN'T GO
BACK TO THE DAYS WHERE YOU LOSE
YOUR PRIMARY INVESTMENT AND
BECOME HOMELESS. BECAUSE OF THE
MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE VALUE OR
WORSE MALFEASANCE. I BELIEVE THE
QUESTIONS PROPOSED TO VOTERS AND
PROPOSITION 13 OR AT THE VERY
FOUNDATION OF OUR COUNTRY. WE DO
NOT WANT TAXATION WITHOUT
REPRESENTATION. IT'S ALSO
IMPORTANT TO REMIND EVERYONE
THAT WE RECENTLY GUTTED THE
AGENCY, THE BOARD OF
EQUALIZATION. WHICH WAS FORMED
TO ENSURE EQUITABLE PROPERTY
TAX. POLICY. ACROSS THE STATE
BECAUSE OF THE DISPARITIES HAD
BECOME SO UNEQUAL. IF YOU VOTE
FOR THIS BILL, YOU'RE SENDING US
ON A TRAJECTORY TO REPEAT
HISTORY WITH LIMITED ACCESS TO
DIRECT DEMOCRACY AND WITHOUT
EMPOWERED BODY OF
REPRESENTATIVES DECIDING
TAXATION CHALLENGES. DURING MY
TIME HERE IN THE LEGISLATURE,
I'VE SEEN PROTECTIONS TAXPAYERS.
ERODE. TAX ISSUES ARE
FUNDAMENTALLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE
THEY DIRECTLY INFLUENCE
BEHAVIOR. AND THIS WILL PUSH TOO
MANY THAT ARE CLOSE TO THE EDGE
ACROSS THE STATE BORDER. FOR
THAT REASON, I CANNOT SUPPORT
THIS MEASURE. THANK YOU ANY
OTHER COMMENTS FROM COMMITTEE
MEMBERS? QUESTIONS MR BERMAN.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND THANKS
FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SIT IN ON
ON THE ELECTIONS COMMITTEE
TODAY. I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND.
THE LOGIC OF THE OPPOSITION.
BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE THE
OPPOSITION IS SAYING THAT THAT
WE SHOULD NOT RAISE THE VOTER
THRESHOLD. SO THAT THE
OPPOSITION CAN RAISE THE VOTER
THRESHOLD. RIGHT WE'RE SAYING
DON'T RAISE THE VOTER THRESHOLD.
MAKE IT EASIER FOR US IN THE
FUTURE TO RAISE THE VOTER
THRESHOLD. THAT'S THAT'S
LITERALLY WHAT THE OPPOSITION
WANTS TO DO. AND IT SEEMS FROM A
LOGICAL STANDPOINT. THAT IF YOU
WANT TO RAISE A VOTER THRESHOLD
IN THE FUTURE THAT SHOULD BE
APPROVED BY THAT VOTER
THRESHOLD. THAT JUST SEEMS LIKE
A REALLY LOGICAL, SENSIBLE
DEMOCRATIC. UH POLICY PROPOSAL
AND SO I COULD BE MISSING
SOMETHING. BUT THAT SEEMS TO BE
AT THE CRUX WHILE WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT AND I DON'T NECESSARILY
UNDERSTAND THE URBAN VERSUS
RURAL EVERY CALIFORNIAN WILL GET
A VOTE. AND THAT VOTE WILL BE
COUNTED EQUALLY WHETHER IT'S IN
A RURAL AREA OR WHETHER IT'S IN
AN URBAN AREA. UH AH. AND SO I
WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR FOR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD. IT SEEMS
TO REALLY MAKE A LOT OF SENSE
FROM A LOGICAL STANDPOINT, IF
YOU AS A BUSINESS GROUP OR YOU
AS A LABOR UNION, OR YOU AS AN
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP, WANT TO
RAISE A VOTER THRESHOLD AND LOCK
THAT IN FOR THE FUTURE? IT MAKES
SENSE FOR THAT THRESHOLD OF
CALIFORNIANS TO SUPPORT THAT
EFFORT, AND THAT'S ALL THIS A C
A IS DOING. UM SO I'M PROUD TO
SUPPORT IT. I WANT TO THANK THE
AUTHOR FOR BRINGING IT FORWARD.
I THINK IT MAKES A TON OF SENSE
AND I'LL BE PROUD TO VOTE FOR IT
TODAY. SOMETHING ABOUT RUBY.
OKAY SO THAT'S THE QUESTION. SO
WHAT? WHAT HE'S SAYING IS YOU'RE
IN OPPOSITION BECAUSE IT'S
RAISING THE BORDER THRESHOLD. Tð
RATES OF I, YOU KNOW, I'M TRYING
TO UNDERSTAND THE WHOLE THING.
SO IS THAT TRUE? WE'RE TRYING TO
RAISE THE BORDER THRESHOLD SO
THAT YOU. CAN'T RAISE THE WATER
THRESHOLD. BY THE OTHER WAY, I
WELL, THERE'S A COUPLE OF
QUESTIONS SO THAT ONE AND THEN
YOU ALSO MADE A STATEMENT
EARLIER THAT THIS UNDERMINES
PROP 13. SO HOW DOES THAT
UNDERMINE PROP 13. IF PROP 13 IS
ALREADY IN EFFECT, AND DOES IT?
MY OPINION DOES NOT AFFECT PROP
13 BECAUSE NOTHING ON THE TABLE
IS ABOUT PROP 13. I GUESS I'LL
TAKE THE LAST ONE FIRST. UM
THERE'S BEEN A NUMBER OF COURT
DECISIONS THAT HAVE UNDERMINED
KEY VOTER PROVISIONS IN PROP 13
AMONG THEM ARE UPLAND, THE
UPLAND. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU KNOW
THE COURT CASE, UPLAND A PLANE
VERSUS CANNABIS COALITION THAT
BASICALLY SAID THAT SAID THAT
WHAT WAS CONSTITUTIONAL LAW FOR
40 YEARS. 45 YEARS NOW. THAT
THERE THERE'S A TWO THIRDS
MAJORITY FOR TAX INCREASES FOR
CITIZEN INITIATIVES. IT LOWERED
IT TO A TO 55% SIMPLE MAJORITY.
55 JOHN SOMEONE MAJORITY. 50
SIMPLE MAJORITY. UM AND THAT THE
TAXPAYER PROTECTION AND
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY ACT,
WHICH THIS IS VERY CLEARLY
CREATED TO THWART WOULD RAISE
THOSE BACK. AND THOSE ARE THE
TWO THIRDS VOTE FOR HIGHER AND
HIGHER TAXES IS CENTRAL TO
PROPOSITION 13. IT'S A
REQUIREMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION
. OKAY, YOU LOST ME SO AGAIN. SO
THE COURTS LOWERED THE VOTER
THRESHOLDS. WE THINK THAT THAT
WAS AN INCORRECT DECISION. IT
WAS A PLAN B CANNABIS COALITION
AT LOWERED IT TO A SIMPLE
MAJORITY FOR, UM CITIZEN
CONSTITUTIONAL MOVEMENTS. WE'VE
SEEN A LOT OF ABUSE OF THAT,
WHERE GOVERNMENT ENTITIES WILL
FILE A CITIZEN. I WANT TO KEEP
IT SIMPLE, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, UH
, SO DIRECTLY AFFECT PROPERTY.
SO THIS WOULD MAKE IT MORE
DIFFICULT TO PASS THE TAXPAYER
PROTECTION AND GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT. THAT'S WHY
THIS EXISTS. WE DON'T NEED THE
KID AROUND THAT. THAT'S WHY
THAT'S WHY THIS EXISTS THAT
WOULD RESTORE PROPOSITIONS 13
PROPOSITION. 13 2 3RD MAJORITY
FOR CITIZENS 1935 DEAL. THE
PROPOSITION AND THAT'S PROPOSED
IN NOVEMBER OF 24, WHICH I THINK
IT'S INITIATIVE NUMBER 1924 THE
TAXPAYER PROTECTION GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, IT WOULD
RAISE THE TWO THIRDS THRESHOLD
BACK TO WHAT PROP 13 REQUIRES,
AND THE COURTS UNDID. BUT YOUR
STATE IN ONE CASE SO WHAT DOES
THAT CASE AFFECT? SO I'M TRYING
TO UNDERSTAND CITIZEN
INITIATIVE. RIGHT THE UPLAND
ONE. WHAT DOES THAT SPECIFICALLY
SAY THAT EVERYBODY CAN DO 55% OR
50? PLUS YES, SPECIAL TAXES. IT
LOWERED THE THRESHOLD FOR
SPECIAL TAXES FOR CITIZEN
INITIATIVES TO A SIMPLE MAJORITY
WHEN PROP 13 CLEARLY STATES AND
DID FOR 40 YEARS, THAT IS A TWO
THIRDS OKAY. SO THEN PROTECTION
WOULD RESTORE THAT TWO THIRDS.
OKAY, AND THAT'S FOR EVERYTHING
OR FOR JUST A SPECIAL TAXES FOR
CITIZENS FOR CITIZENS. SPECIAL
TAXES CITIZEN INITIATIVE BACK
SPECIAL TAXES ONLY SPECIFICALLY
FOR THE PROPERTY. 13 THAT YOU'RE
TRYING TO RESTART. YEAH ANYTHING
. THERE'S A TWO THIRDS
REQUIREMENT FOR GOVERNMENT
IMPOSED TAXES. UPLAND
SPECIFICALLY LOWERED IT FOR
CITIZENS TAXES T P A WOULD RAISE
IT BACK UP TO THE PROP 13
THRESHOLD. THAT'S WHAT THIS
EXISTS TO STOP. OKAY AND THEN,
UH, THE QUESTION OR THE COMMENT
THAT MY COLLEAGUE
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S BERMAN STATED
ABOUT RAISING THE THRESHOLD?
IT'S THE SAME THING. HOW DO YOU
RESPOND TO THAT? WELL I JUST I
FIND IT KIND OF FUNNY THAT
RAISING THE THRESHOLD WAS A
PROBLEM WHEN OHIO DID IT FOR NOT
TALKING ABOUT OHIO THAT IS NOT
I'M SITTING RIGHT HERE. I KNOW
WHAT WE'RE GONNA SAY, TWO TIER
SYSTEM FOR AMENDING THE
CONSTITUTION. ONE FOR THINGS YOU
LIKE AND ONE FOR THINGS YOU
DON'T LIKE IN THIS CASE, IT'S
FOR RAISING THE THRESHOLD FOR
HIGHER, RAISING THE THRESHOLD
FOR NEW AND HIGHER TAXES. IT'S
BEEN A MAJORITY VOTE SINCE 18
49. AND THIS WOULD CHANGE THAT.
WE DON'T WE DO NOT BELIEVE THERE
SHOULD BE A TWO TIER SYSTEM FOR
CHANGING THE CONSTITUTION. SO
THERE'S NOT NOT FOR CHANGING THE
CONSTITUTION. THERE HASN'T BEEN
SINCE 18 49. THERE'S A TWO TIER
SYSTEM FOR EVERYTHING ELSE,
RIGHT? WE'VE GOT A MAJORITY OF
VOTERS WISH TO RAISE THE WISH TO
PASS THE CONSTITUTIONAL MOMENTS
RAISE THE VOTER THRESHOLD THEY
ARE ALLOWED TO DO SO JUST LIKE
ANY OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL WELL,
THAT'S WHY IT'S BEEN PUT ON THE
BALLOT SO THAT THE VOTERS
VALLAPUDUA UNDEMOCRATIC TO
CREATE A TWO TIERED SYSTEM TO
AMEND THE CONSTITUTION THAT YOU
JUST SAID THAT YOU WANT BOTH
CITIZENS TO BE THE ONES TO
DECIDE. RIGHT THIS IS WE'RE NOT
DECIDING TO CHANGE IT. WE'RE
DECIDING THIS MEASURE DECIDES TO
PUT IT ON THE BALLOT SO THAT
VOTERS DECIDE IF THAT IS THE
CASE OR NOT EXACTLY A
CONSTITUTIONAL AND PUT TO THE
VOTERS, BUT WE ALL KNOW WHAT
WE'RE DOING HERE. YES TV A
RIGHT. BUT YOU'RE ALSO TELLING
ME THAT YOU WANT VOTERS TO
DECIDE AND THIS IS HAVE DECIDED
, DECIDED 1970 WITH PROP 13.
THEY DECIDED YET, BUT THEN
THERE'S ANOTHER CONSTITUTIONAL
26 1986, THEY DECIDED PROBABLY
PROPOSITION TO 18 1996. THEY
DECIDED PROPOSITION 26 AND 2010
. THE VOTERS ROUTINELY AND
CONSISTENTLY SAY THEY WANT
STRONGER REQUIREMENTS TO SHARE
TAXED YEAR. BOTH BEST A CH 13 IF
IT PASSES, CORRECT AND 1935.
THAT'S THE OTHER INITIATIVES.
PUT THIS ON THE MARCH BALLOT TO
THWART T P A. SO IT'S NOT REALLY
AN APPLES TO APPLES. NOT THE
QUESTION. LET HER FINISH,
PLEASE. NOT THE QUESTION. BOTH
INITIATIVES ARE GOING TO BE IN
FRONT OF THE VOTERS SO THAT THE
VOTERS DECIDE BECAUSE YOU JUST
STATED THAT THE VOTERS SHOULD
DECIDE THIS. WHAT THE WHAT'S
HAPPENING HERE IN THE
LEGISLATURE DOES NOT DECIDE FOR
THE VOTERS. WHAT'S HAPPENING
RIGHT HERE IS TO PUT IT IN FRONT
OF THE VOTERS TO VOTE. I
UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING
ABOUT THEM, PUTTING IT IN MARCH,
YOU KNOW, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. IT
HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. THE GAME
MANSHIP HAPPENS ALL THE TIME.
THAT IS WHAT GOVERNMENT MANSHIP
BUT WHAT YOU'RE STATING TO ME IS
THAT YOU WANT THE VOTERS TO
DECIDE TO. I'M JUST TRYING TO UM
, WRAP MY HEAD AROUND. IF IT IS
GAME AND SHIP YOU'RE DOING THE
SAME THING. IF YOU SAY THAT WORD
, YOU KNOW THAT THIS IS DOING
IT. YOU'RE ALSO DOING THE SAME
THING BECAUSE YOU JUST STATED TO
ME THAT YOU WANT THE VOTERS TO
DECIDE PUTTING SOMETHING IN
FRONT OF THE VOTERS. WHETHER
IT'S BY, YOU KNOW US DOING IT OR
YOU DOING IT. IT'S STILL IN
FRONT OF THE VOTERS. SO WHATEVER
HAPPENS TODAY, OR WHATEVER
HAPPENS WITH THIS. PROBABLY THIS
A C A IS NOT DECIDED BY THE
LEGISLATURE IS BEING PUT IN
FRONT OF THE VOTERS SO THAT THE
VOTERS DECIDE AND YOU KNOW, JUST
FROM THE SUPPORT AND THE
OPPOSITION AND HAVING
CONVERSATIONS WITH, YOU KNOW,
OBVIOUSLY OUR PHONES BLOW UP.
I'VE BEEN HAVING MEETINGS. UM
LIKE CRAZY. UM. IT'S PUTTING IN
FRONT OF THE VOTERS AND I WAS
TOLD A COUPLE OF TIMES THAT, UH,
1935. I GOT THE NUMBER FROM FROM
THE ANALYSIS. I DON'T KNOW THE
TAXPAYER PROTECTION. YEAH, BUT
YES, I THINK YOU'RE CORRECT.
1935 I WAS ASSURED THAT IT'S
PASSING THEREFORE, UM, THAT'S
WHY THIS IS BEING PUT ON IF WE
ARE SURE THAT IT'S PASSING,
THEN. PUT IT IN FRONT OF THE
VOTERS LIKE YOU ARE AND THEN PUT
THIS MEASURE ON THE VOTERS. AND
IF THAT IF THE OPPOSITION IS
THAT YOU KNOW IF YOU'RE SO SURE
THAT 1935 IS GOING TO PASS
RIGHT, THEN THAT IN MY MIND
LOGICALLY MEANS THAT THIS ONE
WILL NOT PASS BECAUSE THE VOTERS
ARE NOT GOING TO APPROVE.
SOMETHING LIKE THIS ONE WILL
REQUIRE SIMPLE MAJORITY WHEN WE
REQUIRE TWO THIRDS OKAY, WELL,
BUT THAT'S A SYSTEM FOR PASSING
CONSTITUTION AMENDMENTS AND
SEEMS RATHER ON DEMOCRATIC TO ME
. SEE YOU'RE THROWING THE
BUZZWORDS. I'M TRYING TO HAVE A
CONVERSATION ABOUT FACTS, BUT I
CAN SIT HERE AND DO BUZZWORDS
ALL DAY LONG. BECAUSE BUT I'M
TRYING TO GET TO YES OR NO?
BECAUSE THAT'S HOW I FUNCTION. I
KNOW MY COLLEAGUES ARE DIFFERENT
. I AM A TEACHER. I FUNCTION
WITH FACTS IF YOU'RE GOING TO
THROW, YOU KNOW, UH, YOU KNOW,
MAKE THAT FACE ABOUT. THIS IS AN
DRAMA CRITIC. THEN THEN WE'RE
NOT HAVING A CONVERSATION. I
DON'T THINK IT'S BUZZWORDS. I
BELIEVE THAT I BELIEVE THAT THIS
IS UNDEMOCRATIC. I BELIEVE THAT
, UM THE VOTERS CAN DECIDE.
CORRECT I'M NOT LOOK, THE POINT
OF MY CONVERSATION IS NOT THAT
I'M SUPPORTING OR OPPOSING
ANYTHING. I'M JUST TRYING TO.
AH, TALK ABOUT, UH, PUTTING
THINGS IN FRONT OF VOTERS, RIGHT
? YOU STATED THAT YOU WANT TO
PUT SOMETHING IN FRONT OF THE
VOTERS. WE CAN DISPUTE THE
THRESHOLD. YOU KNOW THE TWO
TIERED SYSTEM. BUT WHAT YOU'RE
SAYING IS THAT YOU WANT
EVERYTHING TO BE IN FRONT OF THE
VOTERS. SO EVERYTHING IS GOING
TO BE THIS ONE'S GONNA BE IN
FRONT OF THE VOTERS. THE OTHER
ONE IS GOING TO BE IN FRONT IN
FRONT OF THE VOTERS NOW. IT'S
LIKE CAMPAIGNS. I WILL BE IN
FRONT OF THE VOTERS AND I NEED
TO DO MY WORK. TO GET SUPPORT OR
OPPOSITE. YOU KNOW, WHATEVER. IT
MAY BE RIGHT. IT'S THE SAME
THING. IN MY OPINION FOR ALL OF
US ANY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
TO ANY VOTES, THE VOTES THAT WE
TAKE HERE, THE VOTES THAT WE
TAKE LOCAL GOVERNMENT EVERYTHING
. IT REQUIRES WORK TO BE ABLE TO
CONVINCE VOTERS RIGHT THAT ITS
SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION. YOUR
STATEMENT ABOUT YOU WANT
EVERYTHING IN FRONT OF THE
VOTERS. KIND OF IT'S THE SAME
THING. WE'RE PUTTING IT IN FRONT
OF THE VOTERS. WHATEVER THE
THRESHOLD IS, IF THERE'S THAT
MUCH OPPOSITION, THEN IT'S NOT
GOING TO PASS. IF THERE IS THAT
MUCH, YOU KNOW, SAME THING FOR
BOTH, UM BOTH. PROBABLY, YOU
KNOW, 1935 IN THIS ONE. SO I
JUST I'M TRYING TO GET TO A
PLACE WHERE I CAN MHM PLACE MY
VOTE AND UNDERSTAND. WHAT YOU'RE
SAYING. I DON'T WANT TO HEAR
ABOUT OHIO. I DON'T WANT TO HEAR
ABOUT ANY OF THOSE THINGS
BECAUSE WE'RE HERE RIGHT NOW. SO
AGAIN. WHAT MR BERMAN STATED WAS
THAT THE VOTERS ARE GOING TO
DECIDE. IS NOT NOT. BUT THE CASE
TO WHAT YOU'RE ARGUING IS YOU'RE
THE SAME AS YOU HAVE FOR US THAT
WE'RE CHANGING KIND OF THE
RULES. WELL, YOU'RE CHANGING THE
RULES. BUT YOU'RE PUTTING IT IN
FRONT OF THE VOTERS WERE
CHANGING THE RULES, BUT WE'RE
PUTTING IT IN FRONT OF THE
VOTERS. SO IS THIS. I DON'T
UNDERSTAND HOW THIS UNDERMINES
PROP 13. I GUESS THAT'S THAT WAS
YOUR ORIGINAL QUESTION. PROP 13.
IF A COURT OF LAW DECIDED THEN.
ISN'T THAT THE FAULT OF LIKE I'M
NOT AN ATTORNEY. I'M NOT AN
ATTORNEY, AND SO WHEN WE GO TO
COURT, YOU ALLOW THE CITIZENS IF
IT'S A JURY TRIAL, RIGHT, YOU
ALLOW THE JUDGE TO MAKE THE
DECISION BASED ON WHAT THEY KNOW
NOT IN OPINIONS, RIGHT? AND SO
IF THE JUDGE CHANGED THAT, THEN
WHY IS THAT A PROBLEM? WELL. THE
JUDGES. WE DIDN'T REALLY CHANGE
IT. THE SUPREME COURT DECISION
REALLY MADE NO, UH NO ARGUMENT
FOR LOWERING THE VOTER THRESHOLD
FOR THE CITIZENS. IT WAS. THE
UPLAND IS REALLY ABOUT WHETHER
OR NOT A CITIZEN INITIATIVE CAN
BE PUT ON A SPECIAL ELECTION
BALLOT. THAT WAS THE ARGUMENT
THE RULING THAT CAME OUT OF THAT
HAS BEEN INTERPRETED BY LOWER
COURTS AS ALLOWING FOR A SIMPLE
MAJORITY FOR CITIZEN
INITIATIVES. THE SUPREME COURT
IS NOT WEIGHED IN ON THAT
QUESTION. WE WOULD LIKE THEM TO
BUT IN THE MEANTIME, WE WANT TO
ASK THE VOTERS WHAT THEY MEANT
WHEN THEY PASS PROPOSITION, 13
AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT
CITIZEN INITIATIVES TO BE TWO
THIRDS LIKE WE BELIEVE. THEY
DID, AND THE LAW SAID THEY DID
FOR 40 YEARS. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE
DOING HERE. WE'RE JUST WE ARE
ASKING. YOU'RE RIGHT. WE ARE
ASKING A QUESTION. WE'RE ASKING.
DID YOU INTEND WHEN YOU PASSED
PROP 13 TO MAKE CITIZEN
INITIATIVES TWO THIRDS YOU KNOW,
AND I GUESS I DON'T WANT TO USE
THE SAME WORDS AND THOSE SORTS
OF THINGS, BUT, YOU KNOW, I
THINK THE DIFFERENCE HERE IS
THAT WE ARE FOLLOWING THE RULES
. WE ARE. WE COLLECTED
SIGNATURES. WE PUT IT ON THE
BALLOT. AND THEN THIS APPEARS TO
CHANGE IT. TO CHANGE THE WAY WE
ARE ACCUSTOMED TO DOING THINGS
AND THE WAY WE WERE IN THE WAY
WE HAVE DONE THINGS IN THE STATE
FOR CONSTITUTIONAL MOMENT SINCE
18 49 SINCE THE FIRST STATE
CONSTITUTION RIGHT, BUT THEN,
OKAY. WE'VE ALSO DONE IT. WE'VE
ALSO DONE IT THROUGH LEGISLATION
THROUGH A C S, RIGHT? YEAH IT'S
THE SAME THING. RIGHT WE'VE
YOU'VE DONE IT THAT WAY. WE'VE
DONE IT. YOU KNOW, THROUGH
THROUGH SIGNATURES. WE'VE DONE
IT THIS WAY. SO THAT HASN'T
CHANGED AND IT'S STILL GOING TO
GO IN FRONT OF THE I'M NOT
AGAIN. I'M NOT TRYING TO. I'M
JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND AND I
THINK DIFFICULT DECISION FOR ME.
AND SO I'M TRYING TO LISTEN TO
BOTH OPINIONS. YOUR YOU KNOW, I
FEEL LIKE YOU THAT I'M TRYING TO
ATTACK HIM, NOT AND I'M TRYING
TO UNDERSTAND HOW THIS DIRECTLY
AFFECTS PROP 13. AND YOU SAID
THAT ABOUT THE LAWSUIT WAS THE
ONE THEY CHANGED IT. BUT THEN
YOU JUST EXPLAINED THAT IT
REALLY DIDN'T UM LAUREL CORTEX
DECIDED THAT IT DID IN THE
SUPREME COURT HASN'T SAID
ANYTHING ABOUT IT IN THE AND IN
THE ABSENCE OF SUPREME COURT,
TAKING A CASE WHICH THEY HAVE
NOT DONE. AND WE'RE GOING TO THE
VOTERS. WE'RE GONNA BRING US TO
ANOTHER MEMBER. NOW. I THINK
BERMAN HAD ANOTHER QUESTION
QUESTIONS. I'M SORRY IF I'M
SORRY IF I YOU KNOW? NO, NO,
LIKE I SAID, IT'S A DIFFICULT
DECISION. YEAH ALL OF US, AND
THAT'S WHY I'M TRYING TO
UNDERSTAND. AND I THINK IT'S
JUST KIND OF A MORAL THING,
RIGHT? I STRONGLY BELIEVE THIS.
AND OBVIOUSLY YOU MADE. YOU MAY
DISAGREE THAT I STRONGLY BELIEVE
THAT THIS IS JUST KIND OF
TRAMPLING CONSTITUTIONAL NORMS.
IT'S AN ATTACK ON PROPOSITION
13. I MEAN, I DON'T SAY THOSE
THINGS TO BE BUZZWORDS. I SAY
THAT BECAUSE I BELIEVE THEM.
THAT'S WHY I WROTE THEM. AND SO
THAT'S WHAT I SEE HERE AND I'M
SORRY IF I GET IF I GOT A LITTLE
EMOTIONAL ABOUT IT, BUT IT'S
JUST, YOU KNOW, THIS IS THIS IS
IMPORTANT TO US. THAT OUR
DRIVERS TAXPAYER ASSOCIATION
THANK YOU. OKAY, SO REMEMBER,
BOURBON NEVER GET EMOTIONAL
ABOUT. NO I DON'T KNOW WHAT
THAT'S LIKE, UM SO APPRECIATE.
APPRECIATE YOUR PASSION.
APPRECIATE YOUR YOUR, YOU KNOW
YOUR THOUGHTS ON WHAT YOU'RE
TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH YOU. YOU
SAID THAT YOU THINK THAT THIS
CREATES A TWO TIERED SYSTEM AND
THAT THE HOWEVER THAT YOU SLASH
THE HOWARD JARVIS TAXPAYERS
ASSOCIATION IS OPPOSED. 22
TIERED SYSTEM. CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENTS YES, CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENTS, BUT WE THINK THE
VOTERS HAVE A RIGHT TO RAISE THE
THRESHOLDS FOR HIGHER TAXES.
THEY WON TWO TIERED SYSTEM IS
OKAY FOR THE THINGS THAT YOU
SUPPORT, BUT IT'S NOT OK FOR THE
THINGS THAT YOU MIGHT NOT
SUPPORT. I WOULDN'T CONSIDER
WHAT WE WHAT WE DID A TWO TIERED
SYSTEM BECAUSE WE WANTED TO
THIRDS FOR EVERYTHING PRETTY
ACROSS THE BOARD. SO SO WE THINK
IT SHOULD BE. IT SHOULD BE EVEN
FOR TAX INCREASES ACROSS THE
BOARD. THAT'S WHAT PROP 13
ORIGINALLY ENVISIONED. AND THEN
IT'S BEEN LOWERED BY COURT
DECISIONS. AND THEN YOU SAID
THAT THAT SINCE 19 SINCE 18 40
18 49. THE FIRST NINE
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS HAVE
BEEN PASSED BY A SIMPLE
MAJORITY, UM BEFORE 1978 BEFORE
PROMPT, 13 WHAT WE'RE PROPERTY
TAXES AND WHAT WE'RE TAXES
CHANGED BY. WELL IT WAS IT WAS,
IT WAS MARKET BASED TAXATION
BECAUSE IT A SIMPLE MAJORITY
VOTE BY TAXPAYERS, NOT
NECESSARILY TO RAISE THE
THRESHOLD. THE THRESHOLD FOR
BONDS HAS BEEN TWO THIRDS SINCE
EIGHT. IN 79. OKAY BUT FOR TAXES
, WHAT? WHAT WHAT PROP 13 PAID
FOR THROUGH TAXES. BUT WHAT PROP
13, WHICH WHICH THE HOWARD
JARVIS TAXPAYER ASSOCIATION, WAS
THE LEADER OF WHAT? HOWARD
JARVIS WAS THE LEADER OF WHAT
DID PROP 13 Dð. YEAH I MEAN, IT
CHANGED THE VOTER THRESHOLD FOR
TAXES TO PASS SEVERAL MAJORITY
TWO THIRDS CREATED. AND BEFORE
THAT, HERE TO FOUR UNTIL THE 18
FIFTIES. IT WAS A SIMPLE
MAJORITY. SO THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT
SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS WHAT
HOWARD JARVIS AND WITH THE
HOWARD JARVIS TAXPAYER
ASSOCIATION DID IN 1978. TO
CHANGE WHAT HAD BEEN THE CASE
FOR A CENTURY WAS OKAY, BUT WHAT
WE'RE TRYING TO DO IN 2023. ALL
OF A SUDDEN, IS NOT OKAY. I
THINK THE CONSTITUTION IS KIND
OF A DIFFERENT ANIMAL, RIGHT? I
MEAN, WE PUT A LOT OF THINGS IN
THE CONSTITUTION WE DO WHICH IS
UNFORTUNATE, WHICH IS
UNFORTUNATE. HOWEVER I THINK THE
CONSTITUTION IS A DIFFERENT
ANIMAL. RIGHT? YOU KNOW, YOU
KNOW, MAYBE MAYBE MAYBE OUR
CONSTITUTION ISN'T AS VAUNTED OR
SACRED AS THE U. S CONSTITUTION.
BUT I STILL FEEL LIKE IT'S
HAUNTED IN SACRED AND THAT THE
RULES WERE CHANGING. IT SHOULD
BE UNIFORM. OKAY I MEAN, CLEAR
ON YOUR POSITION. SO THANK YOU.
I DON'T THINK WE'RE GONNA CHANGE
IT BY ANY OF OUR COMMENTS. BUT I
CAN'T HELP BUT FEEL LIKE THERE'S
A LITTLE BIT OF, YOU KNOW,
RAISING TAXES IS NOT CHANGING
THE CONSTITUTION. WHAT A PROPER
TEAM DO IT RAISED THE THRESHOLD
FOR TAXES AND THAT IT DIDN'T
OKAY. KANSEN AFTERNOON, SO I
MEAN, I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
I THINK YOU HEAR WHAT I'M
SAYING, WHICH I FEEL LIKE
THERE'S UM NOT NECESSARILY
INTELLECTUAL CONSISTENCY. UH IN
SOME OF THESE ARGUMENTS, UM, BUT
BUT OBVIOUSLY I RESPECT OF SOME
HERE. RESPECT WHAT? YOU'RE WHERE
YOU'RE COMING FROM THERE ANY
OTHER QUESTIONS BY COMMITMENT?
ISLAM. REMEMBER LOW, PLEASE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MADAM TRIP.
MAYBE I COULD DIRECT THE COMP
THE QUESTIONS FOR CLARIFICATION
TO THE AUTHOR SPECIFIC ABOUT THE
ARGUMENTS TO UNDO PROPOSITION 13
MIGHT BE AT THE AUTHOR, YOU
MIGHT BE ABLE TO HELP CLARIFY
AND ADDRESS THOSE CONCERNS THAT
THERE'S A FAIR AMOUNT OF
CALIFORNIANS WHO DESIRE TO
PROTECT PROPOSITION 13
RIGHTFULLY SO IT MIGHT BE A BE
ABLE TO ADDRESS THAT. THANK YOU
FOR THE QUESTION. AND AS YOU CAN
SEE IN THE BILL, WHICH IS
ACTUALLY VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD.
IT'S LANGUAGE. NOTHING IN THE
BILL IS DRAFTED ACTUALLY AFFECTS
PROP 13 DOESN'T CHANGE ANY
TAXATION RATES. ALL THAT DOES
SIMPLY PUTS A QUESTION BEFORE
THE VOTERS WHETHER OR NOT IN THE
FUTURE ELECTIONS BECAUSE WE HAVE
SEEN A PATTERN RIGHT NOW OF
CONTINUED ABUSE OF THE
INITIATIVE PROCESS TO BE ABLE TO
TRY TO PUT VOTER, HIGHER VOTER
THRESHOLD QUESTIONS TO THE TO
THE TO THE VOTERS, WHETHER OR
NOT THE SAME PROPORTION OF
VOTERS SHOULD AGREE TO THAT. UM
SO THERE'S NOTHING IN THE BALLOT
LANGUAGE THAT WILL CHANGE
TAXATION. THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S SANCHEZ. YOU
HAVE A QUESTION. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME SIT IN
AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE THIS
CLEAR FOR THE PEOPLE AT HOME IN
OUR TAXPAYERS AT HOME TO THE
OPPOSITION TO HOWARD JARVIS,
WILL THIS MAKE IT EASIER TO
RAISE OUR TAXES? YES, OKAY.
THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL. I NEED TO
KNOW THE VOTING NOW. YES FOR THE
RECORD THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS
THAT COMMITTEE MEMBERS SEEN AND
HEARING NO FURTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WARD
YOU MAY CLOSE. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR. I WANT TO THANK STAFF
ALSO FOR THEIR QUICK WORK ON
HELPING US TO ANALYZE THIS BILL.
A FEW POINTS. I UH, YOU KNOW,
APPRECIATE COMMITTEE'S
CONSIDERATION OF THIS, AND I
THINK THAT THIS COULD ACTUALLY
BE A VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION FOR
THE VOTERS TO CONSIDER AND
ULTIMATELY, TO PROVIDE FAIRNESS
AND HOW WE'RE TREATING THESE
KINDS OF MEASURES GOING FORWARD
, WANT TO REALLY JUST FOCUS ON
SOME OF THE SPECIFIC ISSUES THAT
WERE RAISED HERE TODAY AGAIN?
I'M GOING TO REPEAT THIS NOW AND
PROBABLY AS LONG AS THIS IS A
LIVE FOR DISCUSSION. THERE IS A
VERY SIMPLE PROPOSITION IN FRONT
OF US. IF THERE IS A QUESTION
BEFORE US THAT PROPOSES TO RAISE
SOMETHING TO A GREATER THAN
MAJORITY VOTE SHOULDN'T THE SAME
PROPORTION OF VOTERS AGREE WITH
YOU? AND THAT'S IMPORTANT. UM
TO, UH, MY FRIEND FROM THE HIGH
DESERT. UM WE TALKED ABOUT THIS
BEFORE ABOUT RURAL URBAN. I TRY
TO THINK VERY CLOSELY ABOUT HOW
THIS AFFECTS ALL OF OUR
COMMUNITIES, AND I WANT TO
ASSURE YOU THAT I THINK THAT
SOME OF THE VERY SAME ISSUES
THAT WOULD BE EFFECTIVE FOR
LOCAL DISTRICTS WHETHER IT'S A
SPECIAL DISTRICT LIKE A FIRE
SERVICE DISTRICT OR THE CITY OF
VICTORVILLE. NO MATTER THE SIZE
OF THE CITY, YOUR VOTERS THEY
ARE GOING TO BE IMPACTED BY THE
OUTCOMES AND THE OPPORTUNITIES
FOR THEM TO DECIDE FOR
THEMSELVES. UH, FUTURE MEASURES
THAT THIS MY, UH, THAT DOESN'T
MIGHT AFFECT UM, WE TALKED ABOUT
OHIO AND I KNOW THAT'S COME UP A
LOT THIS WEEK, BUT I WANT TO
WANT TO BE CLEAR. I'M GLAD
OPPOSITION IS RAISING THE ISSUE,
BUT I THINK THAT THERE ARE
ABSOLUTELY KIND OF APPLYING IT
INCORRECTLY HERE. OHIO WAS
PLACED ON THE BALLOT TO BE ABLE
TO RAISE THEIR CONSTITUTION. ALL
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS THEIR
STATES GUIDING DOCUMENT TO A
CLEAR 60% MEASURE, AND THAT WAS
BELIEVED TO BE IN RESPONSE TO
SOMETHING THAT WAS GOING TO BE
COMING UP IN THE GENERAL
ELECTION WERE A C 13 IN EFFECT
IN THE STATE OF OHIO. IT WOULD
HAVE REQUIRED THAT MEASURE TO
PASS BY 60. AND THAT'S ALL WE'RE
SAYING. GET THE SAME PROPORTION
OF VOTERS TO AGREE WITH YOU. IF
YOU WANT TO SEE SOMETHING
ENSHRINED IN THE STATE
CONSTITUTION. FORTUNATELY FROM
MY OPINION THAT DID NOT PASS
EVEN BELOW A SIMPLE MAJORITY. UM
WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE
LEGISLATURE EXEMPTING ITSELF. WE
ALREADY HAVE A TWO THIRDS
THRESHOLD HERE IN THE
LEGISLATURE TO PUT SOMETHING
BEFORE THE BALLOT IS WE'RE
DISCUSSING THROUGH THE SO WE'RE
ALREADY AT THAT HIGHER BAR HAD
TALKED ABOUT THE QUESTION ABOUT
WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS GOING TO
AFFECT PROP 13 OR POP 26 OR POP
TO 18. NO IT DOES NOT. THERE'S
NOTHING IN THAT LANGUAGE. IT
SAYS THAT WE'RE GOING TO UNDO
PROP 13 OR THAT WE'RE GOING TO
RAISE TAXES. THIS IS A BEEN
ACCUSED OF BEING AN ATTACK ON A
CONSTITUTIONAL NORMS. I WOULD
FLIP THAT IN A MIRROR AND REALLY
SAY THAT WHAT WE'RE SEEING RIGHT
NOW IS A PATTERN OF ABUSE THAT
IS ATTACKING OUR CONSTITUTIONAL
NORMS THAT WE HAVE A GUIDING
DOCUMENT HERE THAT ENSURES THAT
ONE PERSON. ONE VOTE WITH THE
MAJORITY VOTE IS HOW WE DECIDE
DECISIONS AND THAT WE HAVE SEEN
IN 1990. UH ORGANIZATION COME
FORWARD AND TRY TO PUT FORWARD A
VERY SIMILAR QUESTION, NOT
FAILED. THAT DID NOT GET 50. BUT
THIS WAS THERE WAS AN ATTEMPT IS
BACK IN YOUR ANALYSIS AS EARLY
AS 1990 TO RAISE SOMETHING TO DO
THIRDS. AND WE ALL REMEMBER
THOSE THAT WERE HERE. I WAS NOT
YET I WAS IN THE CITY COUNCIL
AND EVER IN 2018 TO BE ABLE TO
DO VERY MUCH THE SAME AND THAT
QUALIFIED BUT WORSE. NOT ONLY
WAS THAT ACTUALLY ATTEMPTING TO
PERVERT OUR CONSTITUTION. THAT
ALSO WAS SOMETHING THAT MANY
WERE INFERRING WAS SHADING
NEGOTIATION TACTIC IN THE HALLS
OF THIS LEGISLATURE TO ACTUALLY
HAVE THAT RESCINDED IN EXCHANGE
FOR THE PROMISE OF A BAN ON SODA
TAXES, SO NOT ONLY DID THAT
ACTUALLY USE A ABUSIVELY USING
MECHANISM TO AFFECT OUR
CONSTITUTION, THE END RESULT WAS
TO ACTUALLY SUBVERT. RATIONAL
REASONABLE, DELIBERATIVE
DISCUSSION WITHIN THE
LEGISLATURE, AND THEN WE SAW
AGAIN ANOTHER EFFORT TO TRY TO
DO THE SAME IN 2022 THAT DID NOT
QUALIFY. IT DIDN'T GET THE
NECESSARY SIGNATURES. THERE
MIGHT BE ONE COMING UP AND THEN
YOUR FUTURE AND I'M SURE GIVEN
THIS PATTERN WE'RE GOING TO SEE
THINGS GO INTO THE FUTURE BEYOND
THAT, SO I THINK THE TIME IS
RIGHT THAT WE PUT THIS FORWARD.
TO ADDRESS THE QUESTION. THIS IS
NOT WITHOUT PRECEDENT. DESPITE
WHAT WE HEARD, AS I MENTIONED
OREGON HAS DONE THIS AND THEIR
STATE CONSTITUTION BEING BACK TO
1998 AND THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO,
ACTUALLY WHERE I AM FROM HOW
THIS VERY SAME ISSUE COME UP IN
2004, WHERE A TAXPAYER
ORGANIZATION WANTED TO TRY TO
RAISE OUR GENERAL TAXES WE KNOW
SPECIAL TAXES ARE TWO THIRDS
WHEN PUT FORWARD BEFORE BY
GOVERNMENTAL BODY, BUT OUR
GENERAL TAXES THEY ALSO WANTED
TO SEE A TWO THIRDS SO THERE WAS
A VERY SIMILAR COUNTERMEASURE.
OF COURSE, WE'RE A CHARTER CITY
AND WE SAID IF YOU'RE GOING TO
CHANGE THE CITY CHARTER, THEN
YOU HAVE TO MEET THE SAME
PROPORTION OF VOTERS AND THE
VOTERS AGREED. AND SO I THINK
THAT THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT
CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION THAT
WE DESERVE TO PUT BEFORE
CALIFORNIA VOTERS AND IN SPITE
OF WHAT IS POTENTIALLY COMING
DOWN THE ROAD AND GIVE THEM THE
CHANCE TO BE A LITTLE WEIGH IN
AS WELL. UM WHAT'S FAIR IS FAIR
AND I'LL CLOSE BY JUST ASKING
THE QUESTION AGAIN IF A GREATER
THAN MAJORITY OF A SUPER
MAJORITY OF VOTERS IS THE
THRESHOLD THAT YOU THINK YOU
SHOULD ACHIEVE, WHY CAN'T YOU
ACHIEVE THAT SAME THRESHOLD? I
ASKED FOR YOUR I VOTE. THANK YOU
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S WARD. IT'S VERY
CLEAR TO ME THAT THIS MEASURE
REQUIRES AN INITIATIVE
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO
COMPLY WITH ANY INCREASED VOTER
APPROVAL THRESHOLD THAT IT SEEKS
TO IMPOSE ON FUTURE BALLOT
MEASURES. GUARANTEES IN THE
STATE CONSTITUTION, THE ABILITY
OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO SUBMIT
ADVISORY QUESTIONS TO VOTERS,
WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL.
WHEN CALIFORNIA VOTERS ADOPTED
THE INITIATIVE PROCESS MORE THAN
110 YEARS AGO, THEY WERE TOLD
THAT THE INITIATIVE WOULD WOULD
ASCERTAIN THE WILL OF THE
MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE.
UNFORTUNATELY SINCE THAT TIME,
NUMEROUS INITIATIVES HAVE SOUGHT
TO WEAKEN VOTERS POWER BY
ENACTING NEW SUPERMAJORITY VOTE
REQUIREMENTS FOR VOTERS TO
APPROVE BALLOT MEASURES. A
SIMPLE MAJORITY AT ONE POINT IN
TIME, SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO
STRIP FUTURE SUPER MAJORITIES OF
VOTERS OF THEIR RIGHTS TO ENACT
POLICIES TO BALLOT MEASURES. SO
FOR THAT REASON, I'M
RECOMMENDING A SUPPORT DO PASS
THIS MEASURE TO APPROPRIATIONS.
DO I HAVE A MOTION MOVED BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S BERMAN AND
SECONDED BY A FAMILY MEMBER
BENNETT AND WE WILL CALL THE
ROLL SECRETARY, PLEASE. THE
MOTION IS BE ADOPTED AND RE
REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS. PELLERIN
PELLERIN II LACKEY LUCKY NO
BENNETT BENNETT I SANCHEZ
SANCHEZ, NO, LI. HELLO HELLO I
BLANCA RUBIO BOARDING RUBIO NOT
VOTING. BERMAN BERMAN. AYE.
WHAT'S THE BOOK NUMBER? OKAY
WE'RE GONNA PUT THAT ON CALL AND
CALLING OUR MEMBERS INTO THE
ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS COMMITTEE. SO
GIVE US A MOMENT, PLEASE. WE'LL
GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE ROLE FOR
OUR MEMBER ASSEMBLY MEMBER LEE
LI. I. THAT MEASURE PASSES FIVE
TO THANK YOU VERY MUCH MEETING
IS ADJOURNED.