GOOD MORNING. I'D LIKE TO CALL
THE JUNE 12TH, 2024 HEARING OF
THE ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS COMMITTEE
TO ORDER. WE WILL. WE DON'T HAVE
A QUORUM YET, SO WE WILL BEGIN
AS A SUBCOMMITTEE. IF MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE ARE MONITORING
THIS HEARING, PLEASE COME TO
ROOM 444 OF THE STATE CAPITOL.
SO THAT WE CAN ESTABLISH A
QUORUM. I'D LIKE TO WELCOME
EVERYONE WHO IS HERE IN THE
HEARING ROOM TODAY, AND WHO IS
WATCHING THE HEARING ONLINE FOR
THE PURPOSE OF THIS HEARING, WE
ARE ACCEPTING WITNESS TESTIMONY
IN PERSON, AND WE ARE ALSO
ACCEPTING WRITTEN TESTIMONY
THROUGH THE LEGISLATURE DÍAS
POST POSITION LETTER PORTAL THAT
PORTAL CAN BE ACCESSED THROUGH
THE COMMITTEE'S WEBSITE AT Ã.
Â LC DOT ASSEMBLY DOT K.GOV.
THE COMMITTEE HAS NINE BILLS ON
ITS AGENDA. THERE ARE FOUR BILLS
ON CONSENT. WHEN WE HEAR THE
BILLS ON THE AGENDA, WE WILL
HEAR FROM A MAXIMUM OF TWO
PRIMARY WITNESSES IN SUPPORT AND
TWO PRIMARY WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION OF THE BILL, WITH A
LIMIT OF TWO MINUTES PER WITNESS
. OTHER WITNESSES ARE LIMITED TO
PROVIDING THEIR NAME, THEIR
ORGANIZATION THEY REPRESENT, IF
ANY, AND THEIR POSITION ON THE
BILL. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS WILL
BE RULED OUT OF ORDER. IN ORDER
TO FACILITATE FACILITATE THE
COMMITTEE'S BUSINESS AND PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION IN TODAY'S
HEARING, WE WILL NOT TOLERATE
CONDUCT THAT DISRUPTS THE
ORDERLY, CONDUCT OF THE
COMMITTEE'S PROCEEDINGS.
VIOLATIONS OF THESE RULES MAY
SUBJECT YOU TO REMOVAL OR OTHER
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS. WITH THOSE
ANNOUNCEMENTS OUT OF THE WAY, WE
WILL NOW MOVE ON TO THE
COMMITTEE'S AGENDA. SO LET'S
START WITH OUR FIRST MEMBER WHO
SIGNED IN. AND THAT WOULD BE
SENATOR LAIRD. AND YOU ARE
PRESENTING SB 977 TODAY. YOU MAY
BEGIN WHEN YOU'RE READY. THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR. IT'S MY
PLEASURE TO, PRESENT SENATE BILL
977, WHICH WOULD ESTABLISH AN
INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING
COMMISSION IN SAN LUIS OBISPO
COUNTY FOR THE FIVE
SUPERVISORIAL SEATS THAT MAKE UP
THE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE
COMMITTEE, FOR WORKING WITH MY
OFFICE AND ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS THAT ARE OUTLINED IN
COMMENT. ONE OF THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS THAT ADDRESS POTENTIAL
AMBIGUITIES AND COMPLICATIONS IN
A NUMBER OF ISSUES, IN FOR THE
2022 ELECTION, THERE WAS A
REDISTRICTING THAT WAS A
MONUMENTAL CHANGE IN SAN LUIS
OBISPO COUNTY. IT LED THE
SUPERVISOR THAT SITTING NEXT TO
ME WILL TESTIFY ON HIS OWN. BUT
HE HAD TWO THIRDS NEW
CONSTITUENTS AS HE RAN FOR HIS
FIFTH TERM ON THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS. AND IT
FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGED THE
COMMUNITY OF INTEREST THAT
HISTORICALLY HAD BEEN HIS
DISTRICT. THERE WAS A LAWSUIT
OUT, AND AFTER THE ELECTION,
THERE WAS A SETTLEMENT IN WHICH
THE COUNTY SET ASIDE THE ADOPTED
MAP AND RECONSIDERED THE
ALTERNATIVE MAPS THAT WERE
ORIGINALLY PRESENTED, ONE OF
WHICH WAS ADOPTED. BUT IN
RESPONSE TO THE COMMUNITY
OUTPOURING ABOUT REDISTRICTING,
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
DIRECTED THE STAFF TO DRAFT A
PROPOSED INDEPENDENT
REDISTRICTING COMMISSION
ORDINANCE, AND THE COUNTY
REQUESTED THAT I INTRODUCE THIS
LEGISLATION. THIS COMMISSION HAS
CREATED AN ALIGNMENT WITH OTHERS
THAT HAVE BEEN CREATED BY THE
LEGISLATURE FOR THE COUNTIES OF
LOS ANGELES AND SACRAMENTO. AND
YET, SAN LUIS OBISPO IS A MUCH
SMALLER COUNTY THAN THOSE. SO
THERE WERE A FEW CHANGES TO
ADDRESS THE CONCERNS OF THE
SMALLER POPULATION. SO IT
DIFFERS WITH A BOARD SIZE OF 11
MEMBERS RATHER THAN THE STANDARD
14, AND CALLS FOR AN APPLICANT
POOL OF UP TO 60 APPLICANTS
RATHER THAN A MINIMUM, THE BILL,
SUPPORTED BY THE COUNTY OF SAN
LUIS OBISPO, THE AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND
MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, THE LEAGUE
OF WOMEN VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA,
AND IT HAS NO REGISTERED
OPPOSITION. IT PASSED THE SENATE
FLOOR WITH 31 VOTES. SO HERE IS,
WITH ME IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL
IS SUPERVISOR BRUCE GIBSON OF
THE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS. AND EVEN THOUGH
HE'S SPEAKING FOR HIS BOARD AND
HIMSELF, HE JUST HAPPENS TO BE
THE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNTY
SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION IN
CALIFORNIA. SO WITH THAT, AT THE
APPROPRIATE TIME, I WOULD
REQUEST AN IPHONE IF WE COULD
TAKE ONE PAUSE AND ESTABLISH A
QUORUM. THANK YOU. THAT'S GREAT.
THE SECRETARY WILL CALL THE ROLL
. PELLERIN HERE, PELLERIN HERE,
LACKEY HERE. LACKEY HERE.
BENNETT HERE. BENNETT HERE.
BERMAN CERVANTEZ EASILY. EASILY.
HERE. LOW. WEBER WEBER. HERE. WE
HAVE A QUORUM. YOU MAY PROCEED
WITH YOUR WITNESS. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, THE
COUNTY, SAN LUIS OBISPO. I'M
BRUCE GIBSON, SECOND DISTRICT
SUPERVISOR OF THE COUNTY OF SAN
LUIS OBISPO. AND PLEASED TO BE
HERE THIS MORNING IN SUPPORT OF
AB NINE SEVEN OR SB 977, WE
THANK SENATOR LAIRD FOR BRINGING
THIS FORTH. THE COMMISSION
THAT'S CONTEMPLATED HERE IS
CONSISTENT WITH EXISTING
ELECTION CODE, OF COURSE, AND
CONSISTENT WITH THE FRAME OF
PREVIOUS CITIZENS REDISTRICTING
COMMISSIONS THAT HAVE BEEN PUT
FORWARD, SENATOR LAIRD WELL
SUMMARIZED. THE EGREGIOUSNESS OF
THE GERRYMANDER IN THE IN 2021
THAT IN THE 2022 ELECTION WAS
APPLIED, BEYOND THE SHIFT OF TWO
THIRDS OF NEW POPULATION IN THE
DISTRICT I HAPPEN TO BE RUNNING
IN, IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH SAN
LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, YOU CAN
STAND ON THE SHORES OF ESTERO
BAY, SEE THREE COMMUNITIES LOS
OSOS, MORRO BAY, AND CAYUCOS
WHERE I HAPPEN TO LIVE THAT WERE
ENDED UP IN THREE SEPARATE
SUPERVISORS DISTRICTS. THERE'S A
CLEAR VIOLATION OF COMMUNITY OF
INTEREST. THE MORE, DAMAGING,
THOUGH, WAS THE FACT THAT TENS
OF THOUSANDS OF VOTERS, NEARLY
50,000 VOTERS, HAD THEIR VOTES
EITHER DEFERRED OR ACCELERATED
BY THE CHANGE IN THE DISTRICTS.
THIS IS AN EFFECT YOU'VE SEEN IN
YOUR STATE SENATE, IN THE STATE
SENATE, WHERE THERE ARE GAPS AND
OVERLAPS IN SENATES, BECAUSE WE
HAVE FOUR YEAR TERMS AND TWO
YEAR ELECTIONS CYCLES. AND SO
THAT HAS CAUSED PERSISTING
CONFUSION OVER WHO REPRESENT
WHOM, AND IS ABSOLUTELY CONTRARY
TO THE FAIR ESTABLISHMENT OF
REPRESENTATION. ESPECIALLY
IMPORTANT AT THE, AT THE LOCAL,
AT THE LOCAL LEVEL, THE, THE
OTHER ASPECT OF THAT IS THAT
CERTAIN COMMUNITIES, SUCH AS THE
CITY OF ATASCADERO, WILL HAVE
VOTED FOR SUPERVISORS THREE
TIMES IN FOUR YEARS, 20, 20, 22
AND 24, WHILE OTHERS, LIKE THE
COMMUNITY OF LOS OSOS, WILL GO
EIGHT YEARS BETWEEN VOTING JUST
AGAIN, SPECIFICS ON THE DETAILS
OF HOW THIS IMPACTS, SLO COUNTY
VOTERS STRONGLY SUPPORT THE
INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING
COMMISSION PROPOSED HERE, WE
LOOK AT IT AS A FUNDAMENTAL
DEFENSE OF OUR DEMOCRATIC
PROCESS. AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR AYE, VOTE ON THIS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, ARE THERE
ANY ADDITIONAL WITNESSES WHO
WOULD LIKE TO REGISTER THEIR
SUPPORT FOR THIS BILL? AS A
REMINDER, ALL ADDITIONAL
WITNESSES ARE LIMITED TO
PROVIDING THEIR NAME, THEIR
ORGANIZATION THAT THEY
REPRESENT, IF ANY, AND THEIR
POSITION ON THE BILL. YOU MAY
PROCEED. ADRIANA CHAMPAGNE
ZAMORA WITH THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN
VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA AND STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. JOEY FLAGEL
MISHLOVE WITH THE AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND
MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU, WE WILL NOW MOVE ON
TO A PRIMARY WITNESS IN
OPPOSITION, ANY IN THE ROOM HERE
TODAY, ANYBODY WHO JUST WANTS TO
GO TO THE MIC AND STATE THEIR
NAME, ORGANIZATION AND POSITION.
SEEING NONE, I WILL GO AHEAD AND
BRING THIS BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE. I'D LIKE TO MOVE THE
BILL. WE HAVE A MOTION SECOND
BY, ASSEMBLYMEMBER MEMBER WEBER.
AND WE HAVE QUESTIONS. MR.
SALIH. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIRWOMAN, SO FROM MY
UNDERSTANDING, THE STATED
PURPOSE WAS THE GEOGRAPHICAL
CONFIGURATIONS OF HOW THESE
LINES WERE DRAWN. IS THAT THE
PRIMARY CONCERN IN THE COUNTY?
THAT WAS THE THAT WAS THE RESULT
THAT WAS CONCERNING. AND AS AS
YOU KNOW, REDISTRICTING A COUNTY
IS ABOUT DRAWING GEOGRAPHIC
BOUNDARIES ACCORDING TO STATE
ELECTION CODE. AND IT WAS FOUND
AS THIS AS THIS PARTICULAR MAP
WENT TO COURT, THE JUDGE RULED
THERE WAS A HIGH LIKELIHOOD THAT
THE PLAINTIFFS WOULD PREVAIL
BECAUSE BECAUSE IT WAS CLEAR
THAT THEY HAD VIOLATED THE
NECESSITY TO KEEP COMMUNITIES OF
INTEREST TOGETHER. SO HOW DID
THE LINES GO INTO EFFECT? IF THE
COURT SAID THAT THEY WERE GOING
TO PREVAIL IN LITIGATION, THE
PLAINTIFFS ASKED FOR A TEMPORARY
INJUNCTION ON THEM. THE COURT
DECIDED, IN WHAT I CONSIDER AN
ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION, NOT TO
GRANT THAT INJUNCTION AND LET
THE ELECTION PROCEED ON THOSE
MAPS, DO YOU SUPPORT THE
INDEPENDENT COMMISSION? WE HAVE
FOR DRAWING STATE SEATS? YES.
OKAY. SO IN THAT COMMISSION, IT
REQUIRES A CONSENSUS OF BOTH
POLITICAL PARTIES TO SIGN OFF ON
THE ON THE POLITICAL BOUNDARIES.
THE PROBLEM WITH HOW THIS BILL
IS DRAFTED. AND IT'S NOT JUST
THIS BILL. THEY DID IT IN MY
COUNTY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, TOO.
THE WAY THIS COMMISSION IS DRAWN
UP, IT DOES NOT REQUIRE
CONSENSUS FROM POLITICAL
PARTIES. IT SAYS ANY SEVEN
COMMISSIONERS, IT DOESN'T MATTER
WHAT THEIR POLITICAL MAKEUP ARE,
CAN APPROVE AND WRITE THE
BOUNDARIES FOR THESE DISTRICTS.
SO THERE'S FOUR DEMOCRATS, FOUR
REPUBLICANS AND THREE NPP OR
THIRD PARTIES. SO EFFECTIVELY
THE NPP AND THE DEMOCRATS CAN
CAN DRAW THE LINES AND THE
REPUBLICANS DON'T. YOU DON'T
EVEN NEED ONE REPUBLICAN TO SIGN
OFF ON IT. WOULD YOU SUPPORT
CHANGING THAT TO REQUIRE
BIPARTISAN CONSENSUS, THE WAY
THE STATE REDISTRICTING
COMMISSION REQUIRES? I THINK IN
THE END, WE APPROACHED THIS IN A
GOOD FAITH EFFORT. AND IF YOU
LOOK AT THE QUALIFICATIONS THAT
ARE LISTED THERE, YOU KNOW, IN
TERMS OF BECOMING A CANDIDATE TO
BE APPOINTED AS A COMMISSIONER,
THERE IS A THERE IS A
REQUIREMENT THAT YOU DEMONSTRATE
SOME LEVEL OF OBJECTIVITY, SOME
LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE
GREATER PERSPECTIVE OF WHY WE
DRAW DISTRICTS AND HOW
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION
WORKS. SO, IN SHORT, TO ANSWER
YOUR QUESTION, NO, BECAUSE I
BELIEVE I DON'T SUPPORT A
CONSENSUS. I BELIEVE THAT THIS
COMMISSION PROPERLY,
CONSTRUCTED, PROPERLY, POPULATED
WILL NATURALLY TEND TOWARD
CONSENSUS AS PEOPLE OF GOODWILL
WILL TRY TO MAKE THAT MAKE THAT
HAPPEN. WE'RE WORKING VERY HARD
TO KEEP HIGHLY PARTIZAN
INDIVIDUALS. I THINK THE
COMMISSION IS STRUCTURED IN A
WAY THAT MAKES IT MORE DIFFICULT
FOR HIGHLY PARTIZAN INDIVIDUALS
TO BE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION,
AND IF WE LOOK BACK IN THE
HISTORY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
COUNTY, BIPARTISAN BOARDS DID
HAVE THE ABILITY TO WORK
TOGETHER AND COME TO CONSENSUS.
AND SO WE'RE TRYING TO RECREATE
THAT OUTSIDE OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS. I'M VERY BIG ON
STRUCTURING GOVERNMENT IN A WAY
THAT THAT MODERATES POLITICAL
EXTREMES ON EITHER SIDE. I
UNDERSTAND YOU HAVE A LOT OF
FAITH IN THESE INDIVIDUAL
COMMISSIONERS, BUT, YOU KNOW,
THE PUBLIC NEEDS TO HAVE SOME
LEVEL OF TRUST AND CONFIDENCE IN
THESE DISTRICTS. AND I JUST I
DON'T UNDERSTAND IF THIS IS
TRULY NONPARTISAN, IF IT'S TRULY
ABOUT FAIRNESS, WHY IN THE BILL
WOULDN'T ALLOW OR REQUIRE
CONSENSUS FROM ALL THE POLITICAL
PARTIES TO SIGN OFF ON THESE
MAPS? I I JUST DON'T I DON'T
UNDERSTAND THAT. AND THAT'S WHY
I SAID IF YOU VOTE THE IF YOU
SUPPORT THE STATEWIDE
COMMISSION, ALL I'M SAYING IS,
WHY DON'T YOU MIRROR THE
STANDARDS THAT WE HAVE ON THE
STATEWIDE COMMISSION? IT
REQUIRES CONSENSUS FROM EACH OF
THE POLITICAL PARTIES TO SIGN
OFF ON IT. AND, SENATOR, YOU
KNOW, IF YOU WANT TO RESPOND,
YEAH, I WOULD JUST SAY THAT EVEN
THOUGH IT'S A DIFFERENT
CONSTRUCT, THOSE SAME CONCERNS
WERE RAISED ABOUT THE STATE
COMMISSION OAN. AND THE STATE
COMMISSION HAS NEVER REALLY
DEFAULTED TO PARTIZANSHIP IN HOW
IT'S BEEN DONE. AND THE SAME
THING IS IN PLAY WHERE IT IN
ESSENCE, LIMITS THE ABILITY OF
VERY PARTIZAN PEOPLE TO BE ON
THE COMMISSION IN TERMS OF
HAVING CONTRIBUTED OR SOME
DIFFERENT MARKER FOR HOW
SOMEBODY WOULD ENTER IT IN A
PARTIZAN WAY, AND THE
PRESUMPTION THAT THREE
INDEPENDENTS WOULD BAND WITH
FOUR DEMOCRATS IS JUST NOT SHOWN
UP IN PREVIOUS COMMISSIONS NOT
SHOWN UP IN THE STATE. ONE,
BECAUSE IT SORT OF REMOVES THE
PARTIZANS FROM THE PROCESS, AND
IT ACTUALLY FORCES, A MORE
CONSENSUS VIEW WITHOUT GIVING
ONE PERSON A VETO POWER ON THE
ENTIRE COMMISSION, WHICH IS WHAT
YOU REALLY WANT TO AVOID. WELL
SENATOR, WITH ALL RESPECT, IT
HASN'T HAPPENED BECAUSE THE
STATEWIDE COMMISSION REQUIRES
THREE REPUBLICAN MEMBERS TO
APPROVE IT. AND ALL I'M SAYING
IS, I THINK THE LOCAL COMMISSION
SHOULD MIRROR THAT. SO IF YOU'RE
NOT WILLING TO MAKE IT A FAIR
AND NONPARTISAN PROCESS, I'M
SORRY I CAN'T SUPPORT THE BILL.
AND I WOULD JUST STATE THAT I
BELIEVE IT IS A FAIR,
NONPARTISAN PROCESS. WE JUST
DISAGREE ON WHETHER THAT'S TRUE.
THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS SEEING NONE.
SENATOR LAIRD, YOU MAY CLOSE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I THINK I
APPRECIATE THE DIALOG, BUT I
THINK IT HELPS ACCENTUATE BOTH
THE NEED FOR THIS AND HOW IT'S
STRUCTURED TO BE WORKABLE. AND I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN OPEN.
THANK YOU. I WANT TO THANK THE
AUTHOR AND THE SPONSOR OF THIS
BILL FOR WORKING WITH COMMITTEE
STAFF AND ON THE AMENDMENTS TO
ENSURE THAT THIS BILL CAN BE
IMPLEMENTED EFFECTIVELY WHILE I
FEEL THE STATE WOULD BE BETTER
SERVED TO HAVE STANDARDIZED
REQUIREMENTS FOR REDISTRICTING
COMMISSIONS THAT THE LEGISLATURE
CREATES BY STATUTE, I SUPPORT
EFFORTS TO EXPAND THE USE OF
CITIZENS REDISTRICTING
COMMISSIONS, AND I APPRECIATE
THAT. SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IS BEING
PROACTIVE IN SPONSORING
LEGISLATION TO CREATE SUCH A
COMMISSION IN THEIR COUNTY FOR
THOSE REASONS, I'M RECOMMENDING
A SUPPORT, THAT WE HAVE A MOTION
AND A SECOND, THE SECRETARY
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON SB 977.
THE MOTION IS DO PASS AS
AMENDED, AND BE REFERRED TO THE
COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
PELLERIN I, PELLERIN I, LACKEY
NO LACKEY NO. BENNETT I, BENNETT
I, BERMAN CERVANTES. EASILY
ASSALY. NO. LO. WEBER I WEBER I.
YEAH. WE'LL PUT THAT ON CALL FOR
OUR ABSENT MEMBERS. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. WE'LL NOW MOVE TO THE NEXT
BILL BY SIGN IN ORDER. AND THAT
IS, SENATOR BRADFORD PRESENTING
SENATE BILL 1328. WHEN YOU'RE
READY, YOU MAY BEGIN. THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR. I'M HERE TO PRESENT
1328. LET ME FIRST START BY
SAYING I ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE'S
AMENDMENTS AND THIS BILL JUST
SIMPLY UPDATES AND MAKES CLEAR
EXISTING LAW AND PROCEDURES AND
REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO
ELECTION TECHNOLOGY CERTIFIED
FOR USE IN CALIFORNIA. AS WE ALL
KNOW, CALIFORNIA HAS SOME OF THE
MOST STRINGENT, SYSTEM TESTING,
CERTIFICATION AND USE
REQUIREMENTS IN THE COUNTRY,
THAT SHOULD PUT US ALL AT EASE,
BUT THERE IS A NEED FOR EXISTING
STORAGE AND MAINTENANCE, AND
DESTRUCTION OF ELECTION
MATERIALS, AND IT NEEDS TO BE
UPDATED. AND THIS IS WHAT THIS
LEGISLATION DOES. YOU'VE SEEN
SIMILAR PIECES OF LEGISLATION
LAST YEAR IN THIS COMMITTEE. AND
SO WE'RE JUST HERE TO MAKE IT
CLEAR. CLEAR TODAY HERE WITH ME
TODAY FROM THE SECRETARY OF
STATE'S OFFICE IS NIKISHA
ROBINSON. AND I AT THE
APPROPRIATE TIME, I SIMPLY ASK
FOR AYE VOTE AND WE'LL THANK
YOU. AND WE'LL NOW MOVE ON TO
YOUR PRIMARY WITNESS AS A
REMINDER. YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS NIKISHA
ROBINSON, AND I AM THE DEPUTY
SECRETARY OF STATE. OVER THE
HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT AND THE
OFFICE OF VOTING SYSTEMS
TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT. AS THE
SENATOR MENTIONED, SENATE BILL
1328 SEEKS TO PROVIDE CLARITY ON
EXISTING ELECTIONS CODE,
STANDARDIZED UNIFORM RETENTION
PROCEDURES OF VARIOUS VOTING
TECHNOLOGY ARTIFACTS, AND TO
CLARIFY PENALTIES WHEN AND WHERE
APPLICABLE, FOR THOSE THAT
UNDERMINE THE STRICT CHAIN OF
CUSTODY. ALL ELECTIONS OFFICIALS
AND WORKERS BEAR AS A DUTY AND
OBLIGATION TO UPHOLD. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY OTHER
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT OF THE
BILL? WANT TO STEP UP TO THE MIC
AND PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME,
ORGANIZATION, IF ANY, AND YOUR
POSITION. GOOD MORNING. LARA
MERCADO, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF CLERKS
AND ELECTION OFFICIALS AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ANY OTHERS? OKAY. DO WE, WE'LL
NOW MOVE ON TO ANY PRIMARY
WITNESS IN OPPOSITION. ANYONE IN
THE ROOM? ANYONE CARE TO COME TO
THE MIC? SEEING NONE. WE'LL
BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE.
ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS? I MOVE TO BILL
SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A
SECOND, WITH THAT AND SEEING NO
FURTHER QUESTIONS, SENATOR
BRADFORD, YOU MAY CLOSE. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AYE VOTE.
THANK YOU, CERTAINLY, UPDATES
AND, REVISE REVISING EXISTING
ELECTION RECORD RETENTION,
PRESERVATION RESTRICTIONS, IS
THIS IS VERY A COMMON SENSE BILL
THAT WE NEED TO UPDATE AND
STRENGTHEN THE LAW TO ENSURE OUR
VOTING EQUIPMENT IS PROTECTED.
SO THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR
BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD
TODAY. AND FOR THOSE REASONS,
I'M RECOMMENDING A SUPPORT WITH
THE TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS
OUTLINED IN THE ANALYSIS. AND
IT'S A DUE PASS AS AMENDED. AND
RE REFER TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMITTEE. AND THE SECRETARY
SHALL CALL THE ROLL ON SB 1328.
BRADFORD. THE MOTION IS DUE PASS
AS AMENDED AND BE REFERRED TO
THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY.
PELLERIN I, PELLERIN I, LACKEY
I, LACKEY I, BENNETT I, BENNETT
I, BERMAN CERVANTES EASILY
EASILY NÓ LOW LOW I WEBER WEBER
I. WHITE ONE THAT BILL IS OUT 5
TO 1. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIRMAN. OKAY. WE'RE GOING
TO GO AHEAD AND TAKE UP THE
CONSENT CALENDAR, AGAIN, THERE
ARE FOUR BILLS ON THE CONSENT
CALENDAR. THE, THE COMMITTEE
SECRETARY WILL READ THE ITEMS ON
THE CONSENT. FILE ITEM ONE SB
251 BY NEWMAN. THE MOTION IS DO
PASS TO CONSENT CALENDAR FILE.
ITEM NUMBER THREE SB 948 BY
SENATOR LIMÓN. THE MOTION IS DO
PASS, AS AMENDED TO CONSENT
CALENDAR FILE ITEM NUMBER FIVE
SB 1027 MENGIBAR. THE MOTION IS
DO PASS AND BE RE REFERRED TO
THE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY WITH
RECOMMENDATION TO CONSENT.
CALENDAR AND FILE ITEM NINE SB
1476 BLAKE SPEAR. THE MOTION IS
DO, PASS AND BE RE REFERRED TO
THE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY, WITH
RECOMMENDATION TO CONSENT
CALENDAR. THANK YOU. DOES ANY
MEMBER WISH TO REMOVE AN ITEM
FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR?
MOTION TO MOVE. SEEING NONE AND
GETTING A MOTION? DO I HAVE A
SECOND? SECOND? WE HAVE A MOTION
AND A SECOND THE SECRETARY.
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. PELLERIN.
AYE. PELLERIN. AYE. LACKEY AYE.
LACKEY I BENNETT I BENNETT I
BERMAN. CERVANTES. EASILY A
SALLY I LO LO I WEBER WEBER I
THE CONSENT CALENDAR IS OUT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE'LL NOW
MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT AUTHOR. AND
THAT WOULD BE SENATOR MIN AND
YOU'RE PRESENTING SB 1174 TODAY.
YOU MAY BEGIN WHEN YOU'RE READY.
THANK YOU. CHAIR PELLERIN AND
MEMBERS, SB 1174 WOULD ENSURE
THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENTS CANNOT
IMPLEMENT THEIR OWN UNIQUE VOTER
IDENTIFICATION LAWS IN LOCAL
ELECTIONS AND REINFORCES THE
CONCEPT THAT ELECTION
REQUIREMENTS ARE A MATTER OF
STATEWIDE CONCERN, NOW, YOU MAY
BE AWARE THAT HUNTINGTON BEACH,
WHICH I REPRESENT, RECENTLY
PASSED A CHARTER AMENDMENT
IMPLEMENTING VOTER ID LAWS IN
THEIR VOTER LOCAL ELECTIONS,
THIS, I BELIEVE, IS CLEARLY
ILLEGAL TO THE EXTENT THAT IT
MIGHT BE CO-LOCATED WITH FEDERAL
AND STATE AND COUNTY ELECTIONS,
BECAUSE IT WOULD OBVIOUSLY HAVE
A CHILLING EFFECT ON THOSE
ELECTIONS, MY READ OF THE LAW,
WHICH I SHOULD NOTE, IS NOT ONE
THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND
SECRETARY OF STATE SHARE, BUT MY
READ IS THAT THERE IS SOME
AMBIGUITY OVER WHETHER LOCAL
ELECTIONS HELD AT A UNIQUE TIME
AND PLACE WITH THEIR OWN VOTER
ID REQUIREMENTS MIGHT BE
PERMISSIBLE UNDER EXISTING STATE
LAW. SO THIS BILL IS MEANT TO
CLARIFY THAT CONFUSION AND CLEAR
UP ANY AMBIGUITY HERE. I WILL
JUST NOTE THAT, CONTRARY TO THE
TESTIMONY OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, WHO CAME
HERE RECENTLY FOR A AUDIT
TESTIMONY, CHARTER CITIES ARE
NOT IMMUNE TO STATE LAW, AND
THIS BILL IS MEANT TO ADDRESS
THE PROBLEM OF THE FACT THAT
THERE ARE 125 CHARTER CITIES IN
CALIFORNIA. WE DON'T WANT 125
UNIQUE SETS OF ELECTION
PROTOCOLS THROUGHOUT THE STATE.
THIS WILL SERVE TO CONFUSE THE
PUBLIC AND DIMINISH TRUST IN OUR
ELECTIONS PROCESS. VOTER
PARTICIPATION AND ELECTION
INTEGRITY ARE VERY IMPORTANT
ISSUES. I'VE ASKED THE CITY
COUNCIL, THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON
BEACH, TO PROVIDE ME WITH
EVIDENCE OF VOTER FRAUD.
NUMEROUS TIMES I'VE INDICATED
THAT IF THERE IS A PROBLEM, WE
CAN ADDRESS IT AT THE STATE
LEGISLATIVE LEVEL. BUT THIS IS
NOT A MATTER FOR LOCALITIES TO
DECIDE. THEY HAVE NOT PRESENTED
ME WITH ANY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE TO
THIS POINT OF AND NOR HAVE I
SEEN ANY AROUND THE STATE THAT
VOTER FRAUD IS ANY KIND OF MAJOR
CONCERN IN THIS STATE.
CALIFORNIA HAS CAREFULLY CRAFTED
ELECTION REQUIREMENTS THAT
ENSURE SYSTEM INTEGRITY, WHILE
NOT RESTRICTING THE RIGHTS OF
ELIGIBLE VOTERS. AND THIS IS AN
IMPORTANT BALANCE WE HAVE TO
STRIKE. WE WANT VOTER
PARTICIPATION. WE WANT ELECTION
INTEGRITY. AND I WOULD SUBMIT TO
YOU, RESPECTFULLY, THAT IF THERE
WAS EVIDENCE OF MASS VOTER
FRAUD, OF REAL PROBLEMS WITH
ELECTION INTEGRITY, WE AS A
STATE LEGISLATURE SHOULD TAKE ON
THAT RESPONSIBILITY TO SHORE UP
TRUST IN OUR ELECTIONS PROCESS.
SB 1174 WOULD ENSURE THAT WE
FIND THAT RIGHT BALANCE AND MAKE
CLEAR THAT THIS IS A MATTER OF
STATE DOMAIN WITH THAT, I WOULD
LIKE TO INTRODUCE MY WITNESSES.
I HAVE JOEY FLAGEL MISHLOVE WITH
AFSCME CALIFORNIA AND RUTH
DAWSON, LEGISLATIVE ATTORNEY
WITH ACLU CALIFORNIA. THANK YOU.
JUST AS A REMINDER, YOU HAVE TWO
MINUTES. YOU MAY PROCEED. GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR PELLERIN AND
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS RUTH DAWSON
WITH ACLU CALIFORNIA ACTION, AND
I'M PLEASED TO STRONGLY SUPPORT
AND TESTIFY ON AB, EXCUSE ME, SB
1174 BY SENATOR MENN. THIS BILL
WOULD ONE REAFFIRM THAT VOTING
RIGHTS AND ELECTION INTEGRITY,
INCLUDING VOTER VERIFICATION,
ARE MATTERS OF STATEWIDE
CONCERN? AND TWO, MAKE CLEAR
THAT CHARTER CITIES ARE
PROHIBITED FROM ENACTING VOTER
ID REQUIREMENTS FOR MUNICIPAL
ELECTIONS. VOTER ID LAWS
PERPETUATE THE MYTH OF VOTER
FRAUD AND DO NOTHING TO IMPROVE
ELECTION INTEGRITY. ELECTIONS
OFFICIALS STUDIES, EXPERTS AND
COURTS HAVE REPEATEDLY CONFIRMED
THAT INSTANCES OF VOTER FRAUD
ARE EXCEEDINGLY RARE. HOWEVER,
NUMEROUS STUDIES AND DATA SHOW
THAT VOTER ID REQUIREMENTS DO
IMPOSE SEVERE AND DISPARATE
BURDENS ON VOTERS, PARTICULARLY
VOTERS OF COLOR. THE CALIFORNIA
LEGISLATURE HAS LONG UNDERSTOOD
THE HARMS OF VOTER ID
REQUIREMENTS, AND STATE LAW DOES
NOT IMPOSE A VOTER ID
REQUIREMENT AT THE BALLOT BOX.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND
COUNTY ELECTIONS OFFICIALS
VERIFY VOTER ELIGIBILITY AND
ENSURE ELECTION INTEGRITY FOR
LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL
ELECTIONS AND A MANNER THAT IS
MINIMALLY BURDENSOME ON VOTERS
AND SUPPORTS A STRONG DEMOCRACY
IN OUR STATE. DESPITE
CALIFORNIA'S CAREFULLY BALANCED
SYSTEM. LAST YEAR, THE
HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL
PLACED A VOTER ID MEASURE ON THE
MARCH 2024 BALLOT, WITH THE CITY
ATTORNEY ERRONEOUSLY ARGUING
THAT HUNTINGTON BEACH MAY IMPOSE
A VOTER ID REQUIREMENT BECAUSE
IT IS A CHARTER CITY WITH HOME
RULE AUTHORITY OVER MUNICIPAL
ELECTIONS. HUNTINGTON BEACH'S
POSITION IGNORES CASE LAW THAT
MAKES THE VOTER ID MEASURE
INVALID BECAUSE ONE VOTING
RIGHTS AND ELECTION INTEGRITY
ARE MATTERS OF STATEWIDE CONCERN
, AND BECAUSE TWO THE MEASURE
CONFLICTS WITH STATE LAW AND
BURDENS VOTING RIGHTS. THE LEGAL
CHALLENGE TO HUNTINGTON BEACH'S
MEASURE WILL NO DOUBT BE
SUCCESSFULLY CHALLENGED, IN THE
MEANTIME, SB 1174 WILL STOP ANY
OTHER CITIES FROM ATTEMPTING TO
PASS SIMILAR MEASURES THAT
SUPPRESS SPREAD MISINFORMATION
ABOUT THE INTEGRITY OF OUR
ELECTIONS. AND WE URGE YOU TO
SUPPORT THIS IMPORTANT BILL TO
PREVENT THE CHIPPING AWAY OF
DEMOCRATIC INTEGRITY IN OUR
STATE. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING,
CHAIR PELLERIN AND COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME
THIS MORNING. MY NAME IS JOEY
FLAGEL MISHLOVE, AND I'M HERE ON
BEHALF OF THE MORE THAN 200,000
WORKING PEOPLE WHO MAKE UP THE
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE,
COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES
HERE IN CALIFORNIA, AFSCME
MEMBERS WORK AT ALL LEVELS OF
STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT. WE
WORK AT OUR STATE HOSPITALS IN
THE UC SYSTEMS, MAINTAIN WATER
AND UTILITY DISTRICTS, AND
OPERATE ALMOST EVERY FUNCTION OF
CITY AND COUNTY GOVERNMENTS
ACROSS CALIFORNIA, INCLUDING
MANY COUNTIES WHERE OUR MEMBERS
WORK AS ELECTION OFFICIALS,
ENSURING THAT OUR ELECTIONS ARE
FAIR, HONEST, AND EQUALLY
ACCESSIBLE TO ALL. EVERY YEAR.
AND SO AFSCME MEMBERS ARE DEEPLY
INVESTED IN OUR STATE'S
ELECTORAL APPARATUSES BECAUSE IT
IS THEIR DUTY TO CARRY OUT THE
POLICIES ENACTED BY LOCAL
ELECTED OFFICIALS. AND OUR
MEMBERS KNOW THAT THEY ARE BEST
ABLE TO SERVE THEIR COMMUNITIES.
WHEN THE ELECTED OFFICIALS THAT
THEY SERVE ARE TRULY
REPRESENTATIVE OF THEIR
COMMUNITIES. WE RECOGNIZE THAT
RIGHT NOW, CALIFORNIA IS A
LEADER IN DESIGNING ELECTIONS
SYSTEMS THAT ARE FAIR AND ARE
JUST, BUT THAT WE'RE NOT IMMUNE
TO SOME NATIONAL TRENDS THAT
WOULD PULL OUR ELECTORAL PROCESS
TOWARDS SOMETHING THAT IS MORE
ARDUOUS AND ULTIMATELY MORE
EXCLUSIVE OF WORKING PEOPLE.
CITIES IMPLEMENTING VOTER ID
LAWS COULD TAKE A MAJOR STEP
BACKWARDS BY ENFORCING POLICIES
THAT ACTUALLY MAKE IT MORE
DIFFICULT TO VOTE, AND
SPECIFICALLY HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO
EXCLUDE BLACK, LATINO AND
INDIGENOUS COMMUNITY MEMBERS
FROM OUR ELECTORAL SYSTEM.
FURTHERMORE, MEMBERS OF OUR
UNION WHO ARE LONG TERM CARE
WORKERS HAVE POINTED TO MANY
STUDIES SHOWING THAT VOTER ID
LAWS HAVE A DISPROPORTIONATE A
DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACT ON
PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES AND OUR
ELDERLY COMMUNITIES. SO WE KNOW
THAT VOTER ID LAWS ARE A REAL
THREAT TO A THRIVING DEMOCRACY,
AND WOULD ALLOW OUR ELECTORAL
PROCESS TO MISREPRESENT OR
IGNORE COMMUNITIES THAT OUR
MEMBERS WORK IN, LIVE IN, AND
ARE PART OF. AND WE ALSO KNOW
THAT THIS STEP BACKWARDS,
REPRESENTED BY THESE LAWS,
CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED BY CLAIMS OF
VOTER FRAUD, WHICH HAVE BEEN
SHOWN TIME AND TIME AGAIN TO BE
OVERBLOWN. AND ULTIMATELY, OUR
DOG WHISTLES SERVING TO EXCLUDE
TARGETED POPULATIONS FROM THE
VOTING PROCESS AND SO TO PROTECT
OUR Ã UNIFORM ELECTORAL SYSTEM
THAT IS FAIR AND HONEST IN
CALIFORNIA. THANK YOU. ASK ME
RECOMMENDS AN AYE VOTE. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. ARE THERE ANY
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES WHO'D LIKE
TO REGISTER YOUR SUPPORT FOR THE
BILL? PLEASE STEP UP TO THE MIC
AND PROVIDE YOUR NAME, THE
ORGANIZATION YOU REPRESENT, IF
ANY, AND YOUR POSITION. THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
TIM CARMODY, ON BEHALF OF
SECRETARY OF STATE SHIRLEY AND
WEBER IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL.
ETHAN NAGLER, ON BEHALF OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA IN
SUPPORT. ADRIANA CHAMPAGNE
ZAMORA WITH THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN
VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, WE'LL NOW
MOVE ON TO ANY PRIMARY WITNESS
IN OPPOSITION. ANY PRIMARY
WITNESSES IN THE ROOM IN
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL, ANYBODY
IN OPPOSITION THAT JUST WANTS TO
STEP TO THE MIC AND STATE YOUR
NAME AND ORGANIZATION, SEEING
NONE. WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE FOR ANY QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS, IF I COULD. WE HAVE A
MOTION BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER LOWE.
I HAVE A QUESTION AND A SECOND
BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER WEBER. YES.
MR. LUCKY YEAH. I'M TRYING TO
REALLY, GENUINELY UNDERSTAND,
YOU MADE THE REMARK THAT,
WITHOUT THIS, PROPOSAL, THERE
WOULD BE DIMINISHED TRUST AND
I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW HOW
IS THERE DIMINISHED TRUST BY
PRODUCING IDENTIFICATION. HELP
ME UNDERSTAND THAT. I DON'T
UNDERSTAND IT. I REALLY DON'T I
DON'T THINK I DON'T KNOW IF I
MADE THAT STATEMENT. I THINK IN
GENERAL, WE WANT TO READ IN YOUR
OPENING REMARKS, I THINK THAT IT
WAS IN THE CONTEXT, IF YOU WILL,
OF RESTORING TRUST BY FINDING
THE RIGHT BALANCE BETWEEN,
ELECTION INTEGRITY AND VOTER
PARTICIPATION. NOW, THE PROBLEM
RIGHT NOW IS THAT IF YOU'RE
IMPLYING THAT THERE IS A
WIDESPREAD PROBLEM WITH ELECTION
FRAUD IN OUR STATE, THEN WE
SHOULD ADDRESS IT. AND I THINK
THE RESTORING TRUST WAS A
COMMENT. IF I'M RECALLING
CORRECTLY, WAS IN THE CONTEXT OF
WE AS THE LEGISLATURE SHOULD ACT
FORCEFULLY IF THERE IS A
PROBLEM. BUT I THINK WHAT THIS
BILL IS INTENDED TO DO IS MAKE
CLEAR THAT THE LOCUS OF ANY
ACTION ON ELECTION INTEGRITY
SHOULD BE AT THE STATE. SO IF
THERE IF THERE SHOULD BE A
DEBATE ABOUT WHETHER OUR
PROTOCOLS ARE LACKING AND WE
SHOULD HAVE SOME HEIGHTENED ID
REQUIREMENTS, GREAT. BUT THERE'S
TRADE OFFS TO THAT. AND I THINK
THAT MY WITNESSES POINTED OUT
SOME OF THOSE TRADE OFFS. BUT I
GUESS THE QUESTION IS, IS THERE
A PROBLEM HERE THAT THEY'RE
TRYING TO SOLVE? IS THERE A
PROBLEM THAT WE SHOULD TRY TO
SOLVE? AND I WOULD JUST POINT
OUT THAT IF THERE ARE 125
CHARTER CITIES IN CALIFORNIA, I
DON'T THINK IT'S GOOD POLICY TO
HAVE 125 DIFFERENT UNIQUE
ELECTION PROTOCOLS WITH
DIFFERENT SETS OF REQUIREMENTS
AROUND EACH. I THINK THAT WILL
BE CONFUSING TO VOTERS. I THINK
IT WILL CHILL VOTING
PARTICIPATION, AND THAT'S REALLY
THE INTENT OF THIS BILL. I THINK
THAT'S A STRAWMAN. AND I JUST
HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT I REALLY
DON'T SEE IT. I'M NOT ALLEGING
THAT THERE IS WIDESPREAD, BUT I
THINK THAT THIS IS A PROTECTION
AGAINST WIDESPREAD PROBLEMS OF
VOTER FRAUD. AND I DON'T SEE THE
DOWNSIDE. I DON'T I MEAN, WE
HAVE A WITNESS HERE FROM SEIU. I
KNOW WHEN I JUST RECENTLY HAD TO
ATTEND A HOSPITAL, I HAD TO
PRODUCE ID, SO I DON'T SEE THE
CONFLICT. AND FOR THAT REASON, I
WILL NOT BE UNABLE TO SUPPORT
THIS MEASURE. I APPRECIATE YOUR
COMMENT, SIR. ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? ASSEMBLY
MEMBER SALIH, THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR, SO I WANT TO UNDERSTAND
THIS AS WELL. I'M ALSO
STRUGGLING. LET'S TALK ABOUT
THIS BALANCE. YOU TALKED ABOUT
IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. HOW
DOES THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ENSURE THERE IS NOT FRAUD IN THE
ELECTIONS CURRENTLY, I BELIEVE
THE PROTOCOL IS THAT YOU HAVE TO
HAVE A PRODUCE EITHER A DRIVER'S
LICENSE, A CALIFORNIA
IDENTIFICATION NUMBER, AND FOUR
DIGITS OF YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY
NUMBER TO REGISTER YOU HAVE,
OBVIOUSLY, FOR THOSE OF US WHO
VOTED, I ASSUME WE ALL HAVE
VOTED FOR OURSELVES, YOU HAVE TO
HAVE A SIGNATURE VERIFICATION
THÀNH. AND THAT IS SOMETHING
THAT THAT'S TYPICALLY THE MOST
STRINGENT REQUIREMENT THAT OFTEN
ENDS UP IN FALSE NEGATIVES,
WHERE YOU END UP WITH VOTES
BEING REJECTED BECAUSE THE
SIGNATURE DOESN'T QUITE MATCH,
COUNTY ELECTION OFFICIALS ARE
ALSO REQUIRED TO CONDUCT A
PARTIAL RECOUNTS WHERE THEY
AUDIT THEIR OWN RESULTS AND I'LL
JUST NOTE THAT THE ORANGE COUNTY
REGISTRAR IS SEEN AROUND THE
WORLD AS AN EXEMPLAR AS FAR AS
IT'S ELECTION INTEGRITY. I ALSO
NOTE THAT OUR DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS, TODD SPITZER, WHO I
BELIEVE IS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF
THE AISLE FROM ME, HAS LOOKED
INTO ALLEGATIONS HE HAS SAID
PUBLICLY THERE ARE ABOUT 10 TO
15 ALLEGATIONS OF VOTER FRAUD IN
ORANGE COUNTY, ON AVERAGE EVERY
ELECTION CYCLE. AND HE HAS
INVESTIGATED EVERY ONE OF THEM
AND FOUND ZERO BASIS FOR
PROSECUTION. SO THIS IS A
SOLUTION IN SEARCH OF A PROBLEM.
I'LL BE HONEST AND JUST SAY THAT
I THINK HUNTINGTON BEACH, WHICH
IS THE PROPAGATOR OF THIS, IS
ENGAGED IN A CULTURE WAR RIGHT
NOW BECAUSE THIS IS ONE OF A
SERIES OF CONTROVERSIAL BILLS
THAT THEY'VE TRIED TO PASS OR
PROPOSITIONS AND I THINK THEY'RE
TRYING TO KOWTOW TO CERTAIN
MEDIA OUTLETS RATHER THAN TRYING
TO SOLVE AN ACTUAL PROBLEM. THE
INTENT OF THIS BILL IS FAIRLY
NEUTRAL. IT'S JUST TO SAY THIS
IS NOT A LOCAL MATTER TO DECIDE.
IT'S UP TO THE STATE. AND IF
YOU. ASSEMBLY MEMBER WERE TO
PRESENT A REAL, A SET OF
EVIDENCE OF PROBLEMS, I THINK WE
SHOULD ACT. I'LL JUST NOTE THAT.
WELL, LET ME DO THAT. 660
BALLOTS REJECTED IN 2022 FOR A
LACK OF IDENTIFICATION. THAT'S
0.0006% OF BALLOTS. OKAY, YOU
WANT REAL EVIDENCE? I'LL GIVE
YOU REAL EVIDENCE. HERE'S ABC
SEVEN NEWS, A CREDIBLE SOURCE.
CAN WE AGREE ON THAT? I DON'T I
DON'T KNOW, THE REPORT. MAYBE
SOMETIMES, THERE'S A GENTLEMAN
BY THE NAME OF CARLOS ANTONIO
MONTENEGRO. HE WAS ARRESTED. HE
HAD 8000 FRAUDULENT VOTER
REGISTRATION APPLICATIONS FILED
BY, IN HAWTHORNE. HAWTHORNE
ELECTION. AND HE WAS REGISTERING
PEOPLE THAT THAT DON'T EXIST. HE
WAS CHARGED WITH 18 FELONIES. HE
SUBMITTED 8000 DIFFERENT
FRAUDULENT VOTER REGISTRATION
APPLICATIONS. SO AND I'M SORRY,
I JUST THINK THE ALLEGATIONS
THAT THERE IS NO VOTER FRAUD,
IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL. IT'S NOT
ACCURATE BECAUSE PART OF THE
PROBLEM IS WE DON'T HAVE
DETECTIONS IN PLACE IN OUR
SYSTEMS FOR WHEN PEOPLE REGISTER
FRAUDULENTLY. SO I WANT TO GO
BACK TO MY QUESTION. WHAT ARE
THE SYSTEMS IN PLACE? YOU CLAIM
THAT IN ORDER TO REGISTER TO
VOTE IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
YOU HAVE TO PRESENT A DRIVER'S
LICENSE OR THE LAST FOUR DIGITS
OF A SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER.
CORRECT, I, I DIDN'T CLAIM THAT.
I BELIEVE THAT'S THE LAW AND
PRACTICE AS IS RIGHT NOW. I
WOULD JUST ADD ON TO YOUR POINT
EARLIER, I JUST BECAUSE THOSE
PEOPLE WERE CAUGHT, THAT DOESN'T
MEAN PEOPLE ACTUALLY VOTED. AND
THE PENALTIES FOR VOTING FRAUD
ARE ACTUALLY PRETTY SEVERE. THE
IDEA THAT SOMEONE WOULD ACTUALLY
VOTE ILLEGALLY WITH THE
PENALTIES THAT ARE IN PLACE, IT
HAPPENS ALL THE TIME, SENATOR.
IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. YOU'RE
JUST SAYING IT'S NOT WIDESPREAD,
BUT I'M SAYING WE DON'T KNOW HOW
SPREAD IT IS BECAUSE WE DON'T
DETECT IT. LET ME JUST LET ME
JUST FINISH. PLEASE FINISH MY
COMMENT. GO AHEAD. YOU ASKED ME
A QUESTION, YOU PRESENTED
EVIDENCE THAT SOMEBODY HAD
ILLEGAL, REGISTRATIONS. YOU
DIDN'T PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT
THOSE PEOPLE VOTED. AND IN
ORANGE COUNTY, I'LL JUST NOTE
THAT THE HEAD OF THE REPUBLICAN
PARTY BACK IN 2010 OVERSAW A
SCHEME IN WHICH 12 REPUBLICAN
STAFFERS WERE WENT TO JAIL FOR
ILLEGALLY REGISTERING VOTERS AS
REPUBLICAN. THAT'S VOTER FRAUD.
BUT THEY WERE CAUGHT. THERE'S NO
EVIDENCE THAT ANY OF THOSE
VOTERS ACTUALLY ILLEGALLY. WELL,
THERE'S DEMOCRAT COUNCIL MEMBERS
AND ALSO CHARGED AND GOING TO
PRISON FOR COMMITTING VOTER
FRAUD, BIPARTISAN THING. BUT I'M
SAYING THAT THERE'S A
DIFFERENCE. MY QUESTION,
SENATOR, YOU'VE HAD THE
OPPORTUNITY REGISTRATION. I'D
LIKE TO RECLAIM MY TIME. I'D
LIKE TO FINISH ASKING MY
QUESTIONS. IF YOU WANT TO
FILIBUSTER. I DON'T THINK HE'S
JUST ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION.
SO. SO LET HIM FINISH. THIS IS
NOT CONGRESS, SO THERE'S NO TIME
LIMITS, I BELIEVE. SO, YOU KNOW,
THERE'S NO TIME TO RECLAIM.
WELL, YOU MAY NOT THINK SO, BUT
SOMETIMES THE CHAIRWOMAN, WANTS
TO MOVE THINGS ALONG. SO I JUST
WANT TO BE RESPECTFUL OF
EVERYONE'S TIME. NOW I JUST WANT
TO BE CLEAR. I'M ON THE WEBSITE
FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO
REGISTER TO VOTE ON THE SECTION
THAT HAS WHERE YOU PUT IN YOUR
DRIVER'S LICENSE, YOUR LAST FOUR
OF YOUR SOCIAL. THERE'S A BOX
UNDERNEATH EACH ONE THAT SAYS, I
DON'T HAVE ONE, I DON'T HAVE
ONE. AND THEN YOU'RE ALLOWED TO
PROCEED TO GO TO VOTE. SO THIS
IDEA THAT YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO
REGISTER TO VOTE UNLESS YOU
PREVENT PRESENT SOME SORT OF
IDENTIFICATION IS NOT ACCURATE.
IT'S NOT TRUE. IT'S NOT BEING
IMPLEMENTED IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. ADDITIONALLY, PEOPLE
ARE BEING REGISTERED TO VOTE AT
THE DMV, AND WE ALREADY KNOW,
BASED ON AUDITS THAT THE DMV HAS
IMPROPERLY REGISTERED PEOPLE TO
VOTE, INCLUDING ILLEGAL
IMMIGRANTS AND WE HAVE IMMUNITY
IN PLACE THAT SAYS IF THE DMV
REGISTERS SOMEONE WHO IS NOT
ELIGIBLE, THEY'RE IMMUNE FROM
PROSECUTION. ARE YOU AWARE OF
THAT? I'M GOING TO DEFER THIS
BECAUSE I THINK YOU'RE GETTING
INTO TECHNICAL QUESTIONS THAT
IT'S IMPORTANT THAT I DON'T HAVE
DIRECT KNOWLEDGE OF. SO I'M
GOING TO DEFER HERE TO MY
WITNESSES, PLEASE. SURE I'D BE
HAPPY TO, SHARE MY UNDERSTANDING
OF OUR VOTER REGISTRATION
SYSTEM. SO IN CALIFORNIA, TO
REGISTER TO VOTE, A PERSON MUST
PROVIDE THEIR DRIVER'S LICENSE,
STATE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER, OR
THE LAST FOUR DIGITS OF THEIR
SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER. AND IF A
PERSON DOES NOT INCLUDE THIS
VERIFYING IDENTIFYING
INFORMATION WITH THEIR
REGISTRATION APPLICATION, THEY
MUST PROVIDE IDENTIFICATION IN
THE FIRST TIME THAT THEY VOTE IN
A FEDERAL ELECTION. AND THERE
ARE MANY ACCEPTABLE FORMS OF
VERIFICATION. IDENTIFICATION. BY
LAW, INCLUDING UTILITY BILLS AND
BANK STATEMENTS WITH THE
PERSON'S NAME AND ADDRESS, AND
OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS ISSUED BY
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, AND
IMPORTANTLY, IDENTIFICATION
REQUIREMENTS MUST BE LIBERALLY
CONSTRUED TO PERMIT VOTERS AND
NEW REGISTRANTS TO CAST A
REGULAR BALLOT AND ANY DOUBT AS
TO THE SUFFICIENCY OF PROOF OR A
DOCUMENT PRESENTED SHALL BE
RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF PERMITTING
THE VOTER OR NEW REGISTRANT TO
CAST A REGULAR BALLOT, AND SO
I'LL REFER YOU TO OUR SUPPORT
LETTER FOR ALL OF THOSE
CITATIONS. BUT THAT IS BOTH,
CALIFORNIA ELECTION CODE AND
FEDERAL CCR. SO AMONG THE IDS
THAT ARE ACCEPTABLE IS A STUDENT
ID, IS THAT NOT CORRECT? I AM
NOT SURE IF THAT FITS INTO THAT.
LET ME READ FROM THIS FROM OUR
GREAT SECRETARY, STATE, MISS
SHIRLEY WEBER, DOCTOR WEBER,
THANK YOU. I APOLOGIZE, IT SAYS
OTHER ACCEPTABLE FORMS OF
IDENTIFICATION INCLUDE PASSPORT,
DRIVER'S LICENSE, STATE
IDENTIFICATION CARD, OR STUDENT
IDENTIFICATION CARD SHOWING YOUR
NAME AND PHOTOGRAPH. SO STUDENT
ID IS ALSO CONSIDERED AN
ACCEPTABLE FORM OF ID. NOW WE
KNOW ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS ARE
ALLOWED TO BE REGISTERED
STUDENTS IN OUR INSTITUTION. SO
AGAIN, WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
BALANCING, I DON'T BELIEVE WE
HAVE SUFFICIENT SAFEGUARDS IN
PLACE THAT DETECT AND PREVENT
PEOPLE FROM COMMITTING VOTER
FRAUD. WHAT IS THE HARM? CAN YOU
ARTICULATE TO ME WHAT IS YOUR
CONCERN? IF WE HAVE VOTER ID, DO
YOU SUPPORT, SENATOR MINH, DO
YOU SUPPORT SHOWING ID TO BUY A
GUN? I'M SORRY, I THINK. CAN WE
STICK TO THE SUBJECT OF THIS
BILL, PLEASE? WELL, WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT THIS IS NOT ABOUT
VOTER ID. THIS IS SIMPLY ABOUT A
LOCAL JURISDICTION THAT IS,
PASSING LAWS THAT, WELL, NO, BUT
IT'S ABOUT A LOCAL JURISDICTION
THAT'S PASSING LAWS CONTRARY TO
WHAT IS A STATE LAW AND WHETHER
THEY HAVE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT.
WHAT IS THE STATE LAW THAT'S
CONTRARY WHAT STATE LAW SAYS?
YOU CAN'T USE VOTER ID, THE
STATE ELECTION REQUIREMENTS ARE
FAIRLY CLEAR AS TO WHAT OUR
PROCESSES ARE, AND I THINK I'D
REVERT, REPEAT MY POSITION, THAT
I THINK THAT ANY MATTER OF
WHETHER WE SHOULD HAVE VOTER ID
OR NOT. THAT'S AN INTERESTING
DEBATE, BUT THAT SHOULD BE DONE
AT THE STATE LEVEL, NOT AT THE
LOCAL JURISDICTION LEVEL. AND I
JUST WOULD NOTE TO ASSEMBLYMAN
LACKEY'S POINT, THERE ARE
ACTUALLY SEVERAL JURISDICTIONS
THAT HAVE TRIED TO TAKE UP THIS
SAME INITIATIVE FOLLOWING THE
LEAD OF HUNTINGTON BEACH. THERE
IS A REAL DANGER HERE. WE'RE
GOING TO END UP WITH LIKE 100
DIFFERENT SETS OF VOTER ID LAWS,
VOTER REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS.
AND I THINK THAT'S A LITTLE BIT
OF HAVOC THAT WE'RE NOT
COMFORTABLE WITH. I'D ALSO JUST
ADD A POINT HERE. I MEAN, I KNOW
YOU LIKE TO DEMONIZE IMMIGRANTS
OF DIFFERENT KINDS, BUT THAT'S
NOT TRUE. IF I COULD JUST
FINISH. NO, I'M NOT GOING TO LET
YOU I'M NOT GOING TO LET YOU
INSULT ME IN MY COMMITTEE. NO,
MADAM CHAIR, POINT OF PERSONAL.
A POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE.
I'M GOING TO ASK SENATOR BÀN TO
REPHRASE HIS STATEMENT. I WILL
REPHRASE THAT. THANK YOU. I NOTE
IN YOUR COMMENTS THAT YOU MAKE A
LOT OF DISPARAGING COMMENTS
ABOUT, QUOTE UNQUOTE, ILLEGAL
IMMIGRANTS. I HAVE TAUGHT
UNDOCUMENTED DREAMERS IN MY
CLASSES AT UCI LAW, AND I'M JUST
GOING TO SAY TO YOU RIGHT NOW,
THE IDEA THAT SOMEBODY WOULD
ILLEGALLY VOTE AND JEOPARDIZE
THEIR STATUS IN THIS STATE ON A
WIDESPREAD BASIS, THAT TENS OF
THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE DO. I KNOW
THAT'S A CONSPIRACY THEORY IN
CERTAIN MEDIA OUTLETS. I JUST
DON'T SEE IT HAPPENING. THE
INCENTIVES ARE JUST NOT THERE
FOR ANYBODY TO DO THAT. YOU HAVE
SO MUCH TO LOSE IN THIS COUNTRY.
I HAVE PEOPLE WHO HAVE èC
EDUCATIONS, WHO ARE SCARED
BEYOND THEIR WITS THAT THEY'RE
GOING TO BE DEPORTED ANY DAY.
THE IDEA THAT THEY WOULD BREAK
THE LAW IF THEY BREAK THE LAW ON
ANY LEVEL, THEY'RE DEPORTED. THE
IDEA THAT THEY'D GO DO THAT SO
THAT ONE VOTE COULD GET CAST. I
JUST FIND THAT THERE'S NO
EVIDENCE SYSTEMICALLY THAT THIS
IS HAPPENING. I HAVEN'T SEEN
REALLY. YOU GUYS HAVE ANECDOTES
OF LIKE, PEOPLE WITH, LIKE WHAT?
TRUCKS OR WHATEVER WITH
REGISTRATION THINGS. BUT THE
IDEA THAT YOU SEE LIKE TENS OF
THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE DOING THIS,
IT JUST DEFIES ALL LOGIC AND IF
WE SEE EVIDENCE OF THAT, THEN WE
SHOULD ADDRESS IT AS A STATE.
THAT IS MY VIEW. BUT AGAIN, THE
PROBLEM HERE THIS IS MEANT TO
ADDRESS IS HOW DO WE PREVENT 100
CITIES FROM ENACTING 100
DIFFERENT? AND WE HAVE ANOTHER
QUESTION FROM ANOTHER MEMBER, IF
WE CAN MOVE ON TO THAT. I
THOUGHT WE HAD UNLIMITED TIME.
WELL, WE CAN COME BACK TO YOU,
BUT I JUST WANT TO GET ANOTHER
QUESTION. OKAY. GO AHEAD.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER WEBER. WELL, I
REALLY JUST WANT TO TAKE THE
TIME TO THANK THE AUTHOR FOR
BRINGING THIS MEASURE FORWARD,
BECAUSE I REALLY THINK THAT WE
HAVE STARTED TO GO DOWN A RABBIT
HOLE AND ARE NOT FOCUSING ON
WHAT THIS BILL IS TRYING TO
STATE. IT IS NOT ABOUT WHETHER
OR NOT SOMEONE SHOULD PRESENT
VOTER ID WHEN THEY GO TO VOTE.
IT IS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT LOCAL
JURISDICTION SHOULD BE ABLE TO
DETERMINE WHAT WILL HAPPEN AND
WHAT THAT WOULD COST TO OUR
ELECTIONS AS A STATE. NOW, IF
PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM OR IN THIS
STATE FEEL LIKE THERE IS TRUE
VOTER FRAUD, WHICH NONE OF US
WANT, THEN THEY CAN DO THE
RESEARCH. THE RESEARCH THAT YOU
HAVE PRESENTED STATED THAT IT'S
LESS THAN 1. I DON'T WANT TO
HEAR ANY ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE OR
NEWS ABOUT SOMEBODY WHO WAS
ARRESTED, WHO WE DON'T EVEN KNOW
IF THEY ACTUALLY EVEN VOTED. SO
THE POINT OF THIS BILL IS TO
BASICALLY STATE THAT WHEN YOU
VOTE HERE IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, WHETHER YOU ARE A
RESIDENT OF SAN DIEGO OR LOS
ANGELES OR SAN FRANCISCO OR
WHEREVER, THAT THE RULES ARE THE
SAME. AND IF WE FEEL LIKE THOSE
RULES NEED TO BE CHANGED, THEN
WE CHANGE THEM AT THE STATE
LEVEL SO THAT IT IS DONE
THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE STATE AND
NOT ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS. SO I
WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THIS, AND
I REALLY HOPE, MADAM CHAIR, THAT
WE CAN GET BACK AND FOCUS ON THE
PURPOSE OF THIS PARTICULAR BILL,
BECAUSE IT HAS COMPLETELY GONE
OFF THE RAILS. THANK YOU 100.
YES, I AGREE, WELL, WITH ALL DUE
RESPECT, MADAM, YOU HAVE A
QUESTION ON THE BILL. YES. MY
QUESTION IS ON THE BILL. WITH
ALL DUE RESPECT, MADAM CHAIR, HE
CAME IN, THE SENATOR CAME IN. DO
YOU HAVE A QUESTION ON THE BILL?
I'M ARTICULATING MY QUESTION.
THANK YOU. STATE YOUR QUESTION.
HE CAME IN AND TALKED ABOUT
VOTER ID HE SAID IT HAS A
CHILLING EFFECT ON MINORITIES.
DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT I'M
NOT OKAY. WHERE WHERE IS THE
CHILLING EFFECT ON CAN YOU SAY
ANYTHING ABOUT CHILLING EFFECT?
I'M GOING TO TAKE THIS BACK TO
THE COMMITTEE. WE HAVE A MOTION
AND A SECOND. I HAVE QUESTIONS.
YOU SAID IT HAS A CHILLING
EFFECT. WE CAN PLAY THE TAPE. I
HAVE MY NOTES HERE, I SAID SHE
SAID, CHILLING EFFECT. I DID NOT
SAY THAT. DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION
ABOUT THE BILL? IF SO, PLEASE
STATE IT. IF NOT, I'M GOING TO
RULE YOU OUT OF ORDER. I WANT TO
KNOW WHAT THE CHILLING EFFECT
WAS THAT THE WITNESSES REFERRED
TO IN THEIR OPENING STATEMENTS.
YES. I DID NOT SAY THAT. SO YOU
CAN TALK TO THE WITNESS. IT'S A
QUESTION FOR THE WITNESS. YES,
SURE. I'D REFER YOU TO THE 2022
REPORT BY THE BRENNAN CENTER FOR
JUSTICE, ENTITLED THE IMPACTS OF
VOTER SUPPRESSION ON COMMUNITIES
OF COLOR. SO CAN YOU ARTICULATE
WHAT THE CHILLING EFFECT IS? SO
YOU'RE SAYING PEOPLE OF COLOR
DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO VOTER IDS
OR IDENTIFICATION? SHE'S
ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION. WE'RE
NOW GOING TO BRING THE BILL. ANY
OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS? YES. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER CERVANTES, THANK YOU SO
MUCH. I WANT TO JUST THANK THE
AUTHOR FOR BRINGING THIS
IMPORTANT BILL FORWARD AND
REALLY ADDRESSING THIS, AS WE
SHOULD AT A STATEWIDE LEVEL, AND
WOULD LOVE TO BE CONSIDERED AS A
COAUTHOR. THANK YOU. WE'LL ADD
YOU. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION
AND A SECOND, SENATOR, YOU MAY
CLOSE, THANK YOU FOR THE ROBUST
DIALOG. AND I WANT TO THANK THE
ASSEMBLY MEMBER FROM SAN DIEGO
FOR HER GREAT COMMENTS ON THIS
BILL. I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I'D ALSO LIKE TO THANK THE
AUTHOR FOR BRINGING THIS BILL
FORWARD, CALIFORNIA ALREADY HAS
NUMEROUS PRECAUTIONS IN PLACE TO
PREVENT VOTER FRAUD. AND AS THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL AND OUR
SECRETARY OF STATE ELOQUENTLY
STATED IN THEIR JOINT LETTER,
VOTER IDENTIFICATION OF THE
POLLS AND LOCAL ELECTIONS,
CONFLICTS WITH STATE LAW AND MAY
SUPPRESS VOTER PARTICIPATION AND
COMPLICATE ELECTION
ADMINISTRATION WITHOUT
DISCERNIBLE BENEFIT. SO I'M
RECOMMENDING A SUPPORT ON THIS
BILL TODAY. AND IT'S A DO PASS.
AND WE REFER TO LOCAL
GOVERNMENT. THE SECRETARY SHALL
CALL THE ROLL SB 1174 MEN.
PELLERIN I, PELLERIN I LACKEY NO
LACKEY, NO BENNETT. BERMAN.
CERVANTES CERVANTES I AZALI.
AZALI NO. LOW. LOW I WEBER.
WEBER, I. BENNETT BENNETT I WE
HAVE. BENNETT Þ BENNETT. BENNETT
I. THANK YOU. THAT BILL IS OUT 5
TO 2. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE
WILL NOW MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT
MEMBER. WE HAVE SENATOR MENGIBAR
MENGIBAR WITH SB 1170. YOU MAY
BEGIN WHEN YOU'RE READY.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. GOOD
MORNING, ELECTION COMMITTEE
MEMBERS, I'M HERE TO TALK TO YOU
ABOUT SB 1170. IN THE PAST
COUPLE OF YEARS, WE'VE HAD THE
OPPORTUNITY TO DIVE DEEPER INTO
THE EFFECTS OF HARASSMENT,
CRIMINAL THREATS AND ACTS.
PREJUDICE AND ALL THESE KIND OF
THINGS, AND THE IMPACT IT HAS ON
CANDIDATES AND CURRENT ELECTED
OFFICIALS ACROSS CALIFORNIA. I'M
BRINGING TO YOU A BILL THAT WAS
NOT THAT DID NOT COME OUT OF A
WHIM, THAT CAME OUT OF DATA
DRIVEN REPORTS WITH
RECOMMENDATIONS ON WHAT WE
SHOULD DO IN THE STATE
LEGISLATURE. THE BILL YOU SEE
TODAY ADDRESSED HIS
CONVERSATIONS, TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE FROM THE FPPC ON HOW
WE CAN REALLY PRESCRIBE A VERY
TIGHT KNIT APPROACH TO ADDRESS
THE NEED THAT WE SEE IN
CANDIDATES, NON-INCUMBENTS AND
INCUMBENT CANDIDATES ACROSS
CALIFORNIA. MY WITNESSES WILL
TALK TO YOU MORE ABOUT THE
REPORT, BUT I WANT TO DIVE MORE
INTO EXACTLY WHAT THIS BILL IN
FRONT OF YOU WILL DO. NOW, WHAT
I'M LOOKING TO DO IS PROVIDE
CAMPAIGN FUNDS TO BE USED FOR
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES. ONLY
AFTER AN INCIDENT HAPPENS ON THE
CAMPAIGN TRAIL. SO I WANT TO BE
SPECIFIC. THESE FUNDS ARE NOT
FOR IF I'M HAVING A FIGHT WITH
MY SISTER BECAUSE MY SISTER IS
OF A DIFFERENT PARTY AND SHE
DOES NOT WANT ME TO RUN FOR THIS
SEAT. TRUE STORY. THIS, THESE,
THESE FUNDS CANNOT BE USED
BECAUSE I'M HAVING A TOUGH DAY.
AND TODAY I DID NOT GET AN
ENDORSEMENT. GO MY WAY. THESE
SERVICES ARE ONLY GOING TO.
THESE FUNDS CAN ONLY BE UTILIZED
IF. IF I'M COMING TO, A PANEL
FOR, GETTING TO KNOW THE
CANDIDATES AND SOMEONE SCREAMS
OUT, HEY, I'M NEVER GOING TO
VOTE FOR A DIKE. WE SHOULDN'T
HAVE LESBIANS IN OFFICE, THEN
THAT, FOR ME, WOULD CAUSE SOME
KIND OF TRAUMATIC EXPERIENCES
WHERE I COULD POTENTIALLY GO
BACK HOME AND THINK ABOUT, YOU
KNOW, I THINK CALIFORNIA IS NOT
READY. I'M GETTING A LOT OF
PREJUDICE, HARASSMENT FOR MY
SEXUAL ORIENTATION ORIENTATION
OR MY GENDER. I WILL THEN BE
ABLE, IF SB 1170 PASSES TO
UTILIZE FUNDS TO SEEK MENTAL
HEALTH SERVICES, BECAUSE WHAT
WE'RE SEEING AND WHAT MY
WITNESSES WILL TALK ABOUT IS
WE'RE SEEING A LOT OF PEOPLE NOT
RUN FOR REELECTION. WE'RE SEEING
A LOT OF PEOPLE DROP OUT OF
RACES BECAUSE OF HARASSMENT,
BECAUSE OF STALKING OUR
COLLEAGUES OR SO OUR COLLEAGUES
IN THE LEGISLATURE IN THE PAST
TWO YEARS HAVE HAD THEIR
ADDRESSES ON MAILERS BE SENT TO
PEOPLE WHERE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN
STALKED AT THEIR HOME IN LÀ
PERSONALLY KNOW A CANDIDATE WHO
HAD PEOPLE OUTSIDE OF HER HOME
STALKING HER BECAUSE THEY KNEW
WHERE SHE LIVED. WE HAVE PEOPLE
BEING HARASSED AND YOU'LL HEAR
ANOTHER WITNESS, PEOPLE WHO GET
SCREAMED OBSCENE THINGS BECAUSE
OF WHO THEY ARE, WHO THEY LOVE,
WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE, ETC. NOW,
THIS ISN'T EXCLUSIVE TO JUST ONE
GENDER. I HAVE A COLLEAGUE WHO
STATED IN THE SENATE ELECTIONS,
A WHITE MAN OF THE HARASSMENT HE
EXPERIENCED WHEN RUNNING FOR
OFFICE AND THE NEED HE THE
RESOURCES HE WISHED HE COULD
HAVE HAD, AND SO FORTH. NOW MANY
OF YOU CAN SAY, WELL, I CAN PAY
OUT OF POCKET FOR MY OWN MENTAL
HEALTH SERVICES TO ADDRESS WHAT
IS HAPPENING TO ME IN THE
CAMPAIGN THAT ARE SPECIFIC TO AN
INCIDENT, BUT NOT EVERYONE CAN.
I MYSELF HAD TO QUIT MY JOB, A
JOB THAT CAME WITH HEALTH
INSURANCE. I WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN
ABLE TO UTILIZE ANY OTHER MEANS
BECAUSE I NO LONGER HAD A JOB
WHEN I RAN FOR OFFICE. LUCKILY I
WAS ABLE TO GET A PART TIME JOB,
BUT THAT CAME WITH NO BENEFITS
WHATSOEVER. THE REASON WHY I
EXPANDED MY BILL TO EXCLUDE TO
INCLUDE ALSO INCUMBENTS, IS
BECAUSE THE FPPC, MENTIONED TO
US OR BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION
THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF LOCAL
ELECTED OFFICIALS WHO ARE
ELECTED OFFICIALS PART TIME
ONLY, THAT DON'T HAVE RESOURCES
THAT COULD PAY FOR MENTAL HEALTH
SERVICES. IF SOMETHING HAPPENS.
SO THERE ARE FOUR CATEGORIES
THAT ARE ELIGIBLE FOR THESE
FUNDS TO BE UTILIZED. AND THOSE
CATEGORIES ARE. IF THERE IS A
CRIMINAL THREAT OR AN ACT, THERE
IS HARASSMENT OR PREJUDICE. THAT
IS THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD
QUALIFY. SO WE WANTED TO MAKE
SURE THAT WE CLOSED IN THE
POSSIBILITY OF FRAUD OR THE
POSSIBILITY OF PEOPLE TAKING
ADVANTAGE OF IT, BUT I'M NOT
GOING TO SIT HERE AND LIE TO YOU
AND SAY, WE'VE CHECKED OFF EVERY
SINGLE BOX. THERE'S ALWAYS GOING
TO BE A PERSON THAT PROBABLY
THINKS ARE SMART ENOUGH TO
COMMIT FRAUD, AND SO AND SO AND
SO ON, BUT WE'VE REPLICATED WORD
FOR WORD FOLKS DEEMED HIGHEST
LEVEL OF DETERRENCE WITH OUR
BOILERPLATE LANGUAGE ON THIS
BEING A MISDEMEANOR. IF THEY
COMMIT FRAUD. A LOT OF THE
THINGS YOU'RE SEEING IN THIS
BILL ARE FROM TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE THAT WE'VE OBTAINED
FROM THE FCC AND THE ONGOING
MONTHS OF CONVERSATIONS WITH
THEM. SO, I WILL NOW DETAIL THE
THINGS THAT ARE IN THIS BILL.
AND THEN, MADAM CHAIR, I'LL TURN
IT OVER TO MY WITNESSES TO TALK
ABOUT REPORTS AND PERSONAL
EXPERIENCES. SO THE EXPENDITURES
BY COMMITTEE WILL PAY FOR MENTAL
HEALTH, MENTAL HEALTH CARE
SERVICES DIRECTLY RELATED TO A
POLITICAL, LEGISLATIVE OR
GOVERNMENT PURPOSES. UNDER THOSE
FOUR CATEGORIES, THERE WOULD
HAVE TO REPORT ON THEIR FORM,
JUST LIKE WE ALL DO. THE NEED.
IF IT WAS MENTAL SERVICES FOR
PREJUDICE, MENTAL SERVICES FOR
CRIMINAL ACTS AND SO FORTH, THEY
WILL HAVE TO MAINTAIN RECORDS.
THOSE RECORDS WILL ENTAIL THE
LICENSE NUMBER OF THEIR MENTAL
HEALTH THERAPIST, WHICH IS
PUBLIC INFORMATION, AND THE TYPE
OF LICENSE WHICH IS PUBLIC
INFORMATION ALREADY. IS IT A
MARRIAGE FAMILY THERAPIST? IS IT
A PSYCHIATRIST? THIS IS A
PSYCHOLOGIST. IS A MASTER'S IN
SOCIAL WELFARE. AND THEY WILL
KEEP THAT. THEY WILL ALSO HAVE
TO KEEP INVOICES. WE ARE ON
ANYTHING THAT WE USE OUR
CAMPAIGN FUNDS DO THIS ALREADY.
WE HAVE TO KEEP KEEP INVOICES
AND RECEIPTS ON EVERY CHARGE WE
MAKE. WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR
ANYTHING LESS AND WE'RE NOT
ASKING FOR ANYTHING MORE. TO
FURTHER BURDEN OR ERODE THE
CURRENT STATE OF STRUCTURE AND
WHAT WE NEED TO PROVIDE PROOF
FOR A NEED FOR CAMPAIGN FUNDS.
IF A CANDIDATE HAS PARTIAL
COVERAGE, WE'RE IN THIS BILL
ALLOWING FOR THE COVERAGE FOR
THE REST OF THE FUNDS TO BE
UTILIZED. SORRY IF THE CANDIDATE
OR HAS HEALTH CARE TO PAY FOR
PART OF THEIR MENTAL HEALTH
SERVICES, THE BILL THEN SAYS
THAT THE REST CAN BE PAID WITH
CAMPAIGN FUNDS. AND THERE IS A
WONDERFUL ASSEMBLY MEMBER THAT
BROUGHT A NEED FOR MAYBE
CLARIFYING TO ENSURE THAT IT'S
ONLY TO PAY THE REMAINING FUNDS,
NOT ALL OF IT, SINCE THEIR
HEALTH CARE CAN COVER IT, THE
CANDIDATES WILL BE ELIGIBLE TO
USE THESE FUNDS UP UNTIL THEY
ARE CERTIFIED BY THE SECRETARY
OF STATE THAT THEY HAVE, THAT
THE CERTIFICATION OF THE
ELECTION HAS BEEN CLOSED UP
UNTIL OR UP UNTIL THEY TAKE
THEIR OATH OF OFFICE. SO IF A
CANDIDATE LOSES IN THE GENERAL,
THAT WILL BE THE END OF THEIR
SERVICES. IF THE CANDIDATE WINS,
THEN THEY WOULD HAVE THEY WILL
BE ELIGIBLE FOR SERVICES UP UP
UNTIL THEY'RE SWORN IN. NOW WE
ARE CONTINUING WORKING WITH
MADAM CHAIR AND OTHER
INDIVIDUALS ON FURTHER
CLARIFYING THAT, BECAUSE I KNOW
THAT ALL ELECTIONS ARE CERTIFIED
BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE, SO IF
IT GETS OUT OF COMMITTEE, WE'LL
ADD LANGUAGE FOR THAT. WE HAVE
DEFINED, AS I MENTIONED, THE
FOUR CATEGORIES THAT WILL BE
ELIGIBLE. THEY DON'T HAVE TO PUT
ANYTHING ELSE. THERE'S NO
DIAGNOSIS THAT HAS TO BE SHARED.
THE THERAPIST WILL NOT HAVE TO
PROVIDE NOTES BECAUSE THAT WILL
BE A HIPAA VIOLATION OF
EVERYTHING. AND THEN THE
INDIVIDUALS ARE TAKING THE ARE
WILLING PARTICIPANTS. THIS ISN'T
A MANDATE. THIS IS AN OPTION FOR
CANDIDATES. CGRTS IF THEY'RE
LEGAL TEAM AND THEY'RE
CONSULTANTS. IF SHOULD THIS PASS
SAY, HEY IF YOU WISH TO BECAUSE
YOU QUALIFY, THIS IS WHAT YOU
HAVE TO DO. YOU HAVE TO REPORT
X, Y, AND Z. IF YOU'RE A WILLING
PARTICIPANT TO PUT ON YOUR FORM
THAT YOU PAID FOR IT FOR THAT,
THEN THAT CANDIDATE MADE THEIR
OWN PERSONAL DECISION TO PUT
THAT INFORMATION ON THE FORM. IF
THEY DON'T WANT THAT INFORMATION
TO BE PUBLIC, THEN THEY WOULD
HAVE TO FIND ANOTHER, DIFFERENT
MEANS TO PAY FOR THEIR MENTAL
HEALTH SERVICES IF THEY WANT IT.
AND I THINK, MADAM CHAIR, I WILL
END ON THAT AND THEN TURN TO MY
TWO WITNESSES TO TALK FURTHER.
WONDERFUL. AND JUST A REMINDER,
YOU HAVE EACH HAVE TWO MINUTES.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR AND ASSEMBLY MEMBERS. MY
NAME IS MARISSA ROY. I AM THE
PRESIDENT OF CALIFORNIA WOMEN'S
LIST. WE'RE AN ORGANIZATION THAT
SUPPORTS WOMEN FOR RUNNING FOR
OFFICE IN CALIFORNIA IN 2022.
AFTER INTERVIEWING 75 CANDIDATES
FOR OUR ENDORSEMENT, WE NOTICED
THAT FINANCIAL BARRIERS WERE NOT
THE ONLY BARRIERS WOMEN FACE
RUNNING FOR OFFICE. WE HEARD
MANY STORIES, HAD MANY
CANDIDATES BREAK DOWN IN
INTERVIEWS BECAUSE OF THE
HOSTILITY THEY WERE FACING, WE
REALIZED THIS WAS AN INVISIBLE
BARRIER, ONE THAT DIDN'T HAVE
MUCH RESEARCH BEHIND IT, JUST
ANECDOTE'S. SO WE PARTNERED WITH
THE UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO WITH
BRENNAN CENTER, WITH EVA POSNER,
A CONSULTANT IN SAN DIEGO, AS
WELL AS WITH CLOSE THE GAP
RESEARCH DIRECTOR SARAH CARSON,
TO BUILD A STUDY AND A SURVEY OF
OVER 100 CANDIDATES. SOME OF
YOU, I THINK, IN THIS ROOM MAY
HAVE RECEIVED IT EVEN, WHAT WE
FOUND WAS NOT SHOCKING, BUT
SOBERING. OVER 50% OF
CANDIDATES, RECEIVE HARASSMENT
DURING THE CAMPAIGN. IT'S HIGHER
FOR WOMEN, TWO THIRDS FOR WOMEN.
BUT 50% OF MEN AS WELL, 80% OF
CANDIDATES, REGARDLESS OF
GENDER, RECEIVE SOCIAL MEDIA
HARASSMENT. AND 25% OF WOMEN
EXPERIENCE VIOLENCE ON THE
CAMPAIGN TRAIL. THE UNIVERSITY
OF SAN DIEGO DID A HYPERLOCAL
SURVEY FINDING SIMILAR RESULTS.
75% OF CANDIDATES RECEIVE
THREATS AND HARASSMENT, 47% ON A
MONTHLY BASIS, AND 52%
CONSIDERED LEAVING OFFICE. THE
BRENNAN CENTER MEASURED CURRENT
OFFICE HOLDERS AS THAT WAS NOT
PART OF OUR STUDY, AND FOUND
THAT 89% OF LEGISLATORS FACE
ABUSE. AND IT'S GONE UP MORE FOR
REPUBLICANS EVEN THAN DEMOCRATS.
80% OF CANDIDATES IN OUR STUDY
SAID THAT THIS CAUSED NEW OR
WORSENED MENTAL HEALTH SYMPTOMS,
USUALLY ANXIETY, FREQUENT
PERSISTENT NEGATIVE SELF BELIEF,
SOMETIMES AS SEVERE AS PANIC
ATTACKS. THIS BILL WOULD NOT
CURE THE ULTIMATE CULTURE CHANGE
THAT WE NEED, BUT IT WOULD
PROVIDE A RESOURCE FOR
CANDIDATES SO THAT THEY CAN HAVE
A STOPGAP SO THEY CAN FOCUS BACK
ON THEIR CAMPAIGN AS THIS IS
AFFECTING CAMPAIGN DECISION
MAKING. IT'S A CAMPAIGN CREATED
LIABILITY AND WE NEED A CAMPAIGN
SOLUTION. SO THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. MY NAME IS KATIE
VALENZUELA AND I'M PROUD TO BE
SERVING HERE ON THE CITY COUNCIL
IN SACRAMENTO SINCE DECEMBER
2020. I'M HERE TODAY TO SHARE MY
PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WITH
HOSTILITY ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL,
BOTH IN MY INITIAL ELECTION AS A
SUBSTANCE AND SUBSTANTIALLY
WORSE AS AN OFFICE HOLDER
RUNNING FOR REELECTION.
HARASSMENT ONLINE AND IN PERSON
HAS BEEN PERSISTENT, INCLUDING
PEOPLE YELLING PROFANITY AT ME
FROM THEIR CARS AS I WAS OUT
WITH VOLUNTEERS CANVASING.
PEOPLE HAVE REPEATEDLY IMPLIED
THAT THEY WISH ME TO INCUR
PHYSICAL HARM, AND ONE PERSON
ACTUALLY THREATENED TO TAKE MY
LIFE. THE TRAUMA FROM THESE
EXPERIENCES HAS LED ME TO
DEVELOP SHINGLES, AS WELL AS
HYPERVIGILANT BEHAVIOR THAT MY
THERAPIST DIAGNOSED AS A SYMPTOM
OF POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS
DISORDER. LAST SPRING, RIGHT AS
I WAS LAUNCHING MY REELECTION
CAMPAIGN, I ENDED UP IN AN
EMERGENCY ROOM FOR SYMPTOMS THAT
PRESENTED AS A HEART ATTACK, BUT
WAS ACTUALLY A SEVERE PANIC
ATTACK. I HAVE BEEN TAKING
ANXIETY MEDICATIONS AND SEEING A
THERAPIST EVER SINCE. IN
ADDITION TO IMPACTING MY MENTAL
HEALTH, THESE EXPERIENCES HAVE
IMPACTED MY CAMPAIGN OUT OF
CONCERN FOR MY SAFETY, MY
CAMPAIGN TEAM, AND I DECIDED I
WOULD NEVER CANVASS OR GO TO
EVENTS ALONE, MEANING THAT MY
SCHEDULE WAS DICTATED BY THE
AVAILABILITY OF VOLUNTEERS TO
ACCOMPANY ME. WE HAD TO DEVELOP
A COMPLICATED RSVP PROCESS FOR
CERTAIN EVENTS TO ENSURE
LOCATIONS WERE ONLY SHARED WITH
LEGITIMATE VOLUNTEERS, AND ALL
OF THIS TOOK RESOURCES AND TIME
AWAY FROM EFFORTS TO CONNECT
WITH VOTERS DIRECTLY. I WAS SO
LUCKY THAT MY ELECTED POSITION
INCLUDES HEALTH CARE THAT
ADEQUATELY COVERED MY MENTAL
HEALTH CARE NEEDS. HAD I NOT HAD
THAT ACCESS, MY CAMPAIGN WOULD
HAVE BEEN FURTHER IMPACTED AND
FRANKLY, I MIGHT NOT HAVE RUN
FOR REELECTION AT ALL. THIS IS
THE FIRST TIME I'M PUBLICLY
SHARING SOME OF MY EXPERIENCES.
I DON'T NORMALLY READ NOTES LIKE
THIS OFF MY PHONE, MAINLY
BECAUSE I'M SO WORRIED THAT MY
STORY WILL DETER WOMEN QUALIFIED
WOMEN FROM RUNNING FOR OFFICE.
BUT THANKS TO THE REPORT THAT
MARISSA JUST OUTLINED, I NOW
KNOW THAT MY EXPERIENCE IS NOT
UNIQUE. MANY CANDIDATES,
PARTICULARLY WOMEN AND
PARTICULARLY WOMEN OF COLOR, ARE
TOO OFTEN THE TARGET OF CAMPAIGN
HOSTILITIES THAT HAVE SEVERE
IMPACTS ON OUR MENTAL HEALTH AND
WITHOUT THE RESOURCES TO ADDRESS
THESE IMPACTS, CAÑADA AND
CAMPAIGNS WILL CONTINUE TO
SUFFER REAL HARM. IF WE WANT A
REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY, WE
HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT NOT ALL
CANDIDATES CAN ACCESS MENTAL
HEALTH SUPPORT. THEY MAY NEED TO
RUN STRONG CAMPAIGNS. THIS BILL
IS A SIMPLE BUT IMPORTANT STEP
TO REMOVE THAT BARRIER, AND I
STRONGLY URGE YOUR SUPPORT.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR SHARING
YOUR PERSONAL STORY. IT'S VERY
PROFOUND, AND ARE THERE ANY
OTHER WITNESSES IN THE ROOM WHO
WOULD LIKE TO REGISTER THEIR
SUPPORT FOR THE BILL? PLEASE
STEP UP TO THE MIC, STATE YOUR
NAME, ORGANIZATION THÀNH AND
YOUR POSITION I MCKAY. CARNEY ON
BEHALF OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY IN
SUPPORT, SEEING NO ONE ELSE. ARE
THERE ANY PRIMARY WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL? IF SO,
PLEASE STEP FORWARD. ANYBODY
WANT TO GO TO THE MIC TO EXPRESS
OPPOSITION? SEEING NONE, WE'LL
BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? DO WE
HAVE A MOTION ALREADY? NOT YET.
WE HAVE A MOTION BY BERMAN. DO I
HAVE A SECOND BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER
CERVANTES AND A QUESTION BY
DOCTOR WEBER. WELL, GOOD
MORNING. AND FIRST OF ALL, THANK
YOU SO MUCH FOR BRINGING THIS
BILL FORWARD. IF ONLY TO
INITIATE, CONVERSATION AND
HIGHLIGHT THE ISSUES THAT I
THINK, PROBABLY ANYONE WHO
ENTERS THE POLITICAL ARENA,
WHETHER YOU'RE MALE OR FEMALE OR
REPUBLICAN, DEMOCRAT,
INDEPENDENT, JUST IN THIS
CURRENT, CLIMATE AND WITH SOCIAL
MEDIA OUT THERE, PEOPLE BEING
ABLE TO SAY AND DO WHATEVER THEY
WANT TO BEHIND A SCREEN AND NOT
NECESSARILY THINK ABOUT THE
CONSEQUENCES. HIS, ON THAT
PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL, GIVING
WHAT THEY ARE DOING AND, AND
ALSO WHATEVER PAST EXPERIENCES
THEY MAY HAVE. SO MY CONCERN
WITH THIS BILL, AND I'M NOT
REALLY SURE HOW TO GET AROUND
IT. AND SO BECAUSE OF THAT, I'LL
PROBABLY LAY OFF TODAY. BUT YOU
KNOW, WHENEVER AS, AS YOU
SENATOR, YOU MENTIONED WHENEVER
WE CHARGE SOMETHING OR USE
CAMPAIGN FUNDS, WE HAVE TO
DISCLOSE IT, RIGHT? WE HAVE TO
KEEP RECEIPTS. WE HAVE TO DO
THIS REPORT ON A ON A REGULAR
BASIS. AND EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE
NOT DISCLOSING NOTES, THE FACT
THAT THIS PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL
WOULD HAVE SOUGHT MENTAL HEALTH
TREATMENT OR BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
TREATMENT, AND THAT IS OUT THERE
IN PUBLIC IS OF CONCERN TO ME.
WE, UNFORTUNATELY, IN THIS
SOCIETY HAVE NOT YET NORMALIZED
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH TREATMENT AS
REGULAR HEALTH CARE TREATMENT.
THERE IS SO MUCH STIGMA AROUND
THAT AT THIS POINT. AND THE LAST
THING THAT I WOULD WANT IS FOR A
WELL INTENTIONED BILL TO
POTENTIALLY CAUSE MORE HARM, IF
I'M A CANDIDATE FIRST TIME
RUNNING, NOT REALLY SURE ABOUT
OR REALLY COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND
ALL OF THE REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS. SOMETHING HAPPENS
TO ME. I UTILIZE CAMPAIGN FUNDS
AND THEN I HAVE TO REPORT THAT
THAT I ACTUALLY SOUGHT OUT A
MENTAL THERAPIST OR A BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH THERAPIST THAT COULD
POTENTIALLY, IN MY OPINION,
CAUSE MORE DAMAGE. I WAS
THINKING, I CAN'T THINK OF ANY
OTHER SCENARIO WHERE SOMEONE'S
HEALTH RECORD, EVEN TO THE POINT
OF THE FACT THAT THEY SAW A
PHYSICIAN, IS OUT THERE FOR
PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE, IF YOU GO SEE
YOUR PRIMARY CARE DOCTOR, I
DON'T THINK THAT'S OUT THERE ON
THE INTERNET, I DON'T THINK I
COULD OR ANYONE ELSE COULD PULL
THAT INFORMATION. SO THAT'S
REALLY MY CONCERN. AND AND, YOU
KNOW, REALLY APPRECIATE THE FACT
THAT A LOT OF THIS WAS DONE IN
SAN DIEGO AND FOUND OUT
YESTERDAY, YOU KNOW, THE ROLE
THAT EVA POSNER HAD. AND SO I
LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING
CONVERSATIONS ABOUT AROUND THIS.
AND, YOU KNOW, HOPEFULLY, IF IT
PASSES THROUGH THE COMMITTEE
TODAY, WE CAN, YOU KNOW, I'LL BE
ABLE TO SUPPORT IT ON THE FLOOR.
BUT I STILL JUST NEED MORE
CONVERSATIONS AROUND THAT PIECE
BECAUSE WE HAVE SUCH STIGMA,
ESPECIALLY IN CERTAIN
COMMUNITIES AROUND THE USE OF
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH AND MENTAL
HEALTH IN GENERAL, THAT I WOULD
HATE FOR THAT TO END UP HAVING
AN EVEN WORSE AN IMPACT ON A
CANDIDATE TO HAVE THAT
INFORMATION OUT THERE, AND THEN
PEOPLE COME AFTER THEM FOR THAT.
SO REALLY APPRECIATE IT.
APPRECIATE THE RESEARCH. I DON'T
THINK ANY OF US CAN REFUTE YOU
KNOW, THE FACT THAT PEOPLE ARE
COMING AFTER THOSE WHO HAVE
STEPPED UP TO SERVE IN A VERY
DIFFERENT WAY THAN WHAT YOU SAW
TEN, 15, 20 YEARS AGO, I JUST
DON'T WANT TO WORSEN THAT BY
HAVING THAT INFORMATION OUT
THERE. BUT THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR. CAN I RESPOND TO THAT,
OKAY. THANK YOU, SENATOR, I
WOULD ACTUALLY PUSH BACK A
LITTLE BIT ON CAVING TO THE
POTENTIAL SHAME OF UTILIZING
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES AS AN MSW
MYSELF. I MEAN, I RAN TALKING
ABOUT I'VE UTILIZED MENTAL
HEALTH SERVICES THROUGHOUT MY
WHOLE LIFE WHO WOULDN'T AS A
QUEER PERSON OF COLOR IN
CALIFORNIA, RIGHT. SO I BROUGHT
I THOUGHT THAT WAS VERY
EMPOWERING TO FOR ME TO SHARE
WITH PEOPLE BECAUSE YOU DON'T
KNOW WHO'S LISTENING. AND IF
YOU'RE SAYING, AS A CANDIDATE
RUNNING TO REPRESENT 1 MILLION
PEOPLE, IF YOU'RE SAYING THAT
YOU'RE MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES,
THAT'S EMPOWERING FOR OTHER
INDIVIDUALS TO NOT FEEL SHAME,
THAT THEY'RE PART OF MENTAL OR
THEY SOUGHT MENTAL HEALTH
SERVICES, BUT ALSO AS
CANDIDATES, WE READ OUR
COMMUNITY RIGHT. I AGREE WITH
YOU. MAYBE SOME COMMUNITIES
AREN'T AS ACCEPTING OF UTILIZING
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES, BUT
THAT CANDIDATE WOULD MAKE THAT
DECISION ON THEIR OWN BECAUSE
THIS ISN'T A MANDATE. THIS IS
JUST AN OPTION. SO IF A
CANDIDATE, MAYBE THEY'RE A NEW
CANDIDATE AND THEY DON'T KNOW
ABOUT REPORTING, BUT THEIR TEAM
DOES, THEIR LAWYER DOES, THEIR
CONSULTANTS WILL KNOW AND WILL
BRIEF THAT CANDIDATE, WHETHER
THEY'RE NEW OR A VETERAN ON WHAT
WOULD BE REQUIRED OF THEM TO
UTILIZE THESE FUNDS. AND THAT
CANDIDATE THAT GROWN ADULT WOULD
DETERMINE IF THEY WANT TO TAKE
THAT ON, IF THEY WANT TO REPORT
THIS ON THEIR PUBLIC FORUMS. SO
I'M JUST ALLOWING FOR AN OPTION
FOR THE CANDIDATE. THAT'S ALL I
HAVE TO SAY. WELL, THANK YOU
VERY MUCH FOR THAT. YOU KNOW, I,
I APPRECIATE THOSE COMMENTS. I
WISH EVERYONE, FELT COMFORTABLE
BEING OPEN AND HONEST WITH THEIR
MENTAL HEALTH NEEDS, BUT WE KNOW
THAT'S NOT THE CASE. RIGHT. AND
JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE DOESN'T
MEAN THAT OTHER PEOPLE ARE. AND
IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT EVERY
CANDIDATE SHOULD THERE JUST
BECAUSE YOU STEP UP AND RUN,
IT'S AN OPTION. YEAH, IT'S JUST
AN OPTION, RIGHT? WHEN YOU STEP
UP AND RUN TO OFFICE, THAT
DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOUR WHOLE
LIFE SHOULD AUTOMATICALLY BE ON
PUBLIC DISPLAY AND YOU KNOW, WE
WHEN YOU RUN FOR THE ASSEMBLY OR
WHEN YOU RUN FOR CONGRESS, YOU
HAVE A DIFFERENT LEVEL OF
CAMPAIGN PEOPLE. I REMEMBER WHEN
I RAN FOR CITY COUNCIL, MY
TREASURER WAS NOT SOMEONE THAT I
WOULD SEE WAS SKILLED IN ALL OF
THE DIFFERENT NUANCES AND DID
NOT NECESSARILY COME TO ME IN
ADVANCE AND SAY, OH WELL, IF YOU
DO THIS, IT'S GOING TO BE
REPORTED. IF YOU DO THAT NOW, I
HAVE THAT NOW. RIGHT. BUT THIS
ISN'T, FOCUSED SPECIFICALLY ON
CERTAIN OFFICES. IT'S FOCUSED ON
ALL OFFICES. AND SO REALLY
APPRECIATE THE BILL. LOOK
FORWARD TO FURTHER CONVERSATIONS
SO THAT IF IT MAKES IT TO THE
FLOOR, I CAN SUPPORT IT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. WE'LL NOW MOVE
ON TO ASSEMBLY MEMBER BENNETT.
DEMOCRACY REALLY NEEDS EVERYBODY
TO FEEL COMFORTABLE IN TERMS OF
RUNNING, NUMBER ONE. AND SO I
APPLAUD YOU FOR TRYING TO MAKE
SURE THAT WE'RE ADDRESSING A
GROWING PROBLEM. AND THAT IS, AS
WE HAVE A WIDER DIVERSITY OF
PEOPLE RUNNING, WE HAVE, MORE
AND MORE PEOPLE ATTACKING
PEOPLE, INAPPROPRIATELY, AND SO
THAT CONCERNS ME A LOT. AND I
REALLY FEEL THE PASSION THAT YOU
HAVE AND YOUR WITNESSES HAVE FOR
TRYING TO TRYING TO ADDRESS THAT
. AT THE SAME TIME, I HAVE A
REALLY HIGH BAR FOR WHAT I THINK
CAMPAIGN EXPENSES SHOULD BE,
SHOULD QUALIFY, AND I'M
CONCERNED ABOUT AN EROSION OF
THAT. IF I KNEW THAT WE COULD
HAVE CAMPAIGN EXPENSES. YOU
KNOW, VERY TIGHTLY FOCUSED, AND
IT WOULD ADDRESS THE ISSUE. BUT
AS I'VE SHARED WITH YOU IN OUR
CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS, I
APPROACHED THIS FROM THE DEVIOUS
MIND STANDPOINT OF HOW OR HOW
COULD PEOPLE POTENTIALLY ABUSE
THIS. SO, I HAVE CONCERNS
BECAUSE I HAVE THAT STANDARD.
THE LAST BILL THAT CAME IN FRONT
OF US JUST RECENTLY THAT
INCREASED OUR ABILITY TO USE
CAMPAIGN FUNDS. I DIDN'T SUPPORT
THAT BILL. SO I JUST HAVE A HIGH
STANDARD BECAUSE I THINK THAT
THAT THE PUBLIC, THE PUBLIC THAT
I WANT MOST CONTRIBUTING TO
CAMPAIGNS ARE THOSE SMALL
DONORS, AND THEY REALLY GET
FRUSTRATED WHEN THEY SEE
CANDIDATES, USING CAMPAIGN FUNDS
INAPPROPRIATELY. AND I'VE SHARED
WITH YOU SORT OF HOW WITH YOUR
THE WAY YOUR BILL IS WRITTEN,
HOW IT COULD STILL BE EXPLOITED,
BUT I DON'T WANT THIS THE
DECISION AS TO WHETHER THIS BILL
MOVES FORWARD OR NOT TO BE
DECIDED HERE. SO I KNOW THAT YOU
NEED THE VOTE TODAY. I WILL GIVE
IT TO YOU. BUT I WANTED TO TELL
YOU I MAY NOT BE THERE. YOU
KNOW, WHEN IT COMES TO THE
FLOOR, WE'LL SEE. SEE WHETHER
YOU CAN ADDRESS THOSE, THOSE
ISSUES AT THAT POINT IN TIME.
BUT THIS IS TOO IMPORTANT OF AN
ISSUE TO BE TERMINATED AT THIS
POINT BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HAVE
THE VOTES TO GET OUT OF
COMMITTEE. THANK YOU SO MUCH,
MADAM CHAIR. CAN I SPEAK A
LITTLE BIT AND THEN TURN TO MY
WITNESS TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE
CONCERNS? ABSOLUTELY. IN 1989,
THE VOTERS PASSED THE PRA. IN
1999, WHEN I WAS BORN, NOT A LOT
OF DIVERSE CANDIDATES OR ELECTED
OFFICIALS WERE IN OFFICE ACROSS
THE UNITED STATES. IN 1999. NO
ONE WOULD HAVE EVER THOUGHT THAT
CHILD CARE WOULD HAVE BEEN AN
ELIGIBLE EXPENSE FOR CAMPAIGN
FUNDS BECAUSE, WELL, WOMEN WERE
AT HOME TAKING CARE OF THE KIDS.
BUT CALIFORNIA HAS ALREADY
ALREADY INCLUDED CHILD CARE
SERVICES AS TO BE AN ALLOWABLE
EXPENSE UNDER THE CAMPAIGN
FUNDS. BECAUSE WE NEED MOMS IN
OFFICE, BECAUSE WE NEED A
DIVERSE GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS, AS
WE'RE SEEING SOCIAL MEDIA, THE
INTERNET, REALLY, TAKE
UNFORTUNATE LEADING PART IN A
LOT OF OUR DIFFERENT LIVES, IN
DIFFERENT ASPECTS. WE NEED TO
RESPOND TO THAT. SO I UNDERSTAND
THAT THE VOTERS VOTED FOR THIS
IN 1999, BUT IN 1999, NOT A LOT
OF WOMEN WERE EVEN REGISTERED TO
VOTE, SO WE NEED TO LOOK AT HOW
WE'RE NOT ERODING THE PRA, BUT
ADJUSTING WITH THE TIMES. SO I'D
NOW LIKE TO TURN TO MY WITNESS.
ONE OTHER THING THAT HAPPENED IN
1989, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR
COMMENTS. ASSEMBLY MEMBER
BENNETT WAS AN ATTORNEY GENERAL
OPINION AND ANALYZING THE
POLITICAL REFORM ACT, SAYING
THAT WHAT WOULD QUALIFY AS A
CAMPAIGN RELATED EXPENSE, IS AN
EXPENSE, NOT THAT HAD IT COULD
IF IT HAD SUBSTANTIAL PERSONAL
BENEFIT, WHAT WOULD DISQUALIFY
IT IS IF IT HAD NEGLIGIBLE
POLITICAL, LEGISLATIVE OR
POLICY. THE REASON WE BROUGHT
THIS BILL NOW AND WE DIDN'T
BRING IT TWO YEARS AGO WHEN WE
STARTED TO IDENTIFY THE PROBLEM,
IS WE REALIZED WE HAD A LOT OF
DATA TO FIND THIS WAS NOT AN
ISSUE THAT WAS WELL DOCUMENTED.
WE KNEW ABOUT IT KIND OF VAGUELY
AND ANECDOTAL. WE KNEW THAT WE
BELIEVED IT. WE WILL ALWAYS
BELIEVE OUR CANDIDATES, BUT WE
KNEW THAT WE HAD TO HAVE DATA
THAT SHOWED WHERE THIS CAME
FROM, THAT IT CAME FROM THE
CAMPAIGN AND THAT IT WAS
AFFECTING THE CAMPAIGN. SO WHEN
WE PARSED ALL OF THE DATA, WHAT
WE FOUND IS THAT THESE ARE
CERTAINLY CAMPAIGN RELATED
LIABILITIES. BUT FOR THE
CAMPAIGN BUT FOR THESE
INCIDENCES, THESE NEW MENTAL
HEALTH SYMPTOMS WOULD NOT BE
ARISING. AND THEY WEREN'T JUST
AFFECTING THE CANDIDATE, THEY
WERE AFFECTING CAMPAIGN DECISION
MAKING, WHICH GAVE THEM A
SIGNIFICANT POLITICAL PURPOSE AS
WELL. THAT'S THE ONLY REASON WE
BROUGHT THIS BILL, BECAUSE WE
REALIZED WE NEEDED TO HAVE A
HIGH BAR, AND IF WE WERE GOING
TO ASK FOR ANY ADDITIONS, IT
NEEDED TO BE HIGHLY DATA BACKED.
WHEN WE BROUGHT THIS TO THE
FPPC, WE WERE REALLY THRILLED
THAT THEY READ AND ENGAGED WITH
ALL OF THE LITERATURE AND AGREED
WITH US THAT THIS WAS AN ISSUE,
AND THEY ACTUALLY BROUGHT
SIMILAR KIND OF QUESTIONS, WAS
RECOGNIZING ACTUALLY, AS BOTH OF
YOU ASSEMBLY MEMBERS, THAT WE'RE
SORT OF AT THE NEXUS OF THIS IS
A REAL ISSUE FOR CANDIDATES THAT
THEY'RE FACING. BUT THE
POLITICAL REFORM ACT HAS NEEDS
TO SATISFY TRANSPARENCY AND
ACCOUNTABILITY. HOW DO WE
HARMONIZE ALL OF THIS? MAKE SURE
WE MEET THE NEEDS OF THE
POLITICAL REFORM ACT, WHILE ALSO
MAKING SURE WE DO THE LEAST HARM
TO CANDIDATES. AND WHAT WE CAME
THROUGH WITH WAS EXACTLY WHAT
SENATOR MENGIBAR SAID. THIS IS
ALWAYS GOING TO BE A CHOICE. IF
A CANDIDATE FEELS LIKE THIS IS
TOO MUCH RISK FOR THEM TO HAVE
THAT INFORMATION OUT THERE, NOT
ONLY COULD THEY DECIDE TO FOREGO
THIS OPTION, THAT'S A STOP GAP,
BUT ALSO THERE ARE PROCEDURES
AND CAMPAIGNS. AS YOU KNOW, WITH
THE REPORTING PERIODS, YOU CAN
REIMBURSE YOURSELF IF YOU IF
CAMPAIGN FUNDS ACCIDENTALLY GOT
SPENT OR IF YOU DON'T, YOU CAN
REIMBURSE A CONTRIBUTOR. JUST
LIKE ANYTHING, THERE ARE WAYS TO
FIX THESE THINGS BEFORE THEY
BECOME PUBLIC. IN THE REPORTS.
BUT WHAT THE COMMISSIONER
SPECIFICALLY SAID WHEN WE WERE
TALKING ABOUT FRAUD IS HOW DO WE
ALLOW ENOUGH MECHANISMS TO
PREVENT AGAINST FRAUD? WHILE THE
FPPC DOES NOT WANT TO LITIGATE
THESE ISSUES, THE FPPC DOES NOT
WANT TO BE THE ONE FIGHTING
WHETHER HARASSMENT IS LEGITIMATE
OR NOT. SO THEY CAME UP WITH THE
CATEGORIES WITH US DRAWING FROM
EXISTING LAW. SO WE GOT THE
PREJUDICE DEFINITION WITH
REFERENCE TO THE UNRUH ACT, THE
CRIMINAL ACTS AND THREATS
DEFINITION WITH REFERENCE TO THE
PENAL CODE. OF COURSE, AND THEN
HARASSMENT WITH REFERENCE TO
SEVERAL WAYS THAT HAVE
INTERPRETED LABOR LAWS. SO WE
MADE SURE THAT THESE REPORTING
CATEGORIES WERE WIDELY
UNDERSTOOD AND ALREADY
ESTABLISHED IN CALIFORNIA LAW,
THAT WAS ENOUGH FOR THE FPPC
THAT IF WE HAD THOSE TRIGGERING
ELEMENTS, THAT WOULD BE
SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE WHAT HAD
TO GET REPORTED, WE INCLUDED THE
MISDEMEANOR BOILERPLATE
LANGUAGE, WHICH IS THE EXISTING
HIGHEST STANDARD, SO THAT IF
ANYONE DOES ENGAGE IN FRAUD,
THERE IS AN ELEMENT FOR THE
FPPC, ALSO, THE REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS WOULD MAKE SURE
THAT IT IS ONLY GOING TO THE
LIMITED SERVICES WE EXEMPTED,
WHICH WERE SERVICES PROVIDED BY
A LICENSED MENTAL HEALTH CARE
PROFESSIONAL. I THINK THERE ARE
DEFINITELY WAYS, LIKE YOU
MENTIONED, WE COULD CLARIFY IN
TERMS OF MAKING SURE WE SAY THE
DIFFERENCE FOR THE COPAY SO THAT
IT'S NOT YOU'RE YOU'RE NOT
DOUBLE PAYING. BUT I THINK WE
HAVE WORKED WITH THE FPPC TO
MAKE SURE WE'RE MEETING THEIR
HIGHEST STANDARDS WITH THEIR
ATTENTION TO BOTH THE
CANDIDATES, BUT ALSO THE GOALS
OF THE POLITICAL REFORM ACT. SO
WE'RE HAPPY TO CONTINUE
CLARIFYING. BUT WE'VE TRIED TO
DO OUR DUE DILIGENCE TO KEEP
THIS A NARROW BILL THAT WOULD
MEET BOTH THE NEEDS OF
CANDIDATES AND THE POLITICAL
REFORM ACT, IF I COULD. I
APPRECIATE IT. AND I HAVE GREAT
RESPECT FOR THE AUTHOR, WHICH IS
ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT, THE BILL
CONTINUES TO LIVE, FOR A WHILE,
AS I SHARED WITH HER LAST NIGHT
IN THE CONVERSATION, THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FRAUD AND
ABUSE IS, YOU KNOW, ONE FRAUD IS
ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING
FRAUDULENTLY, BUT PEOPLE CAN
ABUSE THE INTENT OF THE LAW, AND
THAT'S WHAT MY CONCERN WOULD BE.
PEOPLE THAT ABUSE THE INTENT OF
THE LAW AND THEN ERODE, SORT OF
SUPPORT FOR THESE KINDS OF
THINGS, BECAUSE THEY ABUSE IT.
AND ABUSE CAN OFTENTIMES BE VERY
LEGAL. RIGHT BUT IT'S ABUSIVE.
RIGHT. AND THAT'S, THAT'S THOSE
ARE THE EXAMPLES THAT I WAS
SHARING. BUT THANK YOU SO MUCH.
I APPRECIATE YOU. OKAY. WE HAVE
ANOTHER QUESTION. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER SALLY. YEAH, JUST ONE
QUESTION. I ACTUALLY, AGREE WITH
MY COLLEAGUE DOCTOR, DOCTOR
WEBER, ABOUT PRIVACY INTERESTS
FOR HEALTH RECORDS. I JUST THINK
THOSE ARE REALLY BIG DEALS AND
PEOPLE COULD WEAPONIZE THAT
INFORMATION. BUT MY QUESTION IS,
IS THERE ANYTHING TO STOP A
CANDIDATE FROM HAVING A DONOR
PAY FOR THEIR MENTAL HEALTH
SERVICES? BECAUSE IF THAT IS NOT
, NOT FOR BY THE IN-KIND RIGHT.
WELL, I THAT'S A GENUINE
QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW THE
ANSWER TO, BUT IF THAT IS FOR
PERSONAL SERVICES, MENTAL HEALTH
PURPOSES, MAYBE I'M JUST
THINKING OF A MIDDLE GROUND,
MAYBE SOME SORT OF CLARIFICATION
THAT DOES THAT THAT'S NOT
CAMPAIGN RELATED, DOES NOT
REQUIRE IN-KIND. AND THEN THEY
COULD HAVE A DONOR PRIVATELY PAY
FOR THOSE BECAUSE I THINK
DISCLOSING TO LIKE A DONOR IS
PROBABLY BETTER THAN DISCLOSING
TO THE WORLD OR SOMETHING. SO
IT'S JUST A QUESTION I THROW OUT
THERE. I MEAN, MAYBE THAT COULD
BE SOMETHING TO LOOK AT, BECAUSE
I DO I DO THINK IF YOU START
REPORTING, YOU'RE SEEING A
COUNSELOR. I MEAN, PEOPLE ARE
GOING TO THEY'RE GOING TO DO
SOMETHING WITH THAT. TWO THINGS
I'D LIKE TO SAY. THE FIRST, I
WANT TO CLARIFY. THERE'S NO
HEALTH RECORDS BEING REPORTED.
NONE WHATSOEVER. THE ONLY THING
THAT'S BEING REPORTED IS ON YOUR
FORM, WHATEVER IT IS. 770. I'M
NOT SURE, 700 IS MENTAL HEALTH
SERVICES FOR HARASSMENT, MENTAL
SERVICES FOR CRIMINAL ACTS,
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES FOR,
CRIMINAL THREATS. THE FOUR
CATEGORIES THAT I SHARED AND
THAT'S HOW WE GOT WITH THE FPPC
TO DRAW, FIND A MIDDLE GROUND
FOR PROTECTION OF THESE OF THE
CANDIDATE AND THE SERVICES, BUT
ALSO FOR TRANSPARENCY. SO I JUST
WANT TO CLARIFY THAT ON THE
SECOND SECOND THING,
ASSEMBLYMEMBER, I ACTUALLY THINK
IN DOING THAT APPROACH WOULD
ENHANCE THE CONCERNS FROM
ASSEMBLYMEMBER BENNETT OF TAKING
ADVANTAGE OF BECAUSE THERE'S
LESS ACCOUNTABILITY WITH WITH
THAT THAN VERSUS ACTUALLY USING
THE FUNDS FROM YOUR FROM YOUR
COMMITTEE. RIGHT. BECAUSE YOU
CAN SAY, AND I DON'T KNOW, I'M
NOT A LAWYER. THIS IS NOT FROM
IT'S NEVER BEEN WE'VE NEVER
ASKED THE FPPC. OKAY. WELL I'M
NOT SURE. BUT IN FRONT OF YOU
ASSEMBLY MEMBER IS A ROUTE WE
TOOK, THAT'S ALL I CAN SAY, I
GUESS. YEAH AND, MADAM CHAIR,
MAYBE ONE OF MY WITNESSES, I
DON'T. SURE. AND IT WAS A FORM
460. SORRY ABOUT THAT. I GET
THOSE NUMBERS RIGHT. A LOT OF
THINGS, A LOT OF FORMS AND JUST
A LOT OF FORMS. I KNOW A LOT OF
FORMS. AND JUST TO CLARIFY, AS
AN INCUMBENT, I WOULD STILL BE
REQUIRED TO REPORT THAT AS A
GIFT ON MY FORM 700. AND SO
YEAH, THAT'S ANOTHER LOOP. YEAH
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?
OKAY. SEEING NONE WE HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND. AND, I JUST
WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR FOR
BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD.
THANK YOU FOR SHARING YOUR
PERSONAL STORY AS WELL. IT'S
PROFOUND. IT'S INSPIRATIONAL. AS
MANY OF YOU KNOW, I AM
PASSIONATE ABOUT MENTAL HEALTH
AND BRINGING AWARENESS ABOUT THE
LACK OF UNDERSTANDING AND SOCIAL
STIGMA THAT SURROUNDS MENTAL
HEALTH DISORDERS. I ACTUALLY
THINK THIS BILL WILL HELP REMOVE
THAT STIGMA, AND I WANT TO LIVE
IN A WORLD WHERE IT'S OKAY, THAT
YOU'RE NOT OKAY, AND IT'S OKAY
THAT YOU'RE GETTING COUNSELING
AND CARE WHEN YOU'RE IN A WHEN
YOU'RE HAVING A MENTAL HEALTH
ISSUE, THERE'S ALSO I JUST WANT
TO BRING UP THERE'S FPPC
TRAINING FOR CANDIDATES AND
MANUALS THAT WILL EXPLAIN THIS
AS WELL. AND WE ALWAYS AS A
FORMER ELECTIONS OFFICIAL, WE
ALWAYS GOT THOSE MATERIALS TO
OUR NEW CANDIDATES, ESPECIALLY
THE ONES THAT ARE FIRST TIME OUT
TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE AWARE OF
ALL THE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
SO THAT WOULD BE INCLUDED IN
THOSE. AND I THINK IT'S
ABSOLUTELY IMPORTANT THAT WE
ENSURE THAT CANDIDATES HAVE
READY ACCESS TO MENTAL HEALTH
SERVICES. AND, AND I WOULD BE
HONORED IF YOU WOULD ADD ME AS A
COAUTHOR. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR. AND WITH THAT, I'M
RECOMMENDING A SUPPORT. AND
PLEASE ALSO CONTINUE TO WORK ON
ANY ISSUES CONCERNING THE
CONFLICT WITH MEDICAL PRIVACY
LAWS. SO I'M SURE YOU'LL
CONTINUE TO DO THAT. SO AGAIN,
WITH THAT I'M RECOMMENDING A
SUPPORT. AND IT'S A DO PASS AND
REREFERRED TO APPROPRIATIONS
SECRETARY. WE'LL CALL THE ROLL
ON SB 1170. MENGIBAR PELLERIN A
PELLERIN AYE. LACKEY AYE.
LACKEY. AYE. BENNETT BENNETT.
AYE. BERMAN. BERMAN. AYE.
CERVANTES CERVANTES. AYE. ASSALY
ASSALY IS NOT VOTING. LOWE.
LOWE. AYE WEBER. WEBER. NOT
VOTING. SIX ZERO. THAT BILL IS
OUT 6 TO 0. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WE'RE NOW MOVE ON TO OUR FINAL
BILL, WHICH IS BY SENATOR NEWMAN
. SB 907. YOU MAY BEGIN WHEN
YOU'RE READY.
GOOD MORNING, MEMBERS. MADAM
CHAIR, AM I ON? I'M ON. I AM
PLEASED TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY
TO PRESENT SB 907, A DISTRICT
BILL THAT WILL IMPROVE
REPRESENTATION AND ELECTORAL
PARTICIPATION IN ORANGE COUNTY
BY MAKING TWO VERY SENSIBLE
CHANGES TO THE ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF EDUCATION. FIRST,
INCREASING THE NUMBER OF
TRUSTEES ON THE BOARD FROM THE
CURRENT 5 TO 7, AND SECONDLY,
SHIFTING THE BOARD'S ELECTIONS
FROM THE PRIMARY BALLOT AS
CURRENTLY CONDUCTED AND INTO THE
GENERAL ELECTION IN NOVEMBER.
THE ORANGE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION, WHICH WAS FORMED IN
1977 AND JOINTLY GOVERNED BY THE
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
AND THE COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT,
IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING
ALTERNATIVE AND SPECIAL
EDUCATION PROGRAMS TO MORE THAN
91,000 STUDENTS, MANY OF WHOM
ARE AMONG THE COUNTY'S MOST
VULNERABLE AND DISADVANTAGED.
OCB IS ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR
FUNDING AND DEVELOPING A VARIETY
OF PROGRAMS THAT SUPPORT THE
NEARLY HALF MILLION STUDENTS
ENROLLED IN ORANGE COUNTY'S 28
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS, AS
WELL AS SERVING AS THE APPELLATE
AUTHORITY OF LAST RESORT FOR
CHARTER SCHOOL APPLICATIONS
REJECTED BY LOCAL SCHOOL
DISTRICTS WITHIN ITS
JURISDICTION. SINCE ORANGE
COUNTY'S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
WAS ESTABLISHED IN ITS MODERN
FORM IN 1977, ITS POPULATION HAS
NEARLY DOUBLED FROM 1.8 MILLION
IN THAT YEAR TO ITS CURRENT
POPULATION OF NEARLY 3.2
MILLION. THAT MAKES IT THE THIRD
LARGEST COUNTY BY POPULATION IN
THE STATE, AND OF THE STATE'S
TEN LARGEST COUNTIES. ORANGE
COUNTY IS CURRENTLY ONE OF ONLY
FOUR WHOSE COUNTY BOARDS OF
EDUCATION HAVE ONLY FIVE
TRUSTEES. OF THE COUNTIES WHICH
STILL HAVE FIVE TRUSTEES, THE
ONLY ONE COMPARABLE IN SIZE TO
ORANGE COUNTY IS THE COUNTY OF
SAN DIEGO, AND THE NEARLY FIVE
DECADES SINCE THE CONSTITUTION
OF THE OCPO ORANGE COUNTY'S
POPULATION HAS ALSO BECOME
INFINITELY MORE DIVERSE.
ACCORDING TO THE 2000 CENSUS,
MORE THAN 50% OF POPULATION AT
THAT TIME WAS WHITE. BY THE TIME
OF THE MOST RECENT CENSUS, THAT
SHARE HAD DROPPED TO LESS THAN
37, AND OC HAS NOW BECOME A
RESOUNDINGLY MAJORITY MINORITY
COUNTY, EXPANDING THE BOARD FROM
ITS CURRENT FIVE TRUSTEES TO
SEVEN WILL ENSURE THAT IT MORE
FULLY REFLECTS THAT DIVERSITY,
WITH ITS WITHIN ITS ELECTED
MEMBERSHIP. MOVING THE ELECTION
OF OC BOE TRUSTEES INTO THE
NOVEMBER GENERAL WILL ALSO
ENSURE HIGHER PARTICIPATION BY
THAT MORE DIVERSE ELECTORATE.
THIS WOULD BE A POSITIVE
DEVELOPMENT IN NOT ONE, BUT TWO
DIRECTIONS. FIRST, AS MENTIONED,
IT WILL RESULT OVER TIME IN A
BOARD THAT MORE CLOSELY REFLECTS
OC S CHANGING POPULATION.
SECONDLY AND JUST AS
IMPORTANTLY, INCLUDING THE VOTE
FOR COUNTY BOARD TRUSTEES ON THE
NOVEMBER BALLOT WILL GIVE VOTERS
A BETTER OPPORTUNITY TO ENGAGE
AND CONNECT WITH CANDIDATES AND
THE EVENTUAL ELECTED BOARD
MEMBERS AS PART OF A CRITICAL
TASK OF RECONNECTING RESIDENTS
TO CIVIC INSTITUTIONS LIKE THE
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF
EDUCATION, ABOUT WHICH THEY ARE
INCREASINGLY UNINFORMED AND FROM
WHICH THEY ARE INCREASINGLY
DISCONNECTED. WHEN IT COMES TO
IMPORTANT CONVERSATIONS AROUND
EDUCATION AND ACCESS, I WOULD
ARGUE THAT THIS MATTERS A GREAT
DEAL, AS I'VE EMPHASIZED IN MY
CONVERSATIONS WITH THE
OPPOSITION AND WITH OTHERS, THE
IMPETUS FOR THIS BILL DOES NOT
ARISE OUT OF POLITICS, ENHANCING
THE RESPONSIVENESS OF ANY
GOVERNING BODY AND IMPROVING
PARTICIPATION IN THE ELECTION OF
ITS MEMBERS ARE OBJECTIVELY GOOD
GOALS. AND THAT'S WHAT THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS BILL SEEK TO
ENABLE HERE TO TESTIFY IN
SUPPORT OF THE BILL IS LUCA
GRECO, A PARENT AND THE ADVOCACY
CO-CHAIR FOR CAPISTRANO SCHOOL
DISTRICT PTSA, THE LARGEST
DISTRICT IN ORANGE COUNTY AND A
MEMBER OF THE FOURTH DISTRICT
PTA. AND DAVID BURKE, WHO IS
PRESIDENT OF CITIZENS TAKE
ACTION. I AM RESPECTFULLY ASKING
FOR YOUR. I VOTE THIS MORNING.
AND JUST A REMINDER, YOU EACH
HAVE TWO MINUTES. YOU MAY BEGIN.
YES. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. IN
1816, THOMAS JEFFERSON WROTE. I
AM CERTAINLY NOT AN ADVOCATE FOR
FREQUENT AND UNTRIED CHANGES IN
LAWS AND CONSTITUTIONS, BUT I
KNOW ALSO THAT LAWS AND
INSTITUTIONS MUST ADVANCE AND
KEEP PACE WITH TIME. ORANGE
COUNTY DEMOGRAPHIC HAS CHANGED
DRASTICALLY OVER THE PAST FIVE
DECADES, YET THE ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF ED IS THE SAME AS A PTA
ADVOCATE FOR TEN YEARS, I WANT
TO HIGHLIGHT THAT THE FOURTH
DISTRICT PTA, REPRESENTING OVER
100,000 MEMBERS, HAS SUPPORTED
SENATORS MEAN PREVIOUS BILL TO
MOVE THE OC BOARD OF ELECTION
FROM THE PRIMARY TO THE GENERAL
ELECTIONS. IT IS INDISPUTABLE
THE FACT THAT VOTERS
PARTICIPATION IS HIGHER IN THE
GENERAL ELECTION THAN IN THE
PRIMARIES. IN MY OPINION, UNLESS
THE GOAL IS TO SUPPRESS THE
VOTER TURNOUT, THERE IS NO
REASON TO OPPOSE THIS CHANGE. OC
BOARD OF ED WAS ESTABLISHED IN
ITS MODERN FORM IN 1977. ALISO
VIEJO, THE TOWN I'M FROM, DIDN'T
EXIST UNTIL 2001. IRVINE THE
LARGEST CITY IN ORANGE COUNTY,
HAD A POPULATION OF 11,019 77
VERSUS 330,000 NOW GIVEN THE
GROWTH INCREASE, THE NUMBER OF
BOARD MEMBERS FROM 5 TO 7, IT'S
A NO BRAINER. ALSO THE ORANGE
COUNTY POPULATION HAS GROWN
DIVERSELY FROM 1.8 TO 3.2
MILLION. THIS BILL ISN'T JUST
NUMBERS, IT'S ABOUT ESTABLISHING
FAIR ELECTIONS AND BETTER
REPRESENTATION FOR THE ORANGE
COUNTY'S DIVERSE POPULATION.
IT'S ABOUT EMBRACING PROGRESS
AND LEAVING BEHIND THE RELICS IN
THE PAST. LET'S MOVE FORWARD
TOGETHER AND ENSURE THAT OUR
EDUCATION INSTITUTION EVOLVES
WITH TIMES. PLEASE VOTE YES ON
THIS BILL. NEXT WITNESS. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR
PELLERIN AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
I'M DAVID BURKE, THE FOUNDER OF
CITIZENS TAKE ACTION, WHICH IS A
NONPROFIT BASED IN ORANGE
COUNTY. TWO OF THE THINGS WE
FOCUS ON ARE SUPPORTING A MORE
REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT AND
INCREASING CIVIC ENGAGEMENT. AND
THAT'S WHY I WHOLEHEARTEDLY URGE
YOU TO SUPPORT SB 907,
INCREASING THE NUMBER OF
REPRESENTATIVES ON THE ORANGE
COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION FROM 5
TO 7 WILL PROVIDE GREATER
REPRESENTATION TO ORANGE COUNTY
RESIDENTS AND MAKE IT EASIER FOR
PARENTS TO CONNECT DIRECTLY WITH
THEIR BOARD MEMBERS, AND MOVING
THE ELECTIONS TO THE TRADITIONAL
NOVEMBER ELECTION CYCLE WILL
LIKELY INCREASE VOTER TURNOUT,
INCLUDING AMONG HISTORICALLY
UNDERREPRESENTED GROUPS. IF I
MAY BE FRANK, THE WAY THAT THE
OC BOE CURRENTLY CONDUCTS ITS
ELECTIONS DURING A PRIMARY AND
REQUIRING ONLY A PLURALITY OF
VOTES TO WIN, IS PRECISELY WHAT
YOU DO. IF YOU WANTED TO
DISCOURAGE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.
I'VE PERSONALLY SPOKEN WITH MANY
ORANGE COUNTY VOTERS WHO ARE
CONFUSED ABOUT THE OSE
ELECTIONS, AND WHY THEY ARE
DIFFERENT THAN NEARLY EVERY
OTHER ELECTION IN THE
JURISDICTION WE WANT VOTERS TO
HAVE CLARITY REGARDING WHEN
ELECTIONS ARE OCCURRING AND
MAXIMIZE THEIR OPPORTUNITY TO
ENGAGE WITH LOCAL CANDIDATES. SB
907 OFFERS LOGICAL SOLUTIONS TO
THESE CHALLENGES. EXPAND THE
SIZE OF THE OC BOE TO INCREASE
REPRESENTATION THÀNH CONSOLIDATE
THE OC BIOS ELECTION WITH
STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTIONS TO
INCREASE VOTER ENGAGEMENT. IT.
IT'S SIMPLE. IT INCREASES LOCAL
CONTROL FOR PARENTS, AND THAT'S
WHY SB 907 DESERVES YOUR
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. ARE THERE ANY
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES WHO WOULD
LIKE TO REGISTER SUPPORT FOR
THIS BILL? IF SO, PLEASE GO TO
THE MIC AND STATE YOUR NAME AND
ORGANIZATION AND POSITION.
SEEING NONE, ANYBODY IN THE ROOM
WHO IS A PRIMARY WITNESS IN
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL? IF SO,
PLEASE STEP UP. IF YOU'RE A
PRIMARY WITNESS, YOU MAY COME TO
THE TABLE AND YOU EACH HAVE TWO
MINUTES. YOU MAY BEGIN WHEN
YOU'RE READY. THANK YOU. SORRY A
WEIRD LOCATION. I GOT YOUR BACK,
TIM. HE'S GOT YOUR BACK. YOU GOT
MY BACK. ALL RIGHT, MY GOOD
MORNING. MY NAME IS TIM SHAW.
EXCUSE ME. I'M THE PRESIDENT OF
THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF
EDUCATION, THE ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF EDUCATION TOOK A
UNANIMOUS POSITION TO OPPOSE
SENATE BILL 907 FOR A FEW
REASONS, RESPECTFULLY, WE WOULD
SUGGEST THAT THE NUMBER OF
TRUSTEES ON OUR BOARD AND WHEN
OUR ELECTIONS ARE HELD SHOULD BE
A DECISION FOR THE LOCAL FOR US
IN ORANGE COUNTY AND NOT FOR
SENATOR AND ASSEMBLY MEMBERS
FROM AROUND THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. OF THE 58 COUNTIES
IN CALIFORNIA, OBVIOUSLY, SENATE
BILL 907 ONLY SINGLES OUT ORANGE
COUNTY, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, OUR
NEIGHBOR TO THE SOUTH, HAS A
LARGER POPULATION THAN ORANGE
COUNTY AND YET HAS FIVE
TRUSTEES. AND THIS BILL DOES
NOTHING TO CHANGE THAT. OUR
NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTH, LOS
ANGELES COUNTY, DOESN'T HAVE AN
ELECTION FOR THE COUNTY BOARD OF
EDUCATION WHATSOEVER. THEY'RE
APPOINTED BY THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS. IF WE'RE LOOKING
FOR A BETTER DEMOCRATIC
REPRESENTATION FOR A COUNTY
BOARD OF EDUCATION, OBVIOUSLY
LOS ANGELES COUNTY IS A BETTER
PLACE TO FOCUS ON, HAVING SEVEN
TRUSTEES, FORCED ONTO OUR BOARD
AT THIS TIME WOULD CREATE A FEW
PROBLEMS, WOULD BE A MID-CYCLE
AND EXPENSIVE REDISTRICTING
PROCESS, ONE THAT WE RECENTLY
CONCLUDED. IT WOULD OBVIOUSLY BE
DISRUPTIVE TO OUR BOARD, ADDING
TWO TRUSTEES, COMBINED,
COMBINING THE COSTS OF THE
REDISTRICTING WITH THE INHERENT
COST OF HAVING TWO MORE TRUSTEES
WILL COST HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS
OF DOLLARS. OBVIOUSLY AT A TIME
WHEN THE STATE BUDGET IS HAVING
SOME TROUBLE, AS FAR AS THE
POPULATION OF THE COUNTY GOES,
ACTUALLY, ORANGE COUNTY'S
POPULATION IS, IN THE MIDDLE OF
DECLINING RIGHT NOW. WE'VE LOST
ABOUT 35,000 RESIDENTS OVER THE
LAST TWO YEARS. SO ADDING TO THE
BOARD AT THIS TIME SEEMS A
LITTLE COUNTERINTUITIVE. THE
SUPPORTERS OF SB 907 CORRECTLY
POINT OUT THAT VOTER TURNOUT IS
HIGHER IN NOVEMBER. I WOULD ALSO
POINT OUT THAT THE NOVEMBER
BALLOT TENDS TO BE A LOT MORE
CROWDED, SO I'VE GOT TWO
MINUTES. OKAY, SO MY POINT IS
THAT THE VOTERS CAN FOCUS MORE
IN THE PRIMARY BALLOT. THANK
YOU. NEXT WITNESS TWO MINUTES.
MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS GREG
ROLAND. I'M COUNSEL TO THE
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
. AND I'M HERE TODAY TO SPEAK TO
THE MID-CYCLE REDISTRICTING, THE
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS, THE
LEGISLATIVE ANALYSIS APPEARS TO
NECESSITATE THAT THIS BILL WILL
NECESSITATE A MID-CYCLE
REDISTRICTING. WE JUST WENT
THROUGH THIS IN 2021. AND IT'S
NOT ONLY AN EXPENSIVE, BUT IT'S
AN ONEROUS PROCESS. WE SUBMITTED
A DECLARATION TO THE ASSEMBLY,
TO THE SENATE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE SHOWING THAT THE
REDISTRICTING PROCESS ITSELF
COST $700,000. THIS. BUT THAT
WAS IN IT. WE HAD NINE MEETINGS
TALKING ABOUT REDISTRICTING. WE
TOOK PUBLIC COMMENT. WE HAD
EXPERT TESTIMONY. WE CONSIDERED
ABOUT NINE MAPS. THE COUNTY
COMMITTEE HAD THREE OTHER
MEETINGS WHERE THEY WENT THROUGH
THE SAME PROCESS. THIS CAUSED SO
MUCH CONFUSION IN THE COMMUNITY
THAT THAT WE WERE AT THE
REGISTRAR OF VOTERS AT THE 11TH
HOUR, NOT KNOWING WHICH MAP WAS
GOING TO BE POSTED FOR THE
COMMUNITY, AND RECEIVED A LOT OF
ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE THAT PEOPLE
DIDN'T KNOW THEIR TRUSTEE AREA
OR THE CANDIDATE FOR WHOM THEY
WERE VOTING. THERE WAS SO MUCH
UNCERTAINTY THAT THIS PROCESS
PROMPTED FURTHER LITIGATION.
NOW, THIS IS LITIGATION THAT IS
NOT INCLUDED IN THE $700,000
COSTS. AND INCIDENTALLY, THE
TAXPAYERS OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA BORE THE BRUNT FOR
BOTH PARTIES. THIS LITIGATION
WENT THROUGH THE SUPERIOR COURT
AND ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE
COURT OF APPEAL, AND IT WAS ONLY
RESOLVED THROUGH A LEGISLATIVE
FIX. AND KEEP IN MIND, THAT WAS
FOR FIVE TRUSTEE AREAS IN A
DECENNIAL REDISTRICTING THAT WE
HAD PLANNED AND FOR WHICH THERE
WAS PRECEDENT. AND THIS WOULD BE
SEVEN TRUSTEE AREAS FOR WHICH
THERE IS NO PRECEDENT IN ORANGE
COUNTY. SO I JUST WANT THE
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE TO KEEP
IN MIND THE DISRUPTIVE NATURE OF
A MID-CYCLE REDISTRICTING. THANK
YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER
WITNESSES IN THE ROOM WHO WOULD
LIKE TO REGISTER YOUR OPPOSITION
TO THE BILL? PLEASE STEP UP TO
THE MIC. STATE YOUR NAME,
ORGANIZATION OF ANY AND YOUR
POSITION. YES. BOB NAYLOR,
REPRESENTING FIELDSTEAD AND
COMPANY. THAT'S HOWARD AHMANSON
JR IN ORANGE COUNTY.
PHILANTHROPIST. RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSING THIS BILL. MADAM CHAIR
AND MEMBERS, ADAM KAGAN, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA CHARTER
SCHOOLS ASSOCIATION, AS WELL AS
EDNA VÆ IN OPPOSITION. THANKS.
THANK YOU. I WILL NOW BE
BRINGING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE. ASSEMBLY MEMBER
BENNETT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
MADAM CHAIR. I THINK IT'S
NOTEWORTHY THAT THE WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL, HAVE
OFFERED SOME EVIDENCE ABOUT HOW
IT MIGHT BE UNFAIR FOR OR
INAPPROPRIATE TO DO THIS WHEN
LOS ANGELES DOESN'T DO THIS OR
WHEN SAN DIEGO HAS A GREATER
POPULATION, THÀNH, ETC. I THINK
THE GERMANE ISSUE IS, IS THE
SYSTEM IN ORANGE COUNTY THE
APPROPRIATE SYSTEM OR NOT?
THAT'S THE QUESTION IN FRONT OF
US, NOT Þ SOMEPLACE UP IN
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA IS NOT DOING
IT, IS DOING IT IN MORE
INAPPROPRIATELY. AND I HAVEN'T
HEARD ANY PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT
SUGGESTS THAT WHAT WE REALLY
HAVE IS A GREAT SYSTEM BECAUSE
WE DO THE ELECTION DURING THE
PRIMARY, WHICH IS NOT WHEN THE
VOTERS ARE EXPECTING TO BE DOING
A FINAL VOTE FOR AN ELECTION.
AND WE'RE ALLOWING PEOPLE TO BE
ELECTED TO OFFICE WITH JUST A
PLURALITY OF THE VOTES. I MEAN,
THAT'S AS UNDEMOCRATIC AS IT
GETS, AND IT'S ALWAYS BEEN A
FRUSTRATION THAT CITY COUNCIL
ELECTIONS, ETC. ALLOW THAT TO
HAPPEN SO IT CAN BE GAMED A LOT
EASIER THAT WAY, BECAUSE ALL YOU
HAVE TO DO IS SPLIT THE VOTES OF
ONE SIDE. AND SO I BELIEVE
PEOPLE SHOULD BE, ELECTED IN A,
IN A MORE APPROPRIATE OR MORE
DEMOCRATIC STANDPOINT, AND THIS
BILL SIMPLY, THAT'S WHAT THAT'S
WHAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED. AND
THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M HEARING FROM
THE OPPOSITION. WHY, IT'S GOOD
TO STAY WITH THE PRIMARY AND WHY
IT'S GOOD TO STAY WITH PLURALITY
VOTES, THIS BILL DOESN'T SOLVE
ALL OF THE PROBLEMS THAT WE HAVE
IN TERMS OF INCREASING
DEMOCRACY. BUT I'D LIKE TO MAKE
THE MOTION TO APPROVE THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A
MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
SECOND BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER
CERVANTES? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS FROM COMMITTEE
MEMBERS? YES, WE'LL GO TO DOCTOR
PEPPER. GOOD MORNING. SENATOR.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR COMING AND
PRESENTING THIS BILL. I, I'M
CONFLICTED WITH THIS BILL
BECAUSE THERE'S ONE PART OF IT
THAT I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH AND
THAT IS, THAT THE ELECTIONS
SHOULD BE DURING THE GENERAL
ELECTION. YOU HAVE MUCH BETTER
TURNOUT. IT'S MUCH BETTER FOR
DEMOCRACY, YOU KNOW, WE
MENTIONED SAN DIEGO COUNTY. YES.
WE HAVE FIVE ON OUR SCHOOL
BOARD, BUT WE ALSO HAVE A
PRIMARY AND A GENERAL ELECTION.
AND ACTUALLY THE GENERAL
ELECTION IS A CITYWIDE ELECTION.
IT'S NOT WITHIN THE DISTRICT.
SO, YOU KNOW, I REALLY, REALLY,
REALLY LIKE THAT PART. I'M NOT I
HAVEN'T HEARD ANY EVIDENCE ABOUT
THE NEED TO INCREASE THE
NUMBERS, CONSIDERING THAT I COME
FROM A COUNTY THAT IS SIMILAR TO
ORANGE COUNTY AND WE HAVE FIVE,
I WILL SUPPORT IT TODAY, BUT,
RESERVE MY RIGHT WHEN IT COMES
TO THE FLOOR. THANK YOU. THAT
OKAY, ASSEMBLY MEMBER SALIH.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, YEAH. I
JUST WANT TO ECHO WHAT MY
COLLEAGUE JUST SAID. I DON'T
REALLY SEE THE PROBLEM WITH
MOVING IT TO THE GENERAL, MY
CONCERN IS INCREASING THE SIZE
OF THE BOARD, SO, AND EITHER
SENATOR WITNESS OR THE WITNESSES
CAN ANSWER THIS, BUT YOU'VE MADE
ALLEGATIONS HERE TODAY THAT THE
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
IS SOMEHOW, NOT CONDUCTING FAIR
ELECTIONS OR THEY'RE NOT FAIRLY
REPRESENTING THEIR CONSTITUENTS.
SO CAN YOU EXPAND ON WHAT
EXACTLY IS THE CONCERN, ORANGE
COUNTY? LET ME START ONE OF MY
I'D LIKE TO CHARACTERIZE THIS
MORE AS AN OBSERVATION, NOT AN
ALLEGATION. THE OBSERVATION IS,
YOU KNOW, THE COUNTY HAS CHANGED
PROFOUNDLY IN THE LAST 50 YEARS.
AND I THINK IT GOES WITHOUT
SAYING THAT A SEVEN MEMBER BOARD
WITH SMALLER JURISDICTIONS IS
LIKELY TO BE MORE
REPRESENTATIVE. MOREOVER, I
THINK IT GIVES YOU ASSURANCE TO
VOTERS THAT THEY ARE, YOU KNOW,
PROPERLY AND ADEQUATELY
REPRESENTED THE SIZE OF A
TRUSTEE DISTRICT RIGHT NOW IS
LARGER THAN THE SIZE OF YOUR
ASSEMBLY DISTRICT. AND THAT, TO
MY MIND, SMALLER THAN YOURS,
SMALLER. WE CAN HAVE THAT
CONVERSATION ANY TIME. MINOR,
ARGUABLY TOO BIG. AND, YOU KNOW,
WHEN WE LOOK AT THINGS SORT OF
FROM A 30,000 FOOT LEVEL HERE AT
EDUCATION IS A LOCAL MATTER, AND
I THINK EVERYBODY IS BETTER
SERVED. I THINK, MY WITNESS FROM
THE PTA CAN SPEAK TO THIS AS
WELL AS ANYBODY. YEAH,
ABSOLUTELY. SO I'M, RIGHT NOW
I'M A PARENT IN CAPISTRANO
SCHOOL DISTRICT, AND WE HAVE
SEVEN TRUSTEES, I BELIEVE,
BECAUSE WE HAVE SEVEN, WE HAVE A
BETTER CONNECTION WITH THEM. I
CAN CONTACT AND I FEEL MORE
CONNECTED TO THEM, AND WE CAN
DISCUSS DIFFERENT THINGS. AS THE
SENATOR SAID, WE HAVE SOME 50
YEARS OF CHANGE IN ORANGE COUNTY
. IT'S NOT THE SAME. SO BY
EXPANDING THE BOARD, IT'S GOING
TO BE GOING TO EACH TRUSTEE IS
GOING TO HAVE A SMALLER AREA, A
SMALLER NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT
THEY CAN CONNECT WITH AND
ACTUALLY HEAR THEM. I WOULD LIKE
TO SEE THE SCHOOL ADVANCE. I
WOULD LIKE TO SEE THEM MORE IN
THE PUBLIC, AND THAT WOULD I
THINK WOULD OPEN UP THE DOORS.
SO IF I HEAR YOU CORRECTLY, THE
CONCERN IS REALLY JUST THE SIZE
OF EACH DISTRICT AND HOW MANY
PEOPLE THEY REPRESENT. YOU DON'T
HAVE. YOU'RE NOT SAYING THAT THE
ELECTIONS WERE UNFAIR OR THAT,
OR THAT THE DISTRICTS DON'T
APPROPRIATELY REPRESENT THEIR
COMMUNITIES. I MEAN, THE
DISTRICT LINES WERE JUST REDRAWN
IN 2022. YOU'RE AWARE OF THAT,
RIGHT? YES. BUT YOU DON'T. THE
SO THERE'S TWO THINGS, RIGHT?
ONE, WHEN TALKING ABOUT THE
FAIRNESS IS TO HAVE THE
ELECTIONS, TO HAVE THE ELECTIONS
IN THE GENERAL ELECTION WHERE
MORE PEOPLE. THAT'S WHAT I'M
REFERRING TO. IF YOU HAVE IN THE
GENERAL ELECTION, THERE ARE MORE
PEOPLE ACTUALLY VOTE. SO IT
BECOMES A MORE FAIR AND MORE
PEOPLE WHO DON'T REALLY
PARTICIPATE. RIGHT. AGREE ON
THAT. RIGHT? I'M TALKING ABOUT
FIVE VERSUS SEVEN. YES, I THINK
SEVEN. IT'S A LOT BETTER JUST
BECAUSE YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT
THAT RIGHT NOW. FIVE IS
INADEQUATE FOR THE COMMUNITY OF
ORANGE COUNTY. ARE THERE ANY
CONCERNS WITH THE ELECTION? LET
ME POINT. IT'S I THINK THE
ARGUMENT HERE IS SEVEN IS
BETTER, RIGHT? NOT NOT THAT
THERE'S ANYTHING INHERENTLY
DISCRIMINATORY OR PREJUDICE, YOU
KNOW, OR, OR DISADVANTAGING
ABOUT FIVE SEVEN IS BETTER WHEN
YOU CONSIDER THE INCREASE IN
POPULATION OVER 50 YEARS AND THE
CHANGE IN DEMOGRAPHY. AND SO,
YOU KNOW, WITH SEVEN YOU'RE MUCH
MORE LIKELY TO GET A BETTER
CROSS-SECTION OF THE COUNTY
REPRESENTING, THOSE PARENTS,
ESPECIALLY PARENTS. BUT ALL
VOTERS AT THE COUNTY LEVEL.
OKAY. SO IF THE WHOLE BASIS OF
THIS BILL IS THAT SEVEN IS
BETTER, WHY NOT DO IT STATEWIDE
FOR ALL LARGE COUNTIES? SO,
SENATOR, I'VE DRAFTED AN
AMENDMENT. I'VE SHARED IT WITH
YOUR OFFICE. WE TAKE THIS POLICY
AND WE APPLY IT TO ANY COUNTY
WITH 1 MILLION RESIDENTS OR MORE
. AND IF IT'S GOOD FOR ORANGE
COUNTY, WHY ISN'T IT GOOD FOR
SAN DIEGO? I DON'T UNDERSTAND IF
THERE'S NO IF YOU'RE NOT
ARTICULATING ANY, DISCRETE
ISSUES WITH THE REPRESENTATION
IN THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF
EDUCATION, AND IF THIS IS PURELY
JUST A GOOD POLICY, WHICH I DO
TAKE YOU AT YOUR WORD, THEN
LET'S DO IT STATEWIDE. WHAT
WOULD YOU ACCEPT THESE
AMENDMENTS? I THINK I'D BE GLAD
TO HAVE THE CONVERSATION, BUT I
THINK IN THAT EVENT, I WOULD
DEFER TO MY COLLEAGUES FROM SAN
DIEGO AND MY COLLEAGUES FROM LOS
ANGELES. I DON'T HAVE THE SAME
LEVEL OF INSIGHT ABOUT THE
SITUATION IN EITHER OF THOSE
JURISDICTIONS. SO I THINK IT
WOULD BE PRESUMPTUOUS OF ME TO
PROPOSE A STATEWIDE. AND I
THINK, ASSEMBLY MEMBER BENNETT
MADE A GOOD POINT. YOU KNOW,
THIS IS, SPECIFIC TO A DISTRICT.
IT SOLVES A PARTICULAR PROBLEM,
WHICH IS TO SAY, I THINK IT
IMPROVES THE GOVERNANCE AT THE
COUNTY LEVEL, AND, YOU KNOW,
THAT'S THE BASIS FOR IT. THIS
THIS LEGISLATURE, BY THE WAY,
HAS HAS A LONG HISTORY OF
MEASURES THAT ACTUALLY ADDRESS
COUNTY LEVEL CHANGES LIKE THIS.
RIGHT. AND INCLUDING ONE THAT
CREATED A NON PARTIZAN
REDISTRICTING COMMISSION IN SAN
DIEGO BY A VERY IMPRESSIVE
MEMBER. I THINK IT WAS ASSEMBLY
MEMBER WEBBER'S PREDECESSOR, AND
AS RECENTLY AS 2022, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER SALAS HAD ANOTHER BILL
THAT THAT GOVERNED HOW TO
REDISTRICT IN KERN COUNTY. SO
YOU KNOW, IF YOU THINK ABOUT
SORT OF LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT, AT
THE STATE LEVEL, I THINK IT'S
WHOLLY APPROPRIATE, NOT
INCONSISTENT WITH OUR ROLE AND
OUR PRACTICE TO INTERVENE AND
MAKE NEW POLICIES OR CHANGES AT
THE COUNTY LEVEL. THIS IS WHAT
WE'RE ENDEAVORING TO DO HERE.
YEAH, BUT ARE THERE ANY OTHER
COMMENTS? I'M NOT DONE, I STILL
HAVE. I HAVE ONE ONE MORE
QUESTION. I'LL WRAP UP. OKAY. SO
WE'RE NOT THE LEGISLATURE OF
ORANGE COUNTY OR THE LEGISLATURE
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. SO
WE DO MAKE STATEWIDE POLICY ALL
THE TIME. IF YOU'RE SAYING THAT
THERE'S NO SPECIFIC PROBLEM WITH
ORANGE COUNTY, THIS IS JUST A
BETTER POLICY. I STILL STRUGGLE
TO UNDERSTAND WHY I'M ACTUALLY
NOT SAYING THAT. I'M SAYING I
DON'T AGREE WITH YOUR
CHARACTERIZATION OF THE PROBLEM.
THE TELL ME WHAT THE PROBLEM,
THE PROBLEM IS. WE HAVE A COUNTY
THAT HAS GROWN SUBSTANTIALLY
OVER 50 YEARS, AND WE HAVE A
SYSTEM OF ELECTIONS THAT THAT,
FIRST OF ALL, DOESN'T COMPORT
WITH OTHER PRACTICES ACROSS THE
STATE. BUT I THINK OVERALL DOES
NOT ENSURE THE PROPER LEVELS OF
PARTICIPATION. AND THROUGH THAT,
YOU KNOW, THE IDEAL LEVELS OF
REPRESENTATION. SO THAT IS
EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO
ADDRESS HERE. OKAY. I'LL JUST
CLOSE WITH DID YOU WANT THE
WITNESS. WANT TO RESPOND? YES,
PLEASE. SURE. TO THE GENERAL
POINT, I AGREE WITH MY
COLLEAGUES JUST ON THE
REPRESENTATION ISSUE. MORE
REPRESENTATION. REPRESENTATION
IS BETTER. IT CREATES A CLOSER
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE
RESIDENTS AND THEIR
REPRESENTATIVE. AND I HAVEN'T
HEARD STRONG ARGUMENTS AGAINST
THAT. SO DO YOU SUPPORT THIS AS
A STATEWIDE POLICY REGARDING THE
POLICY ISSUE YOU'RE RAISING? I
MEAN, I DEFER TO MEMBER
BENNETT'S POINT, WHICH I THOUGHT
WAS A GOOD ONE. YOU KNOW, YOU
DON'T REJECT A GOOD IDEA IN
FRONT OF YOU JUST BECAUSE IT
DOESN'T APPLY AS BROADLY AS
POSSIBLE. I'M NOT REJECTING A
GOOD IDEA, SIR. I'M ASKING IF DO
YOU SUPPORT APPLYING THIS
STATEWIDE? IF MORE
REPRESENTATION IS BETTER, WHY
NOT DO THIS IN ALL BIG COUNTIES?
DO YOU SUPPORT THAT OR IS THIS
PURELY POLITICAL? IS THIS
BECAUSE THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD
AND THE REALITY IS, OUT OF THE
TEN COUNTIES THAT ARE IN THIS
CATEGORY, SEVEN, HALF OF THEM DO
HAVE SEVEN MEMBERS. SO I THINK
YOUR QUESTION HAS BEEN ANSWERED.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND I'M NOT
DONE. MADAM CHAIR, DO YOU HAVE
ANOTHER QUESTION? YOU SAID THAT
YOU PREFER THAT WE HAVE
STATEWIDE POLICIES. I'D LIKE TO.
DID YOU HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION,
NO. I HAVE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
OKAY, GO AHEAD AND MAKE IT. YES
MADAM CHAIR, I WILL MOVE TO
SUBSTITUTE THE MOTION WITH A DO
PASS, AS AMENDED. MOTION WITH
THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS. NUMBER
ONE, REQUIRE A COUNTY BOARD OF
EDUCATION AND A COUNTY WITH A
POPULATION OF 1 MILLION OR MORE
TO CONSIST OF SEVEN MEMBERS AND
NUMBER TWO REQUIRE AN ELECTION
FOR A COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
AND A COUNTY WITH A POPULATION
OF 1 MILLION OR MORE TO BE
CONSOLIDATED WITH THE STATEWIDE
GENERAL ELECTION IN NOVEMBER. OF
EACH EVEN NUMBERED YEAR. OKAY,
WE HAVE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION. DO
WE HAVE A SECOND? YES, WE HAVE A
MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY
COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM
MEMBERS? HEARING NONE. THE
SECRETARY WILL CALL A VOTE ON
THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION. PELLERIN.
NO. PELLERIN NO LACKEY. NOT
VOTING. LACKEY. NOT VOTING.
BENNETT. NO BENNETT. NO. BERMAN
NO. BERMAN, NO. CERVANTES.
CERVANTES NO. AZALI. YES. AZALI.
YES. LOW LOW. NO. WEBER. WEBER
NO. SICKLES. 6 TO 1. THAT
SUBSTITUTE. MOTION FAILS. SIX. 1
TO 6. I GUESS WE'LL READ IT THAT
WAY, AND WITH THAT, WE WILL SEE
IF THERE'S ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE BILL. WE
HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO,
PASS THE BILL AND REFER IT TO
THE EDUCATION COMMITTEE, WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE, YES, I WOULD.
AND LET ME SAY TO ASSEMBLY
MEMBER SALIH, HAPPY TO CONTINUE
THAT CONVERSATION. I LOOK
FORWARD TO YOU BRINGING
LEGISLATION NEXT YEAR, TO THAT
EFFECT. THIS BILL IS ABOUT GOOD
GOVERNANCE. THIS IS AT THE
COUNTY LEVEL, PARTICULARLY WITH
RESPECT TO ENSURING ACCESS AND
PARTICIPATION IN ANY ELECTION
THAT HAS SUCH A PROFOUND IMPACT
ON RESIDENTS AND VOTERS AND
CHILDREN, SPECIFICALLY IN
EDUCATION AT THE COUNTY LEVEL.
SO AS YOU CONSIDER YOUR VOTE,
I'D ASK YOU TO KEEP IN MIND
THESE TWO THINGS. FIRST, AS I
MENTIONED, THIS IS NOT UNUSUAL.
THIS LEGISLATURE HAS INSERTED
ITSELF IN MANY SUCH ISSUES TO
THE GOOD IN MANY DIFFERENT
COUNTIES AND TO THE OPPOSITION'S
COMPLAINTS. AS MY AS MY WITNESS
POINTED OUT, THERE'S ABSOLUTELY
NO DOWNSIDE TO AN ELECTION THAT
THAT INCLUDES, MORE, NOT FEWER
VOTERS, AND TO THE BROADER, YOU
KNOW, SORT OF TO THE ASSERTION
THAT THIS WILL BE EXPENSIVE. WE
ARE OPEN TO AMENDMENTS THAT
WOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE BEST
WAY TO MAKE THIS CHANGE. THERE
ARE A COUPLE OF SCENARIOS, ONE
OF WHICH IS TO ADD TWO AT LARGE
MEMBERS UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE
NEXT DECENNIAL REDISTRICTING. I
THINK THAT WOULD NOT ONLY CREATE
EFFICIENCY, BUT SAVE MONIES,
HAPPY TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION.
THÀNH ASKING FOR YOUR VOTE
TODAY. ALL RIGHT. AND CERTAINLY,
THANK YOU TO THE AUTHOR FOR
BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD.
WHILE THIS BILL WILL ONLY IMPACT
THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF
EDUCATION ELECTIONS, THIS CHANGE
WILL HELP ENSURE THESE ELECTIONS
ARE HELD AT STATEWIDE GENERAL
ELECTIONS WHERE VOTER TURNOUT IS
HIGHER AND MORE REPRESENTATION
OF THE JURISDICTIONS ELECTORATE.
SO I AM RECOMMENDING A SUPPORT,
THE SECRETARY WILL CALL THE ROLL
ON SB 907. THE MOTION IS DO PASS
AND BE REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE
ON EDUCATION. PELLERIN I,
PELLERIN I LACKEY NO. LACKEY,
NO. BENNETT I, BENNETT I, BERMAN
I, BERMAN I CERVANTES I
CERVANTES I EASILY, EASILY NO.
LOW LOW I WEBER WEBER I. THAT
BILL IS OUT 6 TO 2. THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR. THANK YOU MEMBERS
OKAY I'M NOW GOING TO LIFT THE
CALL ON ITEM FOUR SB 977 BY
SENATOR LAIR. THE CURRENT VOTE
IS 3 TO 2. THE CHAIR VOTING AYE.
SECOND, THE SECRETARY WILL
PLEASE, PLEASE CALL THE OPPOSITE
MEMBERS. BERMAN. BERMAN. AYE.
CERVANTES CERVANTES. I LO LO I.
THAT BILL IS OUT 6 TO 2. WE'LL
NOW GO AHEAD AND HAVE THE
SECRETARY CALL THE ROLL FOR
MEMBERS TO ADD ON TO THE BILLS
ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. BERMAN
Ã. BERMAN. AYE. CERVANTES.
CERVANTES AYE.
ON ITEM SEVEN, SB 1174 BY MIN.
BERMAN. BERMAN. AYE ON ITEM
EIGHT, SB 1328 BY BRADFORD
BERMAN. BERMAN. AYE. CERVANTES.
CERVANTES. AYE AND THAT'S IT.
THANK YOU. THAT IS IT. I WILL GO
AHEAD AND ADJOURN THE MEETING.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.