OH GOOD MORNING. I'D LIKE TO
CALL THE JUNE 26TH, 2024 HEARING
OF THE ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS
COMMITTEE TO ORDER, WE WILL
BEGIN AS A SUBCOMMITTEE. AND IF
MEMBERS OF THE ELECTIONS
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'S HERE
IN THE HEARING ROOM TODAY. AND
WHO'S 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'S POSITION LETTER
PORTAL. THAT PORTAL CAN BE
ACCESSED THROUGH THE COMMITTEE'S
WEBSITE AT Ã. Â WILK DOT
ASSEMBLY DOT K.GOV. THE
COMMITTEE HAS 15 BILLS ON ITS
AGENDA. THERE IS ONE BILL 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 THE LIMIT OF
TWO MINUTES PER WITNESS. OTHER
WITNESSES ARE LIMITED TO
PROVIDING THEIR NAME. THE
ASSOCIATION THEY REPRESENT, IF
ANY, AND THEIR POSITION ON THE
BILL. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS WILL
BE RULED OUT OF ORDER. WE HAVE A
LARGE NUMBER OF BILLS ON THE
AGENDA TODAY, SO IN ORDER TO
FACILITATE THE COMMITTEE'S
BUSINESS AND PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION IN TODAY'S
HEARING, WE WILL NOT TOLERATE
CONDUCT THAT DISRUPTS THE
ORDERLY CONDUCT OF OUR
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 AT THIS
POINT, SINCE WE DON'T HAVE A
QUORUM, WE WILL, TAKE UP THE
CONSENT CALENDAR LATER IN THE
HEARING, WE HAVE A SPECIAL ORDER
OF BUSINESS TO START TODAY'S
COMMITTEE HEARING. SB 1111 BY
SENATOR MIN IS DOUBLE REFERRED
TO THE ASSEMBLY LOCAL GOVERNMENT
COMMITTEE AND IS SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD IN THAT COMMITTEE LATER
THIS MORNING. IF IT IS APPROVED
HERE. IN ORDER TO FACILITATE
THAT COMMITTEE'S CONSIDERATION
OF THIS BILL, WE WILL HEAR THAT
ITEM FIRST. AND ALTHOUGH THAT IS
BEING HEARD TODAY AS PROPOSED TO
BE AMENDED, WE WILL NOT BE
TAKING AMENDMENTS IN COMMITTEE
TODAY. INSTEAD THE AUTHOR WILL
BE COMMITTING TO TAKING THOSE
AMENDMENTS IN THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE. IF IT
PASSES OUT OF OUR COMMITTEE THIS
MORNING. SENATOR MIN, THANK YOU
FOR JOINING US. AND YOU MAY
PRESENT YOUR BILL. GOOD MORNING,
MADAM CHAIR. AND COMMITTEE
MEMBER, BEFORE I START, I JUST
WANT TO NOTE THAT I WILL BE
COMMITTING TO ACCEPTING THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, AND I WANT
TO THANK THE COMMITTEE STAFF FOR
THEIR ASSISTANCE AND YOUR
FLEXIBILITY ON HEARING THIS
BILL, AS IT'S DOUBLE REFERRED,
SB 1111 WOULD REQUIRE GOVERNMENT
OFFICIALS TO ABSTAIN FROM VOTING
ON A CONTRACT MADE BY THAT
OFFICIAL'S GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY
WHEN THEY HAVE A CHILD WHO HAS
SOME KIND OF FINANCIAL INTEREST,
OR WHO MAY OTHERWISE BENEFIT
FROM THE OUTCOME OF THAT PUBLIC
CONTRACT DECISION UNDER THE
JURISDICTION OF THAT OFFICIAL.
OF COURSE, WE KNOW THAT
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS HAVE THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF POTENTIALLY
HANDLING AND DISPERSING MANY
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN TAXPAYER
DOLLARS AND APPROVING CONTRACTS
ON THEIR BEHALF. AS SUCH, WE
MUST HOLD PUBLIC OFFICIALS TO
THE HIGHEST ETHICAL STANDARDS IN
ORDER TO AVOID ANY CONFLICTS OF
INTEREST OR PERCEPTIONS OF
IMPROPRIETY. WHEN CONDUCTING THE
PEOPLE'S BUSINESS. IN LATE 2023,
IN ORANGE COUNTY, WHICH I
REPRESENT, NEWS SURFACED THAT
ONE SUPERVISOR HAD AWARDED COVID
19 RELIEF FUNDING TO AN
ORGANIZATION LED BY HIS DAUGHTER
WITHOUT DISCLOSING THAT
RELATIONSHIP TO THE PUBLIC AND
VOTING ON IT. THE ORGANIZATION
ALSO FAILED TO COMPLETE REQUIRED
AUDITS. DESPITE THESE CONCERNS,
THE ORGANIZATION CONTINUED TO
RECEIVE PUBLIC FUNDS WHILE
EXISTING LAW DOES NOT EXPLICITLY
FORBID STATE AND LOCAL OFFICIALS
FROM AWARDING PUBLIC CONTRACTS
TO THEIR ADULT CHILDREN, I
BELIEVE THAT PUBLIC OFFICIALS
SHOULD NOT BE USING THEIR
POSITIONS TO ENRICH THEMSELVES
OR THEIR FAMILY IMMEDIATE
FAMILIES, EITHER DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY. SB 1111 WOULD
CLEARLY PROHIBIT PUBLIC
OFFICIALS BY EXTENDING THE
REMOTE INTEREST CATEGORY TO
ADULT CHILDREN, AND PROVIDING
PENALTIES SHOULD A PUBLIC
OFFICIAL VIOLATE THAT LAW. I
THINK THIS IS A COMMON SENSE
BILL. I HAVE NO WITNESSES AND
LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR QUESTIONS,
IF ANY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS
THERE ANYONE IN THE ROOM WHO
WANTS TO REGISTER THEIR POSITION
ON THIS BILL IN SUPPORT? SEEING
NONE. ANY WITNESSES WHO WOULD
LIKE TO REGISTER THEIR ANY
PRIMARY WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION,
PLEASE COME FORWARD. ANYONE JUST
WANT TO COME TO THE MIC AND
STATE YOUR NAME AND POSITION?
SEEING NONE, ARE THERE ANY
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS? ASSEMBLY
MEMBER BERMAN? I MEAN, SORRY,
BENNETT. THAT'S ALL RIGHT.
MEMBER DAVIS, SHOULD WE HOLD OFF
MAKING MOTIONS UNTIL WE HAVE A
QUORUM? EXACTLY. YES I'M GETTING
EXCITED. GETTING THE TIME COMES.
WHEN THE TIME COMES, I WILL MAKE
THE MOTION FOR THIS COMMON
SENSE, BILL. OKAY. THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS
FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS? OKAY
SENATOR, YOU MAY CLOSE IF YOU'D
LIKE. I RESPECTFULLY ASK YOUR.
AYE VOTE. THANK YOU. VERY GOOD.
THANK YOU. SO MUCH. WE'LL KEEP
YOU POSTED.
HERE. OKAY. SENATOR GLAZIER, YOU
ARE UP. YOU ARE PRESENTING SB
1181. CHAIR, I HAVE A WITNESS
WHO HASN'T ARRIVED YET ON THAT
BILL. WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO
TAKE UP 1404 FIRST, WHILE WE
WAIT FOR THAT WITNESS TO ARRIVE?
YES. ITEM 11. GO RIGHT AHEAD.
OKAY. I WANT TO THANK YOU,
CHAIR. AND, FOR HEARING THE
BILL. AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR
COMMITTEE STAFF FOR DOING GOOD
WORK ON THE ANALYSIS. THE BILL
WILL TRANSFER THE DUTIES OF
PERFORMING LOBBYING AUDITS FROM
THE FRANCHISE TAX BOARD TO THE
FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES
COMMISSION. IT WOULD ESTABLISH A
REGISTRATION FEE FOR LOBBYING
FIRMS AND LOBBYISTS, EMPLOYERS
UP TO $500 TO ENSURE WE COVER
THE COST OF APPROPRIATE AUDITING
SYSTEM AND WITH AMENDMENTS THAT
YOUR COMMITTEE HAS TAKEN, IT
WOULD REQUIRE THE FPPC TO
RANDOMLY SELECT FOR AUDIT A
MINIMUM OF 60 LOBBYING FIRMS OR
LOBBYISTS EMPLOYERS EVERY TWO
YEAR CYCLE, 25 OF THOSE FIRMS OR
EMPLOYERS WOULD HAVE TO BE IN
THE TOP 100 IN REPORTED PAYMENTS
. AND I'D LIKE TO NOTE THAT
WE'VE AMENDED THE BILL
REINSTATING THE AUDITING OF
PLACEMENT AGENTS. AMONG THE 60
AUDITS, THE FPPC WOULD AUDIT TEN
LOBBYING FIRMS OR EMPLOYERS WHO
EMPLOY ONLY PLACEMENT AGENTS.
I'VE ALSO ACCEPTED THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS TO GIVE THIS BILL A
2033 SUNSET, AND I ACCEPT THE
TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS THAT YOUR
STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED, JUST A
POINT OF BACKGROUND FOR FOLKS
WHO ARE, JUST LOOKING AT THIS
ISSUE UNDER THE POLITICAL REFORM
ACT OF 1974, THE FRANCHISE TAX
BOARD IS CURRENTLY REQUIRED TO
RANDOMLY AUDIT 25% OF LOBBYISTS
AND LOBBYISTS EMPLOYERS EVERY
TWO YEARS. UNFORTUNATELY, AND WE
HAD A SPECIAL HEARING IN THE
SENATE ON THIS ISSUE. THE
FRANCHISE TAX BOARD HAS
ESSENTIALLY FAILED TO COMPLY
WITH THE LAW, AS SHOWN DURING
OUR OVERSIGHT HEARING IN MARCH
OF 2023, OF THE SENATE ELECTIONS
AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
COMMITTEE, WHICH I CHAIRED AT
THAT TIME. AND LET ME JUST GIVE
YOU SOME VERY SHORT FACTOIDS
FROM 2017 AND 18 WHERE THEY WERE
SUPPOSED TO DO 25% ZERO AUDITS
WERE CONDUCTED. FOR THE 20 1920
SESSION, ONLY FOUR LOBBYING
FIRMS WERE AUDITED AND ONLY FOUR
LOBBYING FIRMS WERE AUDITED. IN
2122. SO IN THAT FOUR YEAR
PERIOD, NEARLY A THOUSAND, FIRMS
AND EMPLOYERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN
AUDITED, BUT ONLY EIGHT WERE
DONE. SAY IT AGAIN. THE LAW SAYS
THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE DONE A
THOUSAND AUDITS, AND THEY DID 8
IN 4 YEARS. THAT'S FAILURE. IT'S
PRETTY CLEAR. SO WE ALL KNOW
THAT AUDITING IS AN IMPORTANT
PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY TOOL. THE
FAILURE TO HOLD LOBBYING FIRMS
ACCOUNTABLE HAS MAJOR
IMPLICATIONS FOR HOW WE DO OUR
WORK. AS LEGISLATORS. MY BILL,
SEEKS TO IMPROVE THE SYSTEM OF
HONEST REPORTING ON MONEY SPENT
TO INFLUENCE LEGISLATORS AND
LEGISLATION. AND I WANT TO JUST
SAY THAT I KNOW THAT THE
MAJORITY OF LOBBYISTS AND
LOBBYING FIRMS PRACTICE THEIR
WORK LEGALLY, ETHICALLY AND
WITHIN THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW.
BUT IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE DO
THE PUBLIC'S BUSINESS TO ENSURE
THAT THE LAW IS FOLLOWED AND
THAT CONFIDENCE REMAINS IN THE
WORK THAT WE DO HERE WITH ME TO
TESTIFY IN SUPPORT ARE THE FAIR
POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION,
SENIOR LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL
LINDSAY NAKANO AND DORA ROSE,
THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR THE
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS. WITH
THAT, I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR SUPPORT TODAY. OKAY. BEFORE
WE PROCEED WITH YOUR WITNESSES,
IF WE CAN ESTABLISH A QUORUM
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
PELLERIN HERE. PELLERIN HERE,
LACKEY HERE. LACKEY HERE.
BENNETT. BENNETT HERE. BERMAN.
CERVANTES ASALI. ASALI. HERE.
LOWE WEBER. WEBER. HERE. WE HAVE
A QUORUM. OKAY WITNESSES. YOU
MAY BEGIN. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, MADAM CHAIR. MEMBERS,
MY NAME IS LINDSAY NAKANO,
SENIOR LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL WITH
THE FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES
COMMISSION. AUDITS ARE IMPORTANT
TOOLS FOR MOTIVATING DILIGENT
AND COMPLETE REPORTING, AND
AUDITS OF LOBBYING ENTITIES ARE
THE MAIN AND MOST CONSISTENT
VEHICLES FOR DISCOVERING
VIOLATIONS UNDER THE POLITICAL
REFORM ACT. VIOLATIONS FOUND
THROUGH AUDITS CAN BE SERIOUS,
AND PAST AUDITS HAVE HAD
FINDINGS INCLUDING FAILURE TO
FILE LOBBYING REPORTS, OMITTING
EXPENSES OR PAYMENTS ON REPORTS,
AND IMPERMISSIBLY GIVING GIFTS
OR CONTRIBUTIONS TO OFFICIALS OR
CANDIDATES. SB 1404 WOULD
TRANSFER THE LOBBYING AUDIT
WORKLOAD TO THE FPPC, WHICH
WOULD BE FUNDED THROUGH A NEW
FEE DEDICATED TO THIS PROGRAM.
THE BILL WILL UNDOUBTEDLY
IMPROVE TRANSPARENCY AND
ACCOUNTABILITY BY ENSURING THAT
A MINIMUM NUMBER OF AUDITS OF
LOBBYING ENTITIES ARE COMPLETED
EACH TWO YEAR AUDIT PERIOD.
THANK YOU TO SENATOR GLAZER FOR
YOUR COMMITMENT AND LEADERSHIP
ON THIS BILL. AND THANK YOU TO
THE COMMITTEE FOR YOUR
CONSIDERATION. GOOD MORNING,
CHAIR MEMBERS. I'M DORA ROSE,
DEPUTY DIRECTOR WITH THE LEAGUE
OF WOMEN VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA,
HERE IN SUPPORT OF SB 1404. YOU
KNOW, LOBBYIST AUDITS ARE
CRUCIAL TO ENSURE TRANSPARENCY
INTO WHO'S GIVING GIFTS OR
CONTRIBUTIONS TO OFFICIALS. AND
CANDIDATES TO PROMOTE ACCURATE
AND TIMELY REPORTING, AND TO
DETECT AND ADDRESS AND CORRUPT
PRACTICES AND VIOLATIONS. OTHER
VIOLATIONS. AS SENATOR BLAKE
SPEAR NOTED WHEN SHE SPOKE ABOUT
THE BILL IN COMMITTEE AUDITS
DRIVE THE BEHAVIOR THAT WE WANT
TO SEE RIGHT? UNFORTUNATELY, AS
SENATOR GLAZER NOTED, THE MARCH
2023 OVERSIGHT HEARING REVEALED
THAT THE FRANCHISE TAX BOARD HAS
FALLEN WOEFULLY, WOEFULLY BEHIND
IN CONDUCTING LOBBYIST AUDITS.
THE FPPC ASSERTS THAT IT HAS THE
REQUISITE EXPERTISE AND, GIVEN
APPROPRIATE RESOURCES, IS WELL
POSITIONED TO SEPARATE ITS AUDIT
FUNCTION FROM ITS ENFORCEMENT
FUNCTION AND TAKE ON THESE
AUDITS. AND WE BELIEVE THAT TO
BE TRUE. THE LEAGUE'S EXPERIENCE
IS THAT THE FPPC HAS THE
CAPABILITY, THE KNOW HOW, AND
THE ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY TO
MANAGE AND AUDIT DIVISION, AND
THAT IT MAKES SENSE TO MAKE THE
CHANGE IN LIGHT OF THE FTB'S
HISTORY OF FAILURE TO ENFORCE
THE LAW. THE BILL ALSO CONTAINS
A FUNDING MECHANISM TO OFFSET
COSTS AND ADDRESS PARTS OF THE
PROBLEM THAT LED TO THE
ENFORCEMENT ISSUES AT THE FTP,
FTB AND THE RECENT AMENDMENTS
CREATE A LOGICAL, REASONABLE SET
OF AUDITS THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE
PERFORMED IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT
RESOURCES ARE AVAILABLE TO THE
FPPC. SO THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN
VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA URGES AN
AYE VOTE IN ORDER TO ENFORCE
CALIFORNIA'S LOBBYING LAWS AND
ENSURE APPROPRIATE PUBLIC
ACCOUNTABILITY. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. ARE THERE ANY
ADDITIONAL WITNESSES WHO WOULD
LIKE TO REGISTER SUPPORT FOR
THIS BILL? IF SO, PLEASE COME TO
THE MIC AND STATE YOUR NAME,
ORGANIZATION AND POSITION. GOOD
MORNING, JONATHAN STEIN,
CALIFORNIA COMMON CAUSE IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. WE'LL NOW
MOVE ON TO THE PRIMARY WITNESSES
AND OPPOSITION. AS A REMINDER,
EACH PRIMARY WITNESSES HAS A
MAXIMUM OF TWO MINUTES. ANY
PRIMARY WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION
PLEASE COME FORWARD. YOU CAN SIT
HERE AT THE TABLE HERE. AND
AGAIN YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. I'M
ASHLEY TITUS ON BEHALF OF THE
INSTITUTE OF GOVERNMENTAL
ADVOCATES, IGA OPPOSES SB 1404
FOR THREE PRIMARY REASONS.
FIRST, IGA BELIEVES IN THE
ORIGINAL STRUCTURE SET UP BY THE
POLITICAL REFORM ACT, DIVIDING
THE AUDIT FUNCTION FROM THE
ENFORCEMENT FUNCTION. SEPARATION
OF THESE POWERS WAS WISE. IN
1974, AND IT'S WISE NOW. AN
AUDIT REVIEWS A FILERS BACKUP
RECORDS AND FILED REPORTS FOR
SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE OR
MATERIAL ERRORS. WHEREAS
ENFORCEMENT IS TYPICALLY MORE OF
A STRICT LIABILITY TYPE PROCESS,
UNIFYING THESE FUNCTIONS IN THE
FPPC COULD UPEND THE USUAL
STANDARD OF REVIEW IN AN AUDIT,
AND IT SEEMS INEVITABLE THAT
OVER TIME, AUDITS AND
ENFORCEMENT WOULD ULTIMATELY
MERGE. SECOND, THE FRANCHISE TAX
BOARD IS REALLY GOOD AT
PERFORMING AUDITS. THE PROCESS
IS THOROUGH, PREDICTABLE, AND
PROFESSIONAL. THE PROBLEM? THE
BILL IS SEEKING TO SOLVE ISN'T
THE QUALITY OF THE AUDITS BY THE
FRANCHISE TAX BOARD, IT'S THE
QUANTITY THE SOLUTION TO THIS
PROBLEM IS REDUCING THE NUMBER
OF FILERS THAT MUST BE AUDITED
EACH CYCLE, AND TO FOCUS ON THE
PRIORITY FILINGS SO AUDITS CAN
REALISTICALLY BE CONDUCTED.
THIRD, IGA OBJECTS TO IMPOSING
THE FINANCIAL BURDEN ON
LOBBYISTS FOR THIS PROGRAM. THEY
ALREADY PAY A FEE THAT'S
SUPPOSED TO COVER THE COST OF
ADMINISTERING THESE PROGRAMS,
AND THE BILL WOULD PROVIDE FOR A
TEN FOLD INCREASE IN THE
REGISTRATION FEE. THIS IS AN
UNWARRANTED AND UNDUE BURDEN ON
THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT TO
PETITION ONE'S GOVERNMENT. THANK
YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION OF
IGS INPUT ON THE BILL. WE URGE
YOU TO VOTE NO AND INSTEAD FOCUS
ON INCREASING THE FUNDING AND
THE STAFFING OF THE AUDIT
DEPARTMENT AT THE FRANCHISE TAX
BOARD AND REWORKING THE
PRIORITIZATION OF MANDATORY AND
RANDOM AUDITS TO REDUCE THE
QUANTITY TO A MANAGEABLE LEVEL.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
ARE THERE OTHER PEOPLE IN THE
ROOM WHO WOULD LIKE TO REGISTER
THEIR OPPOSITION? PLEASE COME TO
THE MIC. STATE YOUR NAME,
ORGANIZATION AND POSITION,
PLEASE. YEAH. GOOD MORNING,
MADAM CHAIR. MEMBERS, SILVIO
FERRARI, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION, IN OPPOSITION. GOOD
MORNING. CATHERINE BRANDENBURG
WITH THE BRANDENBURG GROUP. I'M
THE PRESIDENT OF IGA, BUT I'M
ALSO HERE SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE. IN OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING. CASSIE
MANCINI, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION AND RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION, WE'LL NOW BRING IT
BACK TO COMMITTEE. IF YOU HAVE
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER BENNETT FIRST.
FIRST, I HAVE A QUESTION. I JUST
WANT TO CLARIFY. BUT MY
UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE IS A
RANDOM SELECTION OF AUDITS OF
CANDIDATES BY THE FPPC, IS THAT
CORRECT? YES. CANDIDATES ARE
SELECTED. RANDOMLY FOR AUDIT
UNDER THE UNDER THE ACT, BUT THE
AUDIT IS DONE BY THE FRANCHISE
TAX BOARD, RIGHT? NOT BY THE
FPPC. IS THAT CORRECT? THERE IS
A PROPORTION THAT'S DONE BY THE
COMMISSION FOR CERTAIN OFFICES
AND THE REMAINING THE MAJORITY
OF THEM ARE DONE BY FTB. THE
MAJORITY ARE DONE BY THE DONE BY
THE FRANCHISE TAX BOARD. OKAY.
SO THE FRANCHISE TAX BOARD DOES
IT FOR THE CANDIDATES, BUT
SOMETIMES DOES IT FOR THE
CANDIDATES. ALSO, IS THAT WHAT
I'M HEARING YOU SAY, THE
FRANCHISE TAX BOARD DOES THE
MAJORITY OF CANDIDATE AUDITS AND
THE FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES
COMMISSION DOES A SMALL PORTION
OF THEM. GREAT. THANK YOU. I, I
APPLAUD THE SENATOR FOR BRINGING
THE BILL FORWARD. I THINK THAT
THE, THE RECORD IS SO GLARINGLY,
MAKES IT SO GLARINGLY OBVIOUS
THAT THAT A CHANGE IS NEEDED.
THE QUESTION IS, WHAT IS THE
CHANGE THAT IS NEEDED? I THINK
THAT THE FPPC IS GOING TO HAVE
THE FOCUS ON THE EXACT THINGS
THAT WE ARE MOST FOCUSED ON, AND
THE FRANCHISE TAX BOARD JUST
SIMPLY DOESN'T HAVE THAT SAME,
THEY HAVE A COMMITMENT TO GOOD
AUDITS. BUT BUT IN TERMS OF
LOOKING FOR THE THINGS THAT
WE'RE LOOKING FOR IN TERMS OF
MOVING FORWARD. SO WITH THAT, I
WILL MAKE THE MOTION TO SUPPORT
THE BILL AND CONGRATULATE THE
AUTHOR FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? ASSEMBLY
MEMBER. SALLY, IS THERE ANYONE
HERE FROM THE FRANCHISE TAX
BOARD? IT DOESN'T APPEAR SO,
MISS TITUS, DO YOU KNOW WHY YOUR
ARGUMENT MAKES LOGICAL SENSE?
BUT WHAT IS THE FRANCHISE? DO
YOU KNOW THE FRANCHISE TAX
BOARDS POSITION ON THIS, OR WHY
THEIR AUDITS ARE SO UNDER PAR, I
WOULDN'T SAY THEY'RE UNDER PAR
IN TERMS OF THEIR QUALITY,
THEY'RE UNDER QUANTITY. THE
QUANTITY. I THINK THERE'S A
COUPLE OF REASONS FOR THAT.
WE'VE HEARD FROM THEM. SO I
DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR THEM,
BUT I HAVE HEARD THAT THEY HAVE
STAFFING PROBLEMS IN THAT
DEPARTMENT. IT'S SORT OF A
THERE'S NOWHERE TO GO AS AN
AUDITOR. THERE'S NOWHERE TO GO
TO ADVANCE. AND COULD YOU SPEAK
INTO THE MIC WOULD HAVE A
DIFFERENT EXPERIENCE WITH THAT,
PROBLEM AND THE OTHER ISSUE IS
THE QUANTITY OF FILERS KEEPS
GOING UP AND KEEPS GOING UP AND
KEEPS GOING UP. AND THEY ARE
REQUIRED TO DO MANDATORY AUDITS
THAT THEY'RE NOT EVEN COMPLETING
BECAUSE THE VOLUME IS SO
SIGNIFICANT. AND SO I THINK THE
MANDATORY AUDITS NEED TO BE
REASSESSED, FOR EXAMPLE,
STATEWIDE CANDIDATES AND
STATEWIDE BALLOT MEASURES ARE
SUPPOSED TO BE MANDATORY AUDITS.
AND IN 2020, DOUG OSE RAN FOR
GOVERNOR FOR ABOUT A WEEK,
SELF-FUNDED HIS COMMITTEE, AND
THEN DECIDED NOT TO RUN AND
CLOSED IT. HE WAS AUDITED, BUT
THEY DID NOT AUDIT THE BALLOT
MEASURES, WHICH SPENT HUNDREDS
OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS THAT WERE
ON THE BALLOT IN NOVEMBER OF
THAT YEAR. AND SO IT SEEMS TO BE
A STAFFING PROBLEM AND A
QUANTITY PROBLEM, AND I'M JUST
NOT SURE WHY THE FPPC EXPERIENCE
WOULD BE ANY DIFFERENT. SO
SENATOR, HAVE YOU SPOKEN TO THE
FRANCHISE TAX BOARD ABOUT THIS
ISSUE? I HAVE, I HAD A FULL
HEARING ON THE SUBJECT, SO WE
HEARD FROM EVERYBODY, INCLUDING
THE FRANCHISE TAX BOARD, AND
ASKED THEM TO EXPLAIN WHY THEY
FAILED TO DO THE AUDITS. YES, I
HAVE WHAT WAS THEIR RESPONSE?
IT'S A LOW PRIORITY OF THEIR
OFFICE. THEY DON'T GET THE
FUNDING TO IN THEIR VIEW, MAKE
IT A HIGHER PRIORITY. SO BUT I
NOTICED IN YOUR BILL YOU'RE
GOING TO GIVE SUBSTANTIAL
FUNDING TO THE FPPC. WHY DON'T
WE TRY GIVING IT TO THE
FRANCHISE TAX BOARD TO SEE IF
THAT ALLEVIATES THE NEED? I JUST
I'M A LITTLE HESITANT. ANYTIME
WE SAY THE SOLUTION TO A
GOVERNMENT PROBLEM IS TO CREATE
MORE GOVERNMENT AND OPEN A NEW
OFFICE AND A NEW AGENCY, NEW
PEOPLE, I GET A LITTLE I GET A
LITTLE HEARTACHE OVER THAT AND
LOOK AT THE SITUATION AS A
FAILURE. TODAY THEY DON'T SEEM
TO BE MOTIVATED TO MAKE IT
IMPORTANT TO THEM. I'VE SEEN THE
WORK OF THE FAIR POLITICAL
PRACTICE COMMISSION, AS YOU HAVE
OVER THE YEARS. I READ EVERY ONE
OF THEIR MEETING REPORTS AND THE
AUDITS THAT THEY DO AND
COMPLIANCE THAT THEY DO, AND IT
SEEMS TO ME THAT WE HAVE A VERY
AN AGENCY OF GREAT INTEGRITY AND
MOTIVATION TO DO THE RIGHT THING
. SO FOR ME, I DON'T DISAGREE
WITH YOU ABOUT ADDING INTO
GOVERNMENT. A $500 FEE IS A IS A
IS A PITTANCE TO THESE LOBBYING
EMPLOYERS AND FIRMS? SIR, IF YOU
WANT TO GO AND LOOK AT THE
AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT THEY THEY
BRING IN EVERY YEAR, I THINK
THAT YOU WOULD YOU WOULD AGREE.
I ALSO WOULD NOTE THAT THESE
FEES ARE ESTABLISHED IN MANY
OTHER STATES TO COVER THE COST.
IT'S NOT MEANT TO ENRICH THE
STATE. IT'S SIMPLY AT A TIME OF
BUDGETARY CRISIS WHICH, YOU
KNOW, WE'RE IN, RIGHT? THIS
SIMPLY MAKES THE BILL REVENUE
NEUTRAL. IF YOU WANT TO KILL
THIS BILL, GET RID OF THE FEE,
BECAUSE IT JUST WON'T HAPPEN.
NO. AND I GUESS MY POINT IS, WHY
DON'T WE TRY GIVING THE FEES TO
THE CURRENT AUDITING ARM TO SEE
IF THAT ALLEVIATES THINGS? BUT
IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'VE MAYBE
CONSIDERED THAT AND YOU DON'T
TRUST THEM OR SOMETHING. I THINK
THAT'S CORRECT, SIR. OKAY THANK
YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
MEMBERS? YES. ASSEMBLY MEMBER
WEBER, GOOD MORNING, THANK YOU
FOR BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD
SO WE COULD HAVE, YOU KNOW,
CONVERSATION ON THIS, YOU KNOW,
I. AGREE SOMEWHAT WITH, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER ASSAILY AND THAT I
QUESTION WHY THE DECISION IS TO
MOVE IT FROM ONE ENTITY TO
ANOTHER, THAT COULD POTENTIALLY
SET UP, IN MY OPINION, BAD
PRECEDENT. WE MAKE LAWS FOR A
REASON. WE TELL YOU TO DO
SOMETHING FOR A REASON, AND IF
WE FIND THAT YOU'RE NOT DOING
IT, AND THEN WE SAY, WELL, SINCE
YOU'RE NOT DOING IT, WE'RE GOING
TO TAKE THAT RESPONSIBILITY AND
PUT IT SOMEWHERE ELSE. THEN WHY
WOULD ANY OTHER DEPARTMENT OR
ANY OTHER DIVISION DECIDE TO
FOLLOW LAW? I MEAN, WE ALREADY
HAVE THAT AS AN ISSUE WHEN WE
HERE WHEN WE HAVE THESE HEARINGS
AND THESE INDIVIDUALS ARE NOT
FOLLOWING THE THINGS THAT WE
HAVE, INSTRUCTED THEM TO DO, AND
SO IF THERE WAS A HEARING AND IT
WAS DISCOVERED THAT THEY DIDN'T
HAVE ENOUGH STAFF OR THE FEES
WEREN'T ENOUGH TO HIRE, THEN WHY
WHY NOT TAKE THAT NEW $500 FEE,
KEEP IT WHERE IT IS, AND GIVE
THEM THE TOOLS THAT I GUESS THEY
DON'T HAVE IN ORDER TO COMPLETE
THE NUMBER OF AUDITS VERSUS
TAKING IT AWAY FROM THEM AND
SAYING, OKAY, YOU PUT IT DOWN AS
YOU SAY, IT'S A LOW PRIORITY. SO
WE'LL JUST PUT IT OVER HERE,
WHICH WOULD KIND OF BE LIKE A
REWARD. SO I GUESS I'M JUST I'M
NOT UNDERSTANDING WHY WE WOULD
DO THAT IN THIS SITUATION. FAIR
ENOUGH. THROUGH THE CHAIR. I
MEAN, FOR ME IT'S ABOUT
REWARDING BAD BEHAVIOR BECAUSE
IN THIS CASE, IT'S NOT ONE YEAR
OF A PROBLEM OR TWO YEARS OF A
PROBLEM. WE HAVE A DECADE OR
MORE OF A PROBLEM WHERE THEY'VE
NEVER OWNED UP TO IT. THEY'VE
NEVER COME TO THE LEGISLATURE
AND SAID, HEY, YOU NEED TO
SUPPLEMENT OUR BUDGET BECAUSE
WE'RE NOT ABLE TO DO THE WORK
THAT YOU REQUIRE OF US. THEY'VE
DONE NOTHING FOR DECADES IN THIS
SPACE. SO FOR ME, WHY WOULD YOU
REWARD BAD BEHAVIOR WHEN THEY
HAVE NO MOTIVATION TO FOLLOW THE
LAW? AND YET WE HAVE AN AGENCY
THAT IS VERY MOTIVATED AND HAS
BEEN DOING GOOD WORK IN THIS
SPACE. SO FOR ME, I DON'T SEE A
REASON TO REWARD BAD BEHAVIOR
WHEN THEY'VE SHOWN NO MOTIVATION
TO REALLY GET IN FRONT OF WHAT
WE THINK IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE.
THOUSANDS OF LOBBYISTS AND
LOBBYISTS, EMPLOYERS DOING THEIR
WORK HERE, SPENDING MILLIONS OF
DOLLARS TO INFLUENCE OUR WORK.
THE PUBLIC EXPECTS THAT THERE'S
SOME ACCOUNTABILITY, THAT IT'S
BEING DONE HONESTLY. AND WE'VE
AND WE'VE WE'VE BROKEN IT'S
BROKEN DOWN. THEY FAILED. AND WE
HAVE FAILED TO HOLD THEM
ACCOUNTABLE FOR IT. AND SO AT
SOME POINT, AND THAT'S WHY THE
BILL IS HERE, YOU KNOW, WE GOT
TO SAY WE GOT TO WE GOT, WE GOT
WE GOT TO HAVE SOMETHING HAS TO
HAPPEN DIFFERENTLY. RIGHT. AND I
GUESS MY POINT IS THAT THERE ARE
MANY BOARDS THAT PEOPLE FEEL ARE
NOT DOING WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED
TO DO. YOU KNOW, I WILL USE THE
MEDICAL BOARD, FOR EXAMPLE,
PEOPLE COMPLAIN ALL THE TIME
THAT THE COMPLAINTS THAT ARE
FILED AGAINST PHYSICIANS ARE
EITHER NOT LOOKED INTO OR THEY
TAKE LONG, TOO LONG TO FIGURE
OUT AND YET WE'RE NOT STATING
THAT WE'RE GOING TO TAKE ALL OF
THE PHYSICIANS AND MOVE THEM
OVER TO OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY
BOARD, BECAUSE THE MEDICAL BOARD
ISN'T DOING WHAT THEY'RE
SUPPOSED TO DO. AND SO I JUST,
I'M HAVING A HARD TIME GRAPPLING
WITH THERE'S AN ISSUE. SO WE'RE
GOING TO TAKE IT AWAY INSTEAD OF
GIVING YOU THE TOOLS TO SEE IF
YOU CAN FIX IT. I, YOU KNOW,
AUDITING EVERYONE IS EXTREMELY
IMPORTANT, AND WE NEED TO HAVE
THIS DONE. I HAVE I HAVE NO
PROBLEM WITH THE INCREASE IN THE
FEE, I DO HAVE CONCERNS WITH WE
SEE THAT YOU HAVE AN ISSUE HERE
INSTEAD OF INSTEAD OF US GIVING
YOU THE TOOLS, WE'RE JUST GOING
TO TAKE THAT OFF OF YOUR PLATE
AND PUT IT SOMEWHERE ELSE. SO,
BUT I DEFINITELY APPRECIATE YOU
BRINGING THIS ISSUE BEFORE US
TODAY. THANK YOU. SENATOR. THE
CHAIR WOULD GIVE ME AN
OPPORTUNITY. YOU MENTIONED THE
MEDICAL BOARD, AND IT'S A GREAT
EXAMPLE TO TAKE A LOOK AT,
BECAUSE ONE OF THE QUESTIONS IS,
WHERE DOES THE LEGISLATURE HAVE
POWER? AND THE MEDICAL BOARD IS
ONE OF THE, I THINK, 4 OR 5
PLACES IN STATE GOVERNMENT WHERE
THE LEGISLATURE ACTUALLY HAS
POWER, BECAUSE IT'S A IT'S
SUNSETTED. AND EVERY FIVE YEARS
WE HAVE TO EXTEND THE POWER OF
THAT BOARD OR IT GOES AWAY. SO
WE ACTUALLY HAVE THE POWER TO DO
SOMETHING WHERE THE GOVERNOR
CAN'T SAY NO, AND WE HAVE THAT
POWER. AND IT'S BEEN DONE VERY
RARELY. BUT IT ACTUALLY, YOU
KNOW, IT'S SOMETHING THAT IS
ACTUALLY IN YOUR CONTROL. IN
THIS CASE, IT'S AN
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY, NOT IN
OUR CONTROL WHATSOEVER, IT WORKS
FOR THE GOVERNOR. AND SO IT'S
VERY HARD TO, TO HAVE INFLUENCE
IN THESE ADMINISTRATIVE SPACES
WITH THE EXAMPLE OF THE FPC.
THEY HAVE SOME AUTONOMY TO DO
THE RIGHT THING. EVEN IF THE
GOVERNOR DOESN'T AGREE WITH IT.
HE GETS ONE APPOINTMENT ON THAT.
THAT ENTITY. SO THAT AUTONOMY AS
FROM A LEGISLATIVE POINT OF VIEW
OF EXERCISING OUR POWER TO HAVE
THE LAW BE ENFORCED, IT'S A MUCH
MORE RELIABLE AGENCY FOR US TO
HAVE THINGS BE DONE VERSUS AN
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY HAPPENS TO
BE RUN BY THE GOVERNOR OF OUR
PARTY. THAT CAN MAKE CHOICES AS
THEY SEE FIT. AND WE HAVE VERY
LITTLE. WE HAVE SOME OVERSIGHT,
BUT OUR ABILITY TO REALLY GET IN
THERE AND CHANGE IT IS
DIFFICULT. ASSEMBLY MEMBER
BENNETT. I'D LIKE TO FOLLOW UP
ON THIS ARGUMENT, AND I
APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS AND
THOUGHTS OF MY COLLEAGUES UP
HERE. I WOULD OFFER MY RESPONSE
TO THAT, AND THAT IS THAT IF
YOU'VE EVER BEEN AT THE FPC, THE
CULTURE AT THE FPC IS CLEARLY
ONE OF WE WANT TO HOLD PEOPLE
ACCOUNTABLE. AND WE WANT TO HOLD
THEM ACCOUNTABLE TO FOLLOW THE
CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS THAT ARE
OUT THERE. THE FRANCHISE TAX
BOARD OBVIOUSLY DOESN'T HAVE
THAT SAME. I JUST CAN'T IMAGINE
THE FPC SITTING THERE YEAR AFTER
YEAR FOR TEN YEAR PERIOD OF TIME
AND NOT BEING ABLE TO DO THE
AUDITS AND NOT EVER COMING TO US
AND SAYING, WE'VE GOT A PROBLEM.
BUT I CERTAINLY HAVE NOT HEARD
IN THE FOUR YEARS I'VE BEEN HERE
EVER, ANYBODY SAYING THE
FRANCHISE TAX BOARD IS COMING TO
US SAYING WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH
MONEY TO BE ABLE TO DO THESE
AUDITS, IT'S JUST BEEN OFF THE
RADAR SCREEN. SO ONE, I THINK
SIGNIFICANT REASON TO MAKE THIS
CHANGE IS THE CULTURE OF THE
INSTITUTIONS. AND I'M STRETCHING
TO TRY TO COME UP WITH THIS
EXAMPLE. BUT IMAGINE AT THE
MEDICAL BOARD IF WE HAD A
REQUIREMENT THAT PHYSICIANS
COULD NOT HAVE AN ASSOCIATION
WITH, DRUG COMPANIES THAT WERE,
YOU KNOW, THAT WERE, YOU KNOW,
THERE WAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST
SOMEHOW, AND WE HAD A BOARD THAT
WAS OUT THERE SPECIFICALLY,
TRYING TO CHECK THOSE, JUST THAT
KIND OF THING VERSUS WE HAD THE
FRANCHISE TAX BOARD TRYING TO
CHECK THAT. I THINK IF WE HAD A
BOARD THAT WAS SPECIFICALLY
FOCUSED ON THE HONEST LEGAL,
FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS OF THE
MEDICAL BOARD, WHERE WHEREAS THE
MEDICAL BOARD MAY BE LOOKING AT
EVERYTHING, YOU KNOW, HOW HOW
COMPETENT IS A PHYSICIAN, ETC,
WE HAD SOMEBODY ELSE. THAT'S THE
EXAMPLE I WOULD SHOW HERE IS
THAT THIS IS THE AUDIT THAT
WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS PRIMARILY
AN AUDIT TO SEE IF THEY'RE
FOLLOWING THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE
LAWS THAT WE HAVE HERE IN, IN
CALIFORNIA, THE, THE FRANCHISE
TAX BOARD IS DOING AN AUDIT. YOU
KNOW, THEIR CULTURE IS MUCH
BROADER. AND IT'S JUST YOU KNOW,
ARE YOU FOLLOWING THE DEBIT AND
CREDIT RULES PROPERLY? ARE YOU,
YOU KNOW, PROPERLY PUTTING
EVERYTHING BUT THEY DON'T COME
WITH A CULTURE OF LOOKING FOR
THE VERY THING THAT WE WANT THEM
TO BE AUDITED FOR. SO THAT'S WHY
I THINK IT'S, IT'S, IT'S A
CULTURAL THING AS MUCH AS
ANYTHING THAT, MAKES ME THINK
THIS IS THE APPROPRIATE THING TO
DO IN THIS SITUATION. THE FINAL
THING I WOULD OFFER IS IF WE
DON'T SUPPORT THIS BILL, IF THIS
BILL DOESN'T GO FORWARD, WE ARE
GOING TO BE LIVING WITH THE
STATUS QUO FOR A SIGNIFICANT
PERIOD OF TIME BECAUSE WE ARE
NOT GOING TO FIX THE WE'RE NOT
GOING TO COME UP WITH THE
FUNDING FOR THE FRANCHISE TAX
BOARD, AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO
CHANGE THE CULTURE OF THE
FRANCHISE TAX BOARD IN ANY NEAR
PERIOD OF TIME. SO THE PEOPLE
SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION TO THIS
BILL ARE SAYING THE STATUS QUO
IS OKAY. AND I DON'T THINK THAT
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN
SAY. SO WHAT'S THE WHAT'S THE
ONLY WAY TO MOVE, MOVE PROMPTLY
TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM IS TO TAKE
THIS APPROACH, THE OTHER WOULD
BE A MANY YEARS, IF EVER, CHANGE
IN THE CULTURE AT THE FTC THAT
THE FRANCHISE TAX BOARD, YOU
KNOW, ASSUMING THAT WE COULD GET
THE FUNDING AND FOCUS ON THAT
CHANGE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS, DOCTOR WEBER? YEAH,
IT WOULD BE NICE. IF SOMEONE
FROM THE FRANCHISE TAX BOARD WAS
HERE, THAT WOULD MAKE THINGS A
LOT EASIER FOR ME, TO SUPPORT
THIS BILL, TO HEAR FROM THEM
WHAT THEIR CHALLENGES ARE, AND
WHETHER OR NOT THEY THINK THIS
IS A GOOD MOVE AND I DON'T
UNDERSTAND WHY THEY'RE NOT HERE,
OR ARE THEY THAT THERE'S NOT
SOME KIND OF LETTER IN THE
SYSTEM OR DON'T CARE? I DON'T I
DON'T UNDERSTAND. SO I THINK
THAT'S THAT ALSO SPEAKS TO
SOMETHING ABOUT THEIR, THEIR
CULTURAL INTEREST IN, IN DOING
THIS, WE COULD GIVE THEM THE
FUNDING IF THEY DON'T EVEN CARE
ENOUGH TO BE HERE TO DEFEND, TO
DEFEND THEMSELVES IN THIS
SITUATION. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS SEEING?
NONE. SENATOR, YOU MAY CLOSE. I
JUST WANTED TO THANK YOU FOR
HEARING THE BILL. I LAUGHED WITH
MY STAFF WHEN I SAID I WAS
THINKING ABOUT RUNNING THIS BILL
AS MY 10TH YEAR IN THE SENATE,
AND THEY SAID, ARE YOU CRAZY?
YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE ALL YOUR
FRIENDS IN THE LOBBYING CORPS
MAD AT YOU? WHAT A GREAT BILL TO
RUN IN YOUR FINAL YEAR, RIGHT?
BECAUSE THEY DO THEIR WORK.
THEY'RE GOOD PEOPLE. AND, YOU
KNOW, NOBODY LIKES TO BE
AUDITED, BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS
THE RIGHT THING TO DO, AND SO
THAT'S WHY THE BILL IS BEFORE
YOU. I WOULD NOTE ON THE FEE
SIDE, TEXAS CHARGES $1,000.
OKAY. KANSAS, A LOT SMALLER,
$450. SO THIS IS NOT OUT OF THE
REALM FOR A REASONABLE FEE.
MODEST FEE. JUST TO MAKE SURE
THAT THE AUDITING WORK GETS
DONE. AND WITH THAT,
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
SUPPORT TODAY. INCOME TAX. DO WE
HAVE A MOTION ON SB 1404? WE HAD
A MOTION FROM BENNETT. DO WE
HAVE A SECOND? I'LL GO AHEAD AND
SECOND. THE BILL. AND YOU KNOW,
CERTAINLY AUDITS ARE AN
IMPORTANT TOOL FOR ENSURING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW AND THE
LOW LEVEL OF LOBBYING AUDITS
COMPLETED BY THE FRANCHISE TAX
BOARD IN RECENT YEARS IS
CONCERNING BECAUSE THE FAIR
POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION
HAS PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY FOR
ADMINISTRATION OF THE POLITICAL
REFORM ACT, SHIFTING LOBBYING
AUDITS TO THEM MAY HELP ENSURE
THAT THE COMPLETION OF THOSE
AUDITS IS PRIORITIZED. AND FOR
THOSE REASONS, I'M RECOMMENDING
SUPPORT. IT'S A DO PASS, AS
AMENDED AND REREFERRED TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE. AND
YOU ARE TAKING THE AMENDMENTS.
YES. YES. OKAY. AND THEN,
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
THANK YOU. PELLERIN I PELLERIN I
LAKI LACK NOT VOTING. BENNETT
BENNETT I BERMAN. CERVANTES
ASSALI ASSALI NOT VOTING LOW.
WEBER WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD
AND PUT THAT ON CALL FOR THE
ABSENT MEMBERS. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU ALL. THANK YOU.
BEFORE WE GO ON TO YOUR NEXT
BILL, WE'RE WANTING TO, MOVE
SENATE SENATOR MIN'S BILL,
SENATE BILL 1111. BECAUSE IT
NEEDS TO GO TO ANOTHER COMMITTEE
TODAY. AND, SO DO WE. WE HAD A
MOTION MOVED. WE HAD A MOTION BY
SÐNG MEMBER BENNETT, SECOND,
SECOND BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
LACKEY, SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL. THE MOTION IS TO PASS
AND BE REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE
ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT. PELLERIN I,
PELLERIN I LACKEY. LACKEY I,
BENNETT I, BENNETT I, BERMAN
CERVANTES ASALI ASALI I LOW
WEBER. I WEBER I THANK YOU THAT
BILL IS OUT. THAT BILL IS OUT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU NOW MAY
PROCEED. ARE YOU READY FOR YOUR
NEXT BILL? YOUR WITNESS IS HERE.
OKAY. YOU MAY PROCEED. YEAH.
MEMBERS, THIS IS SB 1181, WE
CALL IT THE PAY TO PLAY CLEANUP
BILL, FIRST, I WANT TO START BY
ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU TO THE
COMMITTEE STAFF FOR WORKING WITH
US ON THIS ISSUE IN 2022. THE
LEGISLATURE PASSED ONE OF THE
MOST SIGNIFICANT REFORMS IN THE
LAST 50 YEARS WAS SB 1439. NOW
CALIFORNIA LAW, EXTENDED THE
LEVINE ACT TO PROHIBIT PARTIES
SEEKING CONTRACTS, PERMITS AND
LICENSEES WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
FOR MAKING POLITICAL
CONTRIBUTIONS OVER 250, TO OVER
$250 TO ELECTED OFFICIALS WHO
CAN VOTE ON THOSE SAME
CONTRACTS. WHILE SB 1439 SOUGHT
TO PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF
DECISIONS MADE BY LOCAL
OFFICIALS, THERE HAVE BEEN SOME
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES,
UNINTENDED OBSTACLES TO ENSURING
COMPLIANCE. THE BILL THAT YOU
HAVE BEFORE YOU IS A
COLLABORATION WITH THE FAIR
POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION
AND COMMON CAUSE, AND THE CLEAN
MONEY CAMPAIGN, TO, TAKE THEIR,
THE REGULATIONS THEY HAVE,
PROMULGATED ON DEFINITIONS AND
EXEMPTIONS, AND APPLY THAT TO,
TO WHAT'S IN THIS BILL. THE BILL
ALSO EXEMPTS SELECTED CITY
ATTORNEYS AND COUNTY COUNCILS.
FROM THE BILL AND REQUIRES THE
AGENDA FOR A PROCEEDING TO
INCLUDE THE DETAILS OF
APPLICANTS WHO MAKE ANY
CONTRIBUTION OF MORE THAN $250
TO A GOVERNING BOARD MEMBER.
REQUIRING SUCH NOTICE WOULD
FURTHER FACILITATE PROPER
CONFORMITY WITH OUR CONFLICT OF
INTEREST LAW. IN ADDITION, I
WANT TO MAKE CLEAR TO THE
COMMITTEE AND THE CHAIR THAT I
AM CONSIDERING INCREASING THE
CONTRIBUTION LIMIT OVER $250,
AND I REMAIN ENGAGED WITH
STAKEHOLDERS TO FIND THE
APPROPRIATE BALANCE BETWEEN
CONTRIBUTIONS AND THE APPEARANCE
OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST. WITH ME
TODAY, I HAVE JONATHAN MEHTA,
STEINORTH EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF
COMMON CAUSE, AND TRENT LANG,
PRESIDENT AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
OF THE CALIFORNIA CLEAN MONEY
CAMPAIGN. WITH THAT APPROPRIATE
TIME, RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. YOU EACH
HAVE TWO MINUTES. GOOD MORNING,
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. I'M JONATHAN
METZSTEIN, THE EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR AT CALIFORNIA COMMON
CAUSE, SPEAKING TODAY IN SUPPORT
OF SB 1181, WHICH ADDRESSES
CONCERNS RAISED BY LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS WITH THE
IMPLEMENTATION IMPLEMENTATION OF
LOCAL CAMPAIGN FINANCE
RESTRICTIONS WITHOUT UNDERMINING
THE OVERALL GOAL OF ADDRESSING
CORRUPTION AND THE APPEARANCE OF
CORRUPTION IN OUR CRITICALLY
IMPORTANT LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. IN
2022, AS THE SENATOR MENTIONED,
THE LEGISLATURE PASSED SB 1439
WITH UNANIMOUS BIPARTISAN
SUPPORT. THAT BILL ENDED A
LOOPHOLE IN THE POLITICAL REFORM
ACT PAY TO PLAY PROTECTIONS THAT
EXEMPTED LOCAL ELECTED
OFFICIALS. HOWEVER, SINCE 2022,
LOCAL AGENCIES HAVE EXPERIENCED
CHALLENGES AROUND IMPLEMENTING
THE REQUIREMENTS OF SB 1439. AND
SO, IN COLLABORATION WITH CITIES
ATTORNEYS, CITY ATTORNEYS, AND
COUNTY COUNCILS, SB 1181 HAS
BEEN CAREFULLY CRAFTED TO
ADDRESS THOSE CHALLENGES. IT IS
FILLED WITH REASONABLE GOOD
FAITH, COMMON SENSE FIXES THAT
WILL MAKE COMPLIANCE WITH SB
1439 EASIER AMONG OTHER THINGS,
SB 1181 EXEMPTS FROM SB 1439
RESTRICTIONS SEVERAL TYPES OF
CONTRACTS THAT WOULD NOT
ORDINARILY LEAD TO THE
APPEARANCE OF CORRUPTION. IT
EXEMPTS LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS
IF THEY DO NOT HAVE A ROLE IN
MAKING DECISIONS OR
RECOMMENDATIONS ON A SPECIFIC
PIECE OF BUSINESS BEFORE THEIR
JURISDICTION, AND IT EXEMPTS
CITY ATTORNEYS AND COUNTY
COUNCILS WHEN THEY HAVE A ROLE
IN THE PROCEEDING, BUT DO NOT
DETERMINE THE FINAL OUTCOME. SB
1181 WILL SUBSTANTIALLY EASE THE
BURDEN ON LOCAL ELECTED
OFFICIALS AND STAKEHOLDERS,
WHILE STILL ENSURING THAT
CURRENT LAW CONTINUES TO SPEAK
TO THE CONCERNS OF CALIFORNIA
VOTERS. BY PROTECTING AGAINST
CORRUPTION AND THE APPEARANCE OF
CORRUPTION. I URGE YOU TO LOOK
AT THE CITY OF OAKLAND, MY TOWN,
WHERE PAY TO PLAY CORRUPTION NOW
THREATENS THE CONFIDENCE IN OUR
CITY GOVERNMENT AND IS SHOWING A
DEEP DISILLUSIONMENT AMONG MY
NEIGHBORS. SB 1181 WOULD ADDRESS
VALID STAKEHOLDER CONCERNS
WITHOUT LETTING BIG MONEY
SPECIAL INTERESTS CURRY
INFLUENCE WITH OUR LOCAL
OFFICIALS. CALIFORNIA COMMON
CAUSE ASKS FOR YOUR AYE VOTE.
THANK YOU. YOU MAY PROCEED NEXT.
WITNESS THANK YOU, GOOD MORNING,
CHAIR MEMBERS. I'M TRENT LANG,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE
CALIFORNIA CLEAN MONEY CAMPAIGN,
WE'RE PROUD TO HAVE SUPPORTED SB
1439 AND 2022 AND NOW ARE PROUD
TO, SUPPORT SB 1181 TO IMPROVE
IT AND MAKE IT MORE WORKABLE.
WE'RE GRATEFUL TO SENATOR GLAZER
FOR HIS LEADERSHIP ON BOTH BILLS
, SB 1181 COMBINES REFORMS
REQUESTED BY THE SPONSORS OF
ANOTHER BILL IN THIS COMMITTEE,
AND THE CIVIL PROSECUTORS
COMMISSION. COALITION, TO EASE
COMPLIANCE BURDENS ON OFFICIALS
AND STAKEHOLDERS, BUT WITHOUT
WEAKENING CALIFORNIA'S
LONGSTANDING LEVINE ACT CONFLICT
OF INTEREST PROVISIONS. IT DOES
THIS BY HAVING IT ONLY APPLY TO
LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS THAT
HAVE KEY DECISION MAKING
CAPACITY, AND BY REMOVING
REMOVING MANY TYPES OF CONTRACTS
THAT ARE NOT PROBLEMATIC,
INCLUDING CONTRACTS VALUED UNDER
$50,000 AND PERIODIC REVIEWS OF
BOTH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS AND
COMPETITIVELY BID CONTRACTS.
UNLESS THERE IS A MATERIAL
MODIFICATION OR AMENDMENT
PROPOSED IN THE REGULATION. SB
1181 MAKES IT EASIER FOR
OFFICIALS TO COMPLY WITH THIS
DISCLOSURE AND RECUSAL
REQUIREMENTS BY ALLOWING THEM TO
RETURN ANY EXCESS CONTRIBUTIONS,
WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THEY MAKE A
DECISION. SO THEY'RE NOT CAUGHT
OFF GUARD BY SOMEBODY THAT IS,
TESTIFYING BEFORE THEM. WHILE WE
WE'D BE OPEN TO OPENLY, OPEN TO
MODESTLY INCREASING THE VIDAK:
CONTRIBUTION LIMITS. WE BELIEVE
THAT ALL THE REFORMS IN SB 1181,
MAKE ANY LARGE INCREASE
UNNECESSARY, ESPECIALLY FOR
SMALLER CITIES, BECAUSE IT
SUBSTANTIALLY NARROWS ITS FOCUS
AND MAKES IT EASIER FOR
OFFICIALS TO COMPLY. WE
THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY REQUEST
YOUR AYE VOTE TO STREAMLINE
CALIFORNIA'S LONGSTANDING
CONFLICT OF INTEREST PROVISIONS
WITHOUT WEAKENING THEM. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. ARE THERE ANY OTHER
WITNESSES IN THE ROOM WHO WANT
TO REGISTER THEIR SUPPORT FOR
THE BILL? PLEASE COME TO THE MIC
AND STATE YOUR NAME. ANY
ORGANIZATION YOU REPRESENT AND
YOUR POSITION. JEFF TARDAGUILA
ABDICATE. CARA. DOGFIGHT CAL
SACK AND SUPPORT OF THIS
MEASURE. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE
IN THE ROOM WANT TO REGISTER
YOUR SUPPORT? SEEING NONE WILL
NOW MOVE ON TO ANY PRIMARY
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION. IF
THERE'S ANY PRIMARY WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION, PLEASE STEP UP TO
THE TABLE AND YOU HAVE TWO
MINUTES TO MAKE YOUR COMMENTS.
PARDON ME. GOOD MORNING, MADAM
CHAIR. DYLAN ELLIOTT, ON BEHALF
OF THE FRESNO COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS HERE, IN RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION FOR THE REASONS
OUTLINED IN THE ANALYSIS,
NAMELY, THE INCREASED STAFF TIME
THAT THIS BILL COULD IMPACT, WE
APPRECIATE THE AUTHORS
WILLINGNESS TO CONTINUE
DISCUSSIONS, BUT OUR CONTINUED
TO REMAIN OPPOSED. THANK YOU.
ANYONE IN THE ROOM WHO'D LIKE TO
STEP UP TO THE MIC TO REGISTER
YOUR OPPOSITION? SEEING NONE,
WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE. ARE THERE ANY
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS? ASSEMBLY
MEMBER SALLY. OKAY, I WASN'T
HERE WHEN THIS PASSED, BUT MY
UNDERSTANDING IS THE LEVINE ACT
WAS PASSED TO COUNTER A GROWING
PERCEPTION OF CORRUPTION,
DEALING WITH CAMPAIGN
CONTRIBUTIONS AND DECISIONS
BEING MADE AT THE LOCAL LEVEL.
WELL, PUTTING ASIDE MY QUESTION
OF WHY THESE RULES SHOULDN'T
APPLY TO US, WHY WE'RE HOLDING
LOCALS TO A HIGHER STANDARD THAN
WE HOLD LEGISLATORS PUT THAT
SIDE TO THE SECOND, THIS BILL
APPEARS TO THEN WATER DOWN A LOT
OF THE RESTRICTIONS. SO WHAT I
HEARD IS THAT IT DOESN'T APPLY
TO COMPETITIVE BIDS. SO MY
UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IF
SOMEONE'S MADE SUBSTANTIAL
CONTRIBUTIONS AND THERE'S BIDS
THAT HAVE ALL BEEN QUALIFIED,
THEN THEY COULD CHOOSE ONE OF
THEIR DONORS AS THE RECIPIENT.
UNDER THIS NEW MODIFICATION. IS
THAT MY UNDERSTANDING? NÓ, A
COMPETITIVE BID PROCESS, WE CAN
HAVE EXPERTISE OF OTHERS WHO
HAVE EXPERTISE. IT'S, IT'S MORE
OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE SELECTION
BASED ON THE CRITERIA THAT'S
BEEN SET. IT'S ALMOST AN IN A IN
MANY CASES, NOT IN EVERY CASE,
AN AUTOMATIC SELECTION BASED ON
THE CRITERIA THAT'S BEEN. SO
THERE'S NO DISCRETION BY THE
BOARD. IT'S NOT THAT IT COMES
BACK. THE BOARD USUALLY MIGHT
AFFIRM A FINAL DECISION, BUT
IT'S IN A YOU KNOW, I'VE SPENT
TEN YEARS IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT,
AT LEAST WITHIN MY CITY. THAT'S
THE THAT'S THE GENERAL PRACTICE
ON COMPETITIVELY BID, CONTRACTS.
YEAH. WHAT ABOUT I MEAN, THIS
IDEA THAT CITY ATTORNEYS ARE NOT
INVOLVED IN THE DECISION. I MEAN
, I CITY ATTORNEYS HAVE A LOT OF
INFLUENCE OVER RECOMMENDATIONS
TO COUNCIL MEMBERS. WHY SHOULD
WE EXEMPT THEM? I MEAN, THEY'RE
THEY'RE POLITICAL CREATURES.
THEY'RE ELECTED, THEY'RE TAKING
DONATIONS, AND THEY PROVIDE
LEGAL ADVICE THAT ARE RELIED ON
AND ARE USED SOMETIMES
COERCIVELY WITH LOCAL ELECTED
OFFICIALS WHO ARE NOT LAWYERS.
WHY SHOULD THEY BE EXEMPT FROM
THIS? WELL, IT'S MY CONCLUSION
THAT THEY'RE NOT THE FINAL
DECISION MAKERS IN A LOCAL
GOVERNMENTAL BODY. IT'S THE
COUNCIL MEMBER, THE SUPERVISOR,
A MAYOR. AND THAT THEY ARE, NOT
CRITICAL TO MAINTAINING THE
LEVEL OF INTEGRITY THAT THIS
BILL TRIES TO ELEVATE. AND THEN,
SORT OF MY LAST QUESTION IS, AS
FAR AS CONTRIBUTIONS, DOES IT
APPLY TO ANY CONTRIBUTOR
REGARDLESS OF THEIR STATUS? SO
THIS APPLIES TO LIKE, LABOR
UNIONS AS WELL AS CORPORATIONS,
IF THEY'RE A IF THEY'RE A
PARTICIPANT IN THE IF A
FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THE
MEASURE THAT'S BEFORE THE
ELECTED LEADERS. THERE ARE SOME
EXCEPTIONS TO THAT, WHICH ARE
PART OF, THE LAW TODAY THAT I
DON'T CHANGE, OR NOT PROPOSED TO
BE CHANGED IN THE BILL. BUT IF
THEY ARE, THEY ARE PARTIES TO A
DECISION. AND KEEP IN MIND,
BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THERE'S SOME
CONCERN THAT SOMEHOW THIS IS
REALLY CREATED A BIG PROBLEM
ACROSS THE STATE. BUT THIS IS A
VERY NARROW BAND OF INDIVIDUALS
THAT THIS BILL IS APPLICABLE TO.
AND YOU ASKED THE QUESTION, I
GUESS RHETORICALLY AT THE START,
WHY DOESN'T THIS APPLY TO US AS
AS LAWMAKERS HERE IN SACRAMENTO?
I'M SURE THAT YOU WILL NOTE THAT
OF THE DECISIONS THAT WE MAKE,
99% OF THEM ARE GREATER, HAVE
NOTHING TO DO WITH A VERY NARROW
FINANCIAL INTEREST THAT HAS
THEIR NAME ON THAT BILL. AT THE
LOCAL LEVEL, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
A DEVELOPER WHO'S PROPOSING A
DEVELOPMENT, THAT THAT'S AN
EXAMPLE OF A VERY DIRECT
CONNECTION BETWEEN THE DONOR AND
THE DECISION MAKER. WHEN WE MAKE
DECISIONS HERE IN THE
LEGISLATURE AND, LISTEN, YOU CAN
CARRY A BILL TO TRY TO APPLY IT
TO, TO US HERE IN SACRAMENTO.
WILL YOU HEAR IT? YEAH. OKAY. I,
I OF COURSE, I'M HAPPY TO HEAR
IT. OKAY, IN MY PRIVATE LIFE
NEXT YEAR, BUT, YOU KNOW, WE,
YOU KNOW, THE DECISIONS THAT WE
MAKE HERE ARE BROAD IN THEIR
SCOPE. THEY AFFECT INDUSTRY.
YES, BUT NOT A PARTICULAR
ENTITY. LIKE A, LIKE SOMEONE
WHO'S PROPOSING TO DEVELOP A
PIECE OF LAND IN YOUR CITY.
YEAH, WELL, I RESPECTFULLY
DISAGREE. WHEN SEIU LOBBIES FOR
MINIMUM WAGE INCREASES, WHICH
ARE THEN GOING TO GO BACK TO
THEIR MEMBERSHIP TO FUND THEIR
POLITICAL ACTIVITIES AND
SALARIES OF THEIR BOARD MEMBERS,
IT'S A DIRECT FINANCIAL
CONTRIBUTION, YOU KNOW, BENEFIT
TO THEM. SAME THING WITH
TEACHERS UNIONS, SAME THING WITH
ALL KINDS OF INDUSTRIES. AS, YOU
KNOW, MY OFFICE, YOUR OFFICE,
IT'S FILLED WITH PEOPLE WHO WANT
MORE MONEY FROM US THAT ARE
GOING TO FINANCIALLY BENEFIT
THEM. I THINK IT'S HYPOCRITICAL
FOR US TO APPLY A HIGHER
STANDARD OF LOCAL OFFICIALS THAN
TO OUR OWN SELVES. BUT MAYBE I
WILL INTRODUCE IT NEXT YEAR. BUT
THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING MY
QUESTIONS, SENATOR. WELCOME.
THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS? WE HAVE A
MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I
WILL SECOND THE BILL. SENATOR,
SEEING NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, YOU
MAY CLOSE. THANK YOU. AND THANK
YOU AGAIN TO YOUR STAFF, CHAIR
AND YOURSELF FOR THE DISCUSSIONS
ON THIS. I KNOW THERE'S STILL
WORK TO BE DONE. I KNOW YOU'LL
BE HEARING ANOTHER BILL IN A FEW
MINUTES IN THE SAME SPACE, I
THINK WE ALL WANT THE SAME
THING. WE WANT INTEGRITY IN
GOVERNMENTAL DECISION MAKING. WE
WANT A PUBLIC TO HAVE CONFIDENCE
IN THE WORK THAT WE DO AT OUR
LEVEL, AT THE LOCAL LEVEL.
THAT'S THE GOAL THAT WE'RE
TRYING TO WE ARE ACCOMPLISHING
WITH THE ORIGINAL BILL. AND ALSO
WITH THE IMPROVEMENTS IN THIS
BILL TODAY. WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR A VOTE.
THANK YOU. AND I WANT TO THANK
THE AUTHOR FOR YOUR EFFORTS TO
ADDRESS IMPLEMENTATION
CHALLENGES THAT HAVE COME UP
SINCE THE PASSAGE OF YOUR SB
1439, AND THIS BILL CONTAINS A
NUMBER OF IMPORTANT CHANGES TO
EASE COMPLIANCE BURDENS. I ALSO
THINK THAT WE CAN GO FURTHER
THAN THIS BILL DOES TO EASE
THOSE BURDENS WITHOUT
UNDERMINING THE LAW. SO I URGE
THE AUTHOR TO CONTINUE TO WORK
WITH THE STAKEHOLDERS AND WITH
LEGISLATORS WHO ARE AUTHORING
BILLS ON THE SAME ISSUE. MY HOPE
IS THAT THOSE DISCUSSIONS WILL
YIELD A COMPROMISE THAT ALL
SIDES CAN AGREE TO. SO TO ALLOW
THOSE DISCUSSIONS TO CONTINUE,
I'M RECOMMENDING SUPPORT WITH
THE TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS
OUTLINED IN THE ANALYSIS. SO
WE'RE LOSING MEMBERS LIKE CRAZY.
BUT LET'S GO AHEAD AND CALL THE
ROLL JUST FOR THE HECK OF IT. ON
SB 1181, THE MOTION IS DUE PASS
AS AMENDED, AND BE REFERRED TO
THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
PELLERIN I, PELLERIN I, LACKEY,
BENNETT, BURMAN, CERVANTES.
EASILY, EASILY NOT VOTING LO
WEBER. WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD
AND PUT THAT BILL ON CALL, AND
WE WILL BRING UP OUR NEXT
AUTHOR. SENATOR DODD, COME ON
UP. YOU'VE GOT SB 904. IS THAT
THE ONE YOU'RE GOING TO START
WITH? YES, IT IS, MADAM CHAIR.
OKAY. YOU MAY BEGIN WHEN READY.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. AND
MEMBER, TODAY I'M PRESENTING, SB
904, A MEASURE THAT UPDATES THE
ENABLING LEGISLATION OF THE
SONOMA-MARIN AREA RAIL TRANSIT
DISTRICT, OR SMART TRAIN. IT IS
KNOWN IT WILL REMOVE OBSOLETE
REFERENCES, RAISE BIDDING AMOUNT
THRESHOLDS, AND AUTHORIZE SMART
SPECIAL TAXES TO BE IMPOSED BY A
VOTER INITIATIVE. THE SMART
TRAIN IS AN INCREDIBLE EXAMPLE
OF A MULTIMODAL AND
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL PROJECT
THAT ADVANCES MANY OF OUR
STATE'S TOP GOALS, INCREASED
RAIL AND BICYCLE USE, TRANSIT
ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT, AND
COLLABORATION BY LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS AT A REGIONAL SCALE.
SINCE OVERCOME SINCE COMING INTO
SERVICE JUST SIX YEARS AGO,
SMART HAS OVERCOME WILDFIRES,
FLOODS AND A GLOBAL PANDEMIC
THAT DEVASTATED ALL PUBLIC
TRANSIT. DESPITE THOSE
OBSTACLES, THEY KEEP CHUGGING
ALONG. AND AT THE END OF 2023,
BECAME THE FIRST TRANSIT. EXCUSE
ME? TRANSIT SYSTEM IN THE BAY
AREA TO RECOVER THEIR
PRE-PANDEMIC RIDERSHIP NUMBERS.
PRETTY PRETTY GOOD, THIS BILL
ALSO EMPOWERS THE VOTERS OF THIS
SPECIAL DISTRICT FOR THE FIRST
TIME TO PURSUE THEIR OWN BALLOT
MEASURES THROUGH A VOTER
INITIATIVE, A VOTER APPROVED
QUALIFIED INITIATIVE PROCESS HAS
THE POTENTIAL TO PROVIDE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO ENHANCE COMMUNITY
ENGAGEMENT AND INFORM AND AFFIRM
THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN
EXPENDITURE PLAN, PROVIDING
GREATER ACCOUNTABILITY AND
DIRECTION FOR HOW BEST TO
DEDICATE FUTURE RESOURCES TO
OPERATE THE SMART SYSTEM, THE
WITNESS TESTIFIED. IN SUPPORT OF
THE BILL TODAY IS DUNCAN
MCFETRIDGE, REPRESENTING SMART,
MADAM CHAIR, AND MEMBER DUNCAN
MCFETRIDGE ON BEHALF OF SMART
AND STRONG SUPPORT, SENATOR DODD
SAID, EVERYTHING THAT I WAS
GOING TO SAY. SO I'LL I'LL JUST
ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND HAPPY
TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK
YOU SO MUCH. ARE THERE ANY OTHER
WITNESSES IN THE ROOM WHO WOULD
LIKE TO REGISTER THEIR SUPPORT
FOR THE BILL? IF SO, COMING UP
TO THE MIC AND STATE YOUR NAME,
ORGANIZATION AND YOUR POSITION,
PLEASE. JEFF TARDAGUILA, TRANSIT
ADVOCATE, SAC TROOP. MADAM CHAIR
MATT BROUGHT HERE ON BEHALF OF
THE TEAMSTERS. WE REPRESENT THE
WORKERS AT SMART AND STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR MEMBERS. CHRIS
LEE HERE ON BEHALF OF THE SONOMA
COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY,
REGIONAL CLIMATE PROTECTION
AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
ARE THERE ANY WITNESSES IN THE
ROOM WHO ARE IN OPPOSITION TO
THE BILL? ANY PRIMARY WITNESSES
IN OPPOSITION SEEING NONE.
ANYONE JUST WANT TO COME UP TO
THE MIC AND REGISTER OPPOSITION
SEEING NONE. I'LL BRING IT BACK
TO THE COMMITTEE FOR QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU. ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
COMMENT I HAVE NO ISSUES WITH
THE TRAIN. WHETHER IT'S SMART OR
DUMB. MY ISSUE IS THE WAY THE
MONEY IS BEING RAISED, AND SO
THIS IS EXPLOITING A LOOPHOLE
THAT THE SUPREME COURT CREATED
AROUND PROP 13 TO ALLOW TAXES TO
BE RAISED BY A SIMPLE MAJORITY
THAN A TWO THIRDS. I BELIEVE
WHEN THE VOTERS SAY SOMETHING,
THEY MEAN IT. VOTERS APPROVED
PROP 13. THEY WANTED THE
GOVERNMENT TO BE SUBJECT TO A
TWO THIRDS APPROVAL TO RAISE
TAXES AND BY EXPLOITING A
LOOPHOLE I THINK GOES AGAINST
THE INTENT OF THE VOTERS. SO
UNFORTUNATELY, FOR THAT REASON,
I'LL BE OPPOSING IT. BUT
SENATOR, I HOPE YOUR TRAIN
SUCCEEDS. SENATOR, WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR I VOTE? OKAY, SINCE WE
ARE SHORT MEMBERS, WE ARE NOT
ABLE TO MAKE A MOTION AT THIS
TIME. BUT LET'S GO AHEAD AND
PROCEED WITH YOUR NEXT BILL.
THANK YOU. AND THAT IS SENATE
BILL 1243. YES, MA'AM. OKAY,
MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS, I'M
HERE TO PRESENT SB 1243 TO AMEND
THE LEVINE ACT FOR BETTER
CLARITY, COMPLIANCE AND FAIRNESS
. FIRST, I WANT TO THANK THE
CHAIR AND YOUR COMMITTEE STAFF
FOR BEING GENEROUS WITH YOUR
TIME AND EXPERTISE. I'M HAPPY TO
ACCEPT THE TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS
IDENTIFIED IN ITEM NUMBER 11. ON
THE BOTTOM OF PAGE TEN OF THE
ANALYSIS, AS WELL AS THE
AMENDMENT SUGGESTS, ON THE
BOTTOM OF PAGE EIGHT, TO ENSURE
MATERIAL CHANGES TO DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENTS ARE NOT EXEMPT. I'M
COMMITTED TO WORKING WITH
STAKEHOLDERS AND THE COMMITTEE
TO FURTHER REFINE THE DEFINITION
OF MATERIAL GOING FORWARD, AS
WELL AS THE OTHER ISSUES ISSUES,
ESPECIALLY AROUND THE VOTES
WHICH VOTES TRIGGER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE BILL AND
BOLSTERING THE BAN ON AGENT
CONTRIBUTIONS. THE LEVINE ACT
LIMITS CONTRIBUTIONS FROM
INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE BUSINESS
BEFORE A QUASI JUDICIAL BODY IN
2022, THE LEVINE ACT WAS AMENDED
TO INCLUDE LOCAL ELECTED
OFFICIALS. AS YOU JUST HEARD
PREVIOUSLY, THE LAW ONLY APPLIED
TO APPOINTED OFFICIALS. OVER THE
LAST YEAR, WE'VE HEARD FROM
NUMEROUS ELECTED OFFICIALS FROM
CITIES AND COUNTIES WHO HAVE
STRUGGLED TO IMPLEMENT THE LAW
AND FROM NUMEROUS ORGANIZATIONS
WHO HAVE STRUGGLED TO ADHERE TO
OVERLY COMPLICATED REQUIREMENTS.
THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF
THE CHANGES TO THE LEVINE ACT
RESULTED IN MAKING TRANSPARENT,
DIRECT CONTRIBUTIONS INFEASIBLE.
THE LAW ESSENTIALLY FREEZES OUT
A SECTOR OF THE COMMUNITY FROM
DONATING DIRECTLY TO CANDIDATES,
AND INSTEAD PROMOTES A VERY
UNDESIRABLE CONSEQUENCE.
INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES POURING
INTO CAMPAIGNS MORE THAN EVER,
AND IT CREATES THE RISK OF
STRATEGIC MISUSE BY PARTIES
WISHING TO FORCE A COUNCIL
MEMBER OR SUPERVISOR TO RECUSE
THEMSELVES. THIS BILL ADDRESSES
A NUMBER OF ISSUES THAT HAVE
ARISEN DURING IMPLEMENTATION.
ADJUSTING THE CONTRIBUTION LIMIT
THAT HASN'T CHANGED SINCE 1982
FROM $250 TO $1000,
APPROXIMATING INFLATION.
CLARIFYING THAT INCREASED
MEMBERSHIP DUES FOR
ORGANIZATIONS LIKE UNIONS OR
CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE, FOR
EXAMPLE, DON'T TRIGGER INCLUSION
IN THE STATUTE WHEN THERE'S NO
DIRECT FINANCIAL STAKE IN A
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. IT ALSO
SIMPLIFIES COMPLIANCE. THE BILL
FURTHERS THE GOAL OF THE
POLITICAL REFORM ACT BY MAKING
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
IMPLEMENTATION CLEAR AND
WORKABLE, AND HELPING REMOVE
CONDITIONS THAT HAVE
INCENTIVIZED DARK MONEY. SINCE
INTRODUCTION, WE'VE BEEN WORKING
WITH THE OPPOSITION TO TRY TO
COME TO AGREEMENT ON A NUMBER OF
ITEMS. TO THAT END, I'VE DELETED
THE EXEMPTION FOR HOUSING
DEVELOPMENTS, CLARIFIED
DEFINITIONS, PROHIBITED AGENTS
FROM DONATING WHILE A PROJECT IS
PENDING AND RESTORED. THE 12
MONTH EXCLUSIONARY TIME BEFORE
AND AFTER A HEARING, AND MORE.
THE OPPONENTS AND SUPPORTERS
HAVE BEEN VERY COLLABORATIVE,
AND WE'VE MADE GREAT STRIDES,
ESPECIALLY WITH THE CHAIR'S
INCREDIBLE INSIGHT. I'LL
CONTINUE WORKING TO IDENTIFY
ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS TO HELP
ADDRESS UNDERLYING CONCERNS AS
MUCH AS POSSIBLE, WHILE STILL
SOLVING THE PROBLEMS WITH
EXISTING LAW AND CREATING A FAIR
SYSTEM. I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR I VOTE EACH WITNESS HAS TWO
MINUTES. YOU MAY PROCEED. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR
PELLERIN AND MEMBERS OF THE
ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS COMMITTEE.
I'M REBECCA CORRAL, HERE
REPRESENTING SAN FRANCISCO CITY
ATTORNEY DAVID CHIU. THANK YOU
FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY
IN SUPPORT OF SB 1243. AND THANK
YOU, SENATOR DODD, FOR AUTHORING
THE BILL. THE 2022 AMENDMENTS TO
THE LEVINE ACT HAVE CAUSED
SIGNIFICANT COMPLIANCE ISSUES
FOR LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS DUE
TO UNCERTAINTY CONCERNING THE
INDIVIDUALS AND ENTITIES WHOSE
CONTRIBUTIONS TRIGGER THE LAW'S
RESTRICTIONS, AND THE DIFFICULTY
IN CREATING AN ADEQUATE SYSTEM
FOR TRACKING COVERED PROCEEDINGS
AND CONTRIBUTORS. THE PROBLEMS
ARE COMPOUNDED BY THE
REQUIREMENTS TO AGGREGATE
CONTRIBUTIONS OF AGENTS WITH
THOSE OF PARTIES, AND
PARTICIPANTS. SAN FRANCISCO
HANDLES THOUSANDS OF PROCEEDINGS
COVERED BY THIS LAW EACH YEAR,
IF NOT TENS OF THOUSANDS, IN
WHICH LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS
MAY PARTICIPATE OR DECIDE THE
AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY SENATE
BILL 1243 ARE A STEP TOWARDS
MAKING IT MORE FEASIBLE FOR
LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS TO
COMPLY WITH THE LAW, FIRST,
RAISING THE CONTRIBUTION
THRESHOLD TO $1,000 IS A
SENSIBLE ADJUSTMENT THAT WILL
CONTINUE THE GOAL OF REDUCING
IMPROPER INFLUENCE ON
GOVERNMENTAL DECISIONS, WHILE
RECOGNIZING THAT SMALL DOLLAR
CONTRIBUTIONS ARE UNLIKELY TO
HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON
SUCH DECISIONS. SECOND, BY
PROVIDING THAT CONTRIBUTIONS
BETWEEN PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS
WILL NOT BE AGGREGATED WITH
CONTRIBUTIONS OF THEIR AGENTS,
THE BILL WILL REMOVE A
SIGNIFICANT BARRIER TO
COMPLIANCE. THIRD, WE SUPPORT
THE EXEMPTIONS FOR CERTAIN TYPES
OF CONTRACTS THAT DO NOT RAISE
PAY TO PLAY CONCERNS AND SUPPORT
AN ADDITIONAL AMENDMENT TO
EXCLUDE ALL CONTRACTS AWARDED
AFTER A COMPETITIVE PROCESS.
FINALLY, WE STRONGLY SUPPORT A
FURTHER AMENDMENT TO THE BILL,
ADDING AN EXCLUSION FOR ELECTED
CITY ATTORNEYS IN THEIR ROLE,
PROVIDING LEGAL ADVICE IN A
PROCEEDING WHERE THEY DO NOT ACT
AS A DECISION MAKER. WHILE SB
1243 DOES NOT COMPLETELY
ELIMINATE THE COMPLIANCE
CHALLENGES OF THE CURRENT LAW,
THE BILL WILL PROVIDE GREATER
CLARITY AND WILL REDUCE THE
AMOUNT OF PUBLIC RESOURCES AND
STAFF TIME THAT MUST BE SPENT TO
ASSIST OFFICIALS IN COMPLYING
WITH THE LAW. WE LOOK FORWARD TO
CONTINUING OUR WORK ON THIS
LEGISLATION WITH THE AUTHOR AND
OTHER STAKEHOLDERS THE SAN
FRANCISCO, SAN DIEGO AND OAKLAND
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, ALONG
WITH THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY
COUNCIL, STRONGLY SUPPORT SB
1243. THANK YOU. NEXT TWO
MINUTES, PLEASE. GOOD MORNING,
MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS. NICK
CAMMARATA, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTING
CALIFORNIA'S HOME BUILDERS. JUST
SOME BACKGROUND DATA THAT I
THINK IS RELEVANT HERE. WE'VE
BEEN COLLECTING DATA ON HOUSING
PERMITS ISSUED IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA SINCE 1954. THE HIGH
WATER MARK FOR HOUSING PERMITS
WAS IN 1963, WHEN OUR POPULATION
WAS 17, AND A HALF MILLION
PEOPLE. LAST YEAR, WITH A
POPULATION OF 39 MILLION PEOPLE.
WE ISSUED APPROXIMATELY 130,000
PERMITS. IF YOU WERE TO LOOK AT
A HISTORY AND WE HAVE THE DATA
AND WE'RE HAPPY TO MAKE IT
AVAILABLE, THE HISTORY OVER THAT
70 YEAR PERIOD, YOU WILL SEE A
CHART OF LOWER HIGHS AND LOWER
LOWS, A STEADY DECLINE IN
HOUSING PERMITS. AND WE HAVE
MANY DIFFERENT BILLS IN THIS
BODY TO ADDRESS THE HOUSING
CRISIS THAT YOU'VE HEARD A LOT
ABOUT. BUT WHAT I THINK THAT
DATA SHOWS, AND THIS IS RELEVANT
TO THE APPEARANCE OF CORRUPTION,
IS THAT THERE'S NO CORRELATION
BETWEEN AN INCREASE IN
CONTRIBUTIONS AND MORE PERMITS
BEING ISSUED. AND I THINK THAT'S
IMPORTANT TO KEEP IN MIND AS WE
TALK ABOUT THIS. IT'S NOT PAY TO
PLAY IF YOU'RE NOT GETTING WHAT
YOU WANT. SECOND OF ALL, I THINK
AGGREGATION HAS HAS RESULTED IN
THIS IS THE AGGREGATION OF
AGENTS WITH A PARTY OR
PARTICIPANT, HAS RESULTED IN A
DE FACTO PROHIBITION ON CAMPAIGN
CONTRIBUTIONS, AT LEAST FOR
PARTIES. AND I THINK THAT'S
BECAUSE WE CAN'T KNOW IF OR WHEN
OR HOW MUCH AN AGENT CONTRIBUTES
. MOREOVER, THE LABOR CODE
PROHIBITS AN EMPLOYER IN THE
STATE FROM CONTROLLING THE
POLITICAL ACTIVITIES OF AN
EMPLOYEE. I THINK ALL OF THIS
MEANS THAT FOR PEOPLE WHO WANT
TO COMPLY IN GOOD FAITH WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF SB 1439, YOU'RE
LEFT IN A GOTCHA GAME BECAUSE
YOU DON'T KNOW THAT WHAT YOU'RE
DOING IS ILLEGAL. AND I THINK
FOR THAT REASON, WE STRONGLY
SUPPORT THE ELIMINATION OF THE
AGGREGATION RULES. FINALLY, WITH
THE REMOVAL OF US AS A
PARTICIPANT IN LOCAL POLITICS,
PLEASE CONCLUDE ONE POINT IS
SIMPLY MEANS THAT THAT VACUUM IS
GOING TO BE FILLED BY OTHERS,
AND WE WON'T HAVE A
REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE ELSE IN
THE ROOM WHO WOULD LIKE TO
REGISTER YOUR POSITION OF
SUPPORT? PLEASE STEP TO THE MIC.
STATE YOUR NAME, ORGANIZATION
AND POSITION. PLEASE MADAM CHAIR
MIKE MONAGAN, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE BUILDING
TRADES, WE ARE A CO-SPONSOR OF
THIS BILL, AND WE URGE AND I
VOTE, THANK YOU. AND GOOD
MORNING, MADAM CHAIR ANDY LEVIN,
ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING. JOHNNY PINA WITH
THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES
AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU. NICOLE
WATERMAN, ON BEHALF OF THE
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND SAN BERNARDINO
COUNTY IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR. MEGAN SUBERS, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS AND
SUPPORT, MADAM CHAIR MATT
BRADFORD, THE TEAMSTERS IN
SUPPORT, MADAM CHAIR MARK SMITH
ON BEHALF OF THE SACRAMENTO
REGIONAL BUILDERS EXCHANGE AND
THE CALIFORNIA BUILDERS
ALLIANCE, IN SUPPORT. BEN
GOLOMBEK, CAL CHAMBER IN SUPPORT
. GOOD MORNING, MADAM CHAIR.
MEMBERS SKYLAR WONACOTT, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
BUSINESS PROPERTIES ASSOCIATION,
IN SUPPORT ANTHONY BUTLER TORRES
WITH CALIFORNIA HISPANIC CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE AND SUPPORT. GOOD
MORNING, MADAM CHAIR MARTIN
VANDEWALLE, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS. THE WESTERN
STATES COUNCIL OF SHEET METAL
WORKERS, AND THE CALIFORNIA
STATE PIPE TRADES COUNCIL IN
SUPPORT. ELMER LAZARD, ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA LABOR
FEDERATION IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU ARE THERE ANY
WITNESSES HERE IN OPPOSITION TO
THE BILL? PRIMARY WITNESSES,
PLEASE. COME ON UP. HAVE A SEAT
AT THE TABLE AND YOU EACH HAVE
TWO MINUTES.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, GOOD
MORNING AGAIN, MY NAME IS
JONATHAN METZSTEIN. I'M THE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF CALIFORNIA
COMMON CAUSE. WE ARE IN THE
DIFFICULT POSITION OF OPPOSING
SB 1243. UNLESS IT IS AMENDED.
WE ARE IN A MOMENT WHEN OUR
POLITICS SEEMS MIRED IN
CORRUPTION AND SCANDAL,
INCLUDING IN MY TOWN, OAKLAND,
WHERE AN EXTENSIVE PAY TO PLAY
SCANDAL HAS LED TO THE FBI RAID
OF THE MAYOR'S HOME AND HAS
ROCKED THE CITY IN THAT CONTEXT,
IT IS IMPORTANT THAT REVISIONS
TO CRITICALLY IMPORTANT PAY TO
PLAY LEGISLATION CONTINUE TO
ADDRESS CORRUPTION IN THE
APPEARANCE OF CORRUPTION AND NOT
LESSEN THE PUBLIC'S FAITH IN OUR
PUBLIC SERVANTS. IN 2022, THE
LEGISLATURE EXTENDED THE LEVINE
ACT TO COVER LOCAL ELECTED
OFFICIALS BY UNANIMOUSLY PASSING
SB 1439. PRIOR TO SB 1439.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST IN LOCAL
SPECIAL INTERESTS WERE SO COMMON
IN SOME COMMUNITIES THAT
ASSEMBLY SPEAKER EMERITUS RENDON
CALLED HIS HOME REGION A
CORRIDOR OF CORRUPTION. SB 1439
IS FUNDAMENTALLY COMMON SENSE AT
ITS CORE, IT SAYS THAT A LOCAL
SPECIAL INTEREST CANNOT
CONTRIBUTE MORE THAN $250 TO A
LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIAL WHEN THAT
SPECIAL INTEREST HAS BUSINESS
BEFORE THAT OFFICIAL AND FOR ONE
YEAR AFTER. BUT BEFORE SB 1439
HAS SAID IT HAD A CHANCE TO TAKE
ROOT AND BEGIN WORKING.
UNFORTUNATELY, SB 1243 SEEKS TO
UNDERMINE IT IN THE INTEREST OF
TIME, I WILL HIGHLIGHT JUST TWO
OF MANY CONCERNS. ONE SB 1243
SAYS OFFICIALS MUST ONLY RECUSE
THEMSELVES WHEN EXCESS
CONTRIBUTIONS WERE MADE IN THE
12 MONTHS BEFORE THE FINAL
DECISION, INSTEAD OF CURRENT
LAWS 12 MONTHS BEFORE ANY
DECISION. THIS WOULD ALLOW
OFFICIALS WHO HAVE RECEIVED
LARGE EXCESS CONTRIBUTIONS TO
VOTE IN COMMITTEES WHERE THE
MOST IMPORTANT DECISIONS ARE
OFTEN BEING MADE, AND ONLY
HAVING TO RECUSE THEMSELVES FROM
PRO FORMA FINAL VOTES. SECOND,
1243 REMOVES LEVINE ACT RULES
AGGREGATING CONTRIBUTIONS OF
AGENTS WITH THE PARTIES THEY
REPRESENT. ALTHOUGH THE BAN THE
BILL BANS CONTRIBUTIONS FROM
AGENTS DURING PROCEEDINGS. IF
THAT BAN IS RULED
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, THEN BAD
ACTORS COULD GET AROUND THE LAW
BY HAVING MULTIPLE AGENTS ALSO
MAKE CONTRIBUTIONS. AS MAY HAVE
HAPPENED IN OAKLAND, WE HAVE
ENGAGED WITH THE AUTHORS OFFICE
AND WE IN FACT HAVE PROPOSED
SOLUTIONS TO ALL OF THE ISSUES
WE ARE RAISING. BUT DESPITE
MONTHS OF CONVERSATIONS, WE HAVE
SIMPLY NOT SEEN ENOUGH MOVEMENT
FROM THE AUTHOR TO LIFT OUR
OPPOSITION. IT IS FOR THESE
REASONS THAT WE REGRETFULLY
OPPOSE SB 1243. THANK YOU. NEXT
WITNESS. YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES.
PLEASE THANK YOU. HELLO AGAIN,
MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS, TRENT
LANG, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE
CALIFORNIA CLEAN MONEY CAMPAIGN.
WE'RE GRATEFUL TO THE AUTHOR AND
THE SPONSORS AND THE COMMITTEE
FOR AMENDMENTS THAT ADDRESS SOME
OF OUR CONCERNS AND FOR WORKING
WITH US ON POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS
FOR OTHERS. HOWEVER, THE BILL IN
PRINT, WOULD STILL DRAMATICALLY
WEAKEN THE LEVINE ACT, CONFLICT
OF INTEREST PROTECTIONS AND
THEREFORE VOTERS CONFIDENCE IN
LOCAL GOVERNMENT. WE HAVE DATA
ON THIS. WE JUST COMPLETED A
POLL OF 837, LIKELY NOVEMBER
2024. CALIFORNIA VOTERS THAT
ASKED, HOW CONCERNED WOULD YOU
BE IF THE CONTRIBUTION LIMIT
THAT PARTIES, PARTICIPANTS AND
THEIR AGENTS CAN GIVE TO LOCAL
ELECTED OFFICIALS WHILE THEY'RE
CONSIDERING THEIR PROPOSALS,
SUCH AS DEVELOPMENT PERMITS,
WERE INCREASED, 77% OF LIKELY
VOTERS SAID THEY WOULD BE
CONCERNED IF THE LIMIT WERE
RAISED TO $1,000 $500. THE LEVEL
WHICH WE'VE SAID WOULD ALLOW US
TO REMOVE OUR OPPOSITION, WAS
THE ONLY LEVEL THAT THE POLL
TESTED, IN WHICH MORE VOTERS
SAID THEY WOULDN'T BE CONCERNED
THAN WHO SAID THEY WOULD BE VERY
CONCERNED. OTHER IMPORTANT
CONTEXT IS THAT 14 CITIES,
INCLUDING LOS ANGELES AND SAN
FRANCISCO, COMPLETELY BAN
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM DEVELOPERS
AND OR CITY CONTRACTORS WHILE
THEY HAVE BUSINESS BEFORE THE
CITY. THESE REASONS MAKE US
BELIEVE THAT RAISING LIMIT TO
$500 WOULD BE REASONABLE, BUT
RAISING IT ABOVE THAT WOULD BE
VERY CONCERNING TO VOTERS. AS
JONATHAN MENTIONED, WE ASKED FOR
FIVE MAJOR PROBLEMS WITH THIS
BILL TO BE ADDRESSED OVER A
MONTH AGO, BUT ONLY TWO OF THOSE
HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED SO FAR, WE
APPRECIATE THE AUTHORS
ENGAGEMENT AND LOOK FORWARD TO
MORE, BUT STILL, THERE'S NO
LANGUAGE AND NO COMMITMENT THAT
THE CONTRIBUTION LIMIT PROBLEM
WILL BE ADDRESSED AT ALL. IN
CONTRAST, THE OTHER BILL BEFORE
THIS COMMITTEE ADDRESSED EVERY
ONE OF THOSE ISSUES AND EASES
COMPLIANCE WITHOUT WEAKENING,
CALIFORNIA'S 42 YEAR OLD LAW. SO
WE'RE IN A CHALLENGING
SITUATION. IF THE AUTHOR CAN
GIVE COMMITMENT TO HE WON'T
BRING THE BILL UP FOR A FLOOR
VOTE WITHOUT COMING TO
CONSENSUS, THEN WE URGE YOU TO
MOVE FORWARD. THIS BILL.
OTHERWISE WE MUST ASK NOT TO
SUPPORT IT, BECAUSE THE BILL IN
PRINT WOULD MAKE VOTERS LOSE,
LOSE EVEN MORE CONFIDENCE IN
GOVERNMENT. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU. ARE THERE ANY WITNESSES IN
THE ROOM WHO JUST WANT TO STEP
UP TO THE MIC? REGISTER YOUR
NAME, ORGANIZATION AND POSITION.
PLEASE BEGIN. MORNING. DR. ROSE,
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF
CALIFORNIA AND RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION UNLESS AMENDED. I
ALSO HAVE THE PROXIES FOR A
NUMBER OF OTHER ORGANIZATIONS
THAT ARE OPPOSED, UNLESS
AMENDED. THEY ARE COURAGE
CALIFORNIA CONSUMER WATCHDOG,
ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAGUE, AND
VOICES FOR PROGRESS. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS SUSAN
PELIKAN AND I AM HERE. WITH
INDIVISIBLE CALIFORNIA STATE
STRONG OPPOSING THIS BILL UNLESS
AMENDED. I ALSO REPRESENT LOCAL
INDIVISIBLES THAT OPPOSE UNLESS
AMENDED, INCLUDING INDIVISIBLE
ALTA, PASADENA, MARIN MEDIA
CITY, BURBANK, SACRAMENTO, SANTA
BARBARA, SOUTH BAY, LA VENTURA,
AND MY OWN CHAPTER OF YOLO.
THANK YOU.
JEFF TARTAGLIA, SENATOR DODD,
STILL NEEDS TO BE CHANGED. THANK
YOU. OPPOSING IT. THANK YOU.
WE'LL NOW BRING IT BACK TO OUR
COMMITTEE. ARE THERE ANY
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
COMMITTEE MEMBERS? ASSEMBLY
MEMBER SALLY QUESTION TO THE
OPPOSITION. YOU THINK IT'S A
GOOD IDEA TO REMOVE UNIONS FROM
THESE REQUIREMENTS, WE THINK
THERE ARE STRONG ARGUMENTS THAT
UNIONS SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED.
THE FPPC HAS SAID IT'S VERY,
VERY DIFFICULT TO ENFORCE, THEM
ON UNIONS. THEY HAVE TO BE ABLE
TO PROVE THAT THERE'S A
REASONABLE, FORESEEABLE,
FORECAST THAT THEY WILL THERE,
MEMBERSHIP DUES WILL INCREASE BY
5 OR 10, 5% OR MORE OR $1
MILLION. THAT'S DIFFICULT TO DO.
SO WE'RE RELATIVELY NEUTRAL ON
THAT. WHAT'S WHAT'S I'M SORRY,
WHAT'S THE NAME OF YOUR
ORGANIZATION? WE'RE THE
CALIFORNIA CLEAN MONEY CAMPAIGN.
OKAY. AND YOU DON'T THINK THAT
UNIONS OR OTHER MEMBERSHIP
ORGANIZATIONS CAN ENGAGE IN
CORRUPTION? WE'RE USING THEY'RE
USING THEIR FEES. I MEAN, IS THE
GOAL HERE TO STYMIE CORRUPTION,
OR IS THE GOAL HERE TO GIVE AN
EXTRA BOOST TO UNIONS? IN THE
POLITICAL MAKING PROCESS, WE
CERTAINLY BELIEVE THAT THAT
UNIONS ARE AS CAPABLE OF
INFLUENCING ELECTED OFFICIALS AS
ANYBODY ELSE. WE SUPPORT SB
1181. THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE THAT
EXEMPTION TO US. THE FPPC HAS
ADVISED US. IT'S JUST VERY
RARELY THAT THEY GET CAUGHT UP
UNDER THIS BECAUSE OF THE RULES
FOR THEIR FINANCIAL INTEREST.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE RELATIVELY
NEUTRAL ON THAT INCLUSION. I
BELIEVE THE OTHER PARTS ARE MORE
IMPORTANT. ALL RIGHT, SENATOR,
WHY SHOULD WE EXEMPT UNIONS FROM
THIS? I MEAN, THEY'RE JUST AS
CAPABLE OF CORRUPTING, ELECTEDS.
AS AS ANYONE ELSE. WELL, LET ME
BE CLEAR. IF YOU THINK THAT
CORRUPTION, FRAUD, BRIBERY AND
EVERYTHING ARE BEING CAUGHT BY
THE FPPC. ANYWAY, I'VE GOT NEWS
FOR YOU. I THINK YOU KNOW,
YOU'VE GOT THE AG AND DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS AND EVERYTHING THAT
ARE HANDLING THOSE CORRUPTION
PROBLEMS. AND THAT'S WHAT
HAPPENED DOWN IN, WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT MEMBER RENDON'S. WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT SOFT CORRUPTION.
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT MONEY
INFLUENCING DECISIONS, WHICH
HAPPENS EVERY DAY, NOT ONLY AT
THE LOCAL LEVEL, BUT UP HERE. I
AGREE WITH YOU. SO I'M TALKING
ABOUT. SO IF BUILDERS OR
DEVELOPERS, YOU'RE CONCERNED
THEIR, YOU KNOW, THEIR
CONTRIBUTIONS ARE INFLUENCING
DECISIONS AT THE LOCAL MEMBERS
OR LOCAL ELECTEDS, WHY AREN'T
UNIONS A SIMILAR CONCERN? WELL,
I'M FAIR ON THIS ISSUE. I WANT
TO EXEMPT AT LEAST A UNION DUES
PORTION OF THIS PARTICULAR THING
, NOT ONLY FROM UNIONS, BUT ALSO
FROM THE BUILDING ORGANIZATIONS
AND ALSO FROM CHAMBERS OF
COMMERCE, BOTH LOCAL CHAMBERS OF
COMMERCE AND THE STATE CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE, FOR THAT MATTER.
BUT SENATOR, THE LOCALS DON'T
INCREASE THE DUES. THE LOCALS
HAND OUT MONEY TO THE UNIONS AND
IN RETURN, THEY INCREASE THEIR
DUES BECAUSE THEY HAVE MORE
MONEY TO THEIR MEMBERS. SO IT'S
JUST I'M SORRY, BUT IT JUST
SEEMS TOTALLY HYPOCRITICAL THAT
WE'RE GOING TO COME DOWN ON
BUILDERS, DEVELOPERS, EVERYONE
ELSE. AND THEN HERE YOU'RE GOING
TO CARVE OUT UNIONS SO THEY CAN
MAKE THEIR BIG POLITICAL
CONTRIBUTIONS AND THEN SEEK
INCREASES IN THEIR COMPENSATION
AND CONTRACTS AND IN RETURN,
INCREASE THEIR DUES AND MONEY
INTO THEIR POLITICAL COFFERS.
THAT WILL IN TURN GO TO YOU. AND
I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU, BUT TO
GO TO A LOT OF ELECTED
OFFICIALS, UP AND DOWN THE
STATE. I JUST THINK THAT'S
HYPOCRITICAL. I, I HEAR WHAT
YOU'RE SAYING, BUT I THINK YOU
MISSED THE SALIENT POINT HERE
THAT THE BUILDING ORGANIZATIONS
AND THE CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE
HAVE THE SAME OPPORTUNITY TO DO
WHAT THE UNIONS ARE DOING, AND
WE'RE EXEMPTING ALL OF THEM FROM
THE DUES FROM EXCESS DUES THAT
THEY MIGHT GET ON A PROJECT
THAT'S REALLY NOT RELEVANT, YOU
KNOW, TO, YOU KNOW, I DON'T
THINK THERE'S REALLY BEEN ANY,
YOU KNOW, ISSUES WITH THAT IN
TERMS OF LOCAL PROJECTS THAT
HAVE, YOU KNOW, COME, YOU KNOW,
COME FORWARD. WELL, DEVELOPERS
INHERENTLY, DIRECTLY BENEFIT
FROM THE PROJECTS UNIONS,
INDIRECTLY BENEFIT. AND THAT'S
WHY I THINK IT'S NOT A FAIR
COMPARISON, BUT I HEAR YOU, I
LOOK, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM
RAISING THE LIMIT, FRANKLY, YOU
KNOW, 250 1000 IT IT'S NOT THAT,
YOU KNOW, SUBSTANTIVE TO ME.
BUT, CARVING OUT THE UNIONS IS,
IS I JUST THINK IT'S WRONG. I
THINK YOU SHOULD KEEP THEM IN. I
THINK THEY SHOULD BE AS
ACCOUNTABLE AS ANYONE ELSE WHO
WRITES A CHECK TO A POLITICIAN.
SO WITH THAT, I DON'T HAVE ANY
MORE QUESTIONS. YES, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER CERVANTES. THANK YOU.
SENATOR, I DO WANT TO JUST
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE WAS A
BILL EARLIER THIS YEAR IN THIS
COMMITTEE THAT WAS VERY SIMILAR,
IN WHICH I SHARED SOME CONCERNS
AND SIMILAR. I WANT TO SHARE
THOSE CONCERNS WITH YOU. I DO,
SHARE A LOT OF THE CONCERNS THAT
WERE JUST RAISED AS IT RELATES
TO THE THRESHOLD, YOU KNOW,
RAISING THE LEVINE ACT THRESHOLD
AND WILL HOPE I'M HOPEFUL THAT
THIS WILL CONTINUE TO BE WORKED
OUT AND DISCUSSIONS WILL BE HAD.
SO THAT WHEN IT DOES GET TO THE
FLOOR, I WILL RECONSIDER, JUST
BASED OFF OF THE BILL AND PRINT
AT THAT POINT IN TIME. WHERE
WE'RE AT. BUT TODAY I WILL GIVE
THAT COURTESY SUPPORT SO THAT IT
WILL ALLOW YOU TO CONTINUE
WORKING WITH THE OPPOSITION. AND
CERTAINLY IT'S THAT THRESHOLD
THAT'S REALLY, CAUSING ME
CONCERN. I THINK 500 SEEMS WHERE
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT. BUT
AGAIN, I WILL ALLOW YOU ALL TO
WORK THAT OUT TOGETHER. THANK
YOU. CERTAINLY. SO SEEING AND
HEARING NO FURTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS, SENATOR, YOU MAY CLOSE
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I
VOTE. OKAY. DO WE HAVE A MOTION
ON SENATE BILL 1243? WE HAVE A
MOTION BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
CERVANTES. I WILL SECOND THAT
MOTION, AND I WANT TO THANK THE
AUTHOR FOR YOUR EFFORTS. AND
JUST FOR THE RECORD, I BELIEVE
IT'S PRONOUNCED THE LEVINE ACT,
THIS BILL INCLUDES A NUMBER OF
IMPORTANT CHANGES TO EASE
COMPLIANCE BURDENS ASSOCIATED
WITH THE LEVINE ACT. BUT I SHARE
SOME OF THE OPPOSITION'S
CONCERNS THAT CERTAIN ASPECTS OF
THIS BILL MAY CREATE LOOPHOLES
IN THE LAW. SO I URGE THE AUTHOR
TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH
STAKEHOLDERS AND WITH
LEGISLATORS WHO ARE AUTHORING
SIMILAR BILLS, SIMILAR BILLS ON
THIS ISSUE. MY HOPE IS THAT
THOSE DISCUSSIONS, THOSE
DISCUSSIONS WILL YIELD A
COMPROMISE THAT ALL SIDES CAN
AGREE TO, TO ALLOW THOSE
DISCUSSIONS TO CONTINUE. I AM
RECOMMENDING SUPPORT WITH THE
AMENDMENTS OUTLINED IN THE
ANALYSIS, AND THE MOTION IS TO,
DO PASS AS AMENDED. AND,
SECRETARY, YOU MAY CALL THE ROLL
ON SB 1243 DODD PELLERIN I
PELLERIN I LACK BENNET BERMAN.
CERVANTES. CERVANTES I EASILY,
EASILY KNOW LOW WEBER. SO WE'RE
GO AHEAD AND PUT THAT BILL ON
CALL FOR THE ABSENT MEMBERS.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. I WILL
CONTINUE WORKING. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR
PROMISE. OKAY DOESN'T NEED A
MOTION. OKAY. OKAY. BEFORE YOU
LEAVE, SENATOR, WE'RE JUST GOING
TO GO AHEAD AND TAKE UP YOUR, SB
904 THAT YOU PRESENTED ALREADY.
WE JUST NEEDED A MOTION. SO WE
HAVE A MOTION BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
CERVANTES, SECONDED BY MYSELF,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER PELLERIN AND
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
ON SB 904. DODD. AYE. PELLERIN
AYE. MACKIE. BENNETT BERMAN.
CERVANTES. CERVANTES AYE.
EASILY. EASILY. NO LOW. WEBER SO
WE'LL KEEP THAT BILL ON CALL AS
WELL. FOR OUR ABSENT MEMBERS. WE
ARE NOW MOVING ON TO, SENATOR
ALLEN, YOU HAVE SB 863. YOU MAY
BEGIN WHEN YOU'RE READY. THANK
YOU SO MUCH, MADAM CHAIR.
MEMBERS, AS YOU ALL KNOW, THE
LEGISLATURE HAS THE ABILITY TO
PROPOSE BONDS, CERTAIN
LEGISLATIVE MEASURES AND
AMENDMENTS TO THE CALIFORNIA
CONSTITUTION FOR VOTER APPROVAL
AT A STATEWIDE ELECTION.
EXISTING LAW ESTABLISHES A
DEFAULT TIMELINE FOR MEASURES TO
APPEAR ON THE NEXT BALLOT,
OCCURRING AT LEAST 131 DAYS
AFTER ADOPTION OF THE MEASURE BY
THE LEGISLATURE. STATE LAW.
CURRENTLY ALLOWS THE LEGISLATURE
TO SPECIFY, IN A BOND OR OTHER
LEGISLATIVE MEASURE AT WHICH
STATEWIDE ELECTION IT WILL
APPEAR BEFORE VOTERS, BUT THAT
SAME FLEXIBILITY DOES NOT EXIST
FOR PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENTS. SO BONDS AND
LEGISLATIVE MEASURES ARE SUBJECT
TO THE SAME PROCESSES AS BILLS.
THEY HAVE TO BE SIGNED BY THE
GOVERNOR. THESE MESSAGES, THESE
MEASURES, HAVE THE FORCE OF LAW
AND CAN SPECIFY AN ELECTION
OTHER THAN THE DEFAULT REQUIRED
IN STATUTE, BUT CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENTS ARE SUBJECT TO A
DIFFERENT PROCESS OUTLINED IN
THE CONSTITUTION. THEY DON'T
REQUIRE GOVERNOR'S SIGNATURE,
AND SO A CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT DOESN'T HAVE THE FORCE
OF LAW AND CANNOT BYPASS THE
STATUTORILY REQUIRED TIMELINE.
SO, YOU KNOW, ALL PROPOSED
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS ARE
AUTOMATICALLY REFERRED TO THE
NEXT STATEWIDE BALLOT
REGARDLESS. AND SO IF THE
LEGISLATURE WISHES TO MOVE A
PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT TO ANOTHER BALLOT, IT
REQUIRES ACCOMPANYING
LEGISLATION. SO THIS BILL SEEKS
TO STREAMLINE THE PROCESS TO
INSTEAD ALLOW THE LEGISLATURE TO
SPECIFY AN ELECTION FOR A
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO
APPEAR BEFORE VOTERS WITHOUT
NEEDING AN ACCOMPANYING BILL.
IT'S NOT THE MOST EARTH
SHATTERING BILL IN THE WORLD,
BUT IT WILL MAKE THE PROCESS A
LITTLE EASIER. CERTAINLY
SOMETHING THAT I RAN INTO WHEN I
WAS WORKING IN THIS SPACE. SO I
RESPECTFULLY ASTRONAUT. I VOTE.
THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE ANY
PRIMARY WITNESSES IN SUPPORT
TODAY? WE DON'T. OKAY. ANYBODY
IN THE ROOM WHO WANTS TO
REGISTER THEIR POSITION IN
SUPPORT SEEING NONE. ANYBODY IN
THE ROOM WHO WISHES TO COME UP
AS A PRIMARY WITNESS IN
OPPOSITION, SEEING NONE, ANYBODY
WANTING TO COME TO THE MIC FOR
OPPOSITION? NONE. BRING IT BACK
TO THE COMMITTEE. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER. DO YOU HAVE ANY
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? I'M GOOD
AS WELL. SENATOR, YOU MAY CLOSE.
OKAY. JUST THANK YOU FOR THE
CONSIDERATION AND, ASK FOR AN
AYE VOTE. THANK YOU. WE HAVE A
QUORUM OR WE'RE. WELL, WE'RE
GOING TO GO. WE HAD A QUORUM, WE
LOST IT, BUT WE ARE. WE STILL
HAVE TWO MEMBERS, SO WE WILL GO
AHEAD AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
AND, FOR SB 863, WE HAVE A
MOTION BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
CERVANTES. I WILL GO AHEAD AND
SECOND THAT. AND I JUST WANT TO
THANK THE AUTHOR FOR WORKING
WITH THE COMMITTEE STAFF ON THE
AMENDMENTS TO THE BILL. THIS
BILL WILL DEFINITELY HELP
STREAMLINE THE PROCESS FOR
SPECIFYING THE ELECTION, AT
WHICH VOTERS WILL CONSIDER A
PROPOSED LEGISLATIVE
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. I'M
RECOMMENDING SUPPORT. WE'LL GO
AHEAD AND CALL THAT ROLL, EVEN
THOUGH I CAN TELL YOU RIGHT NOW
WHAT THE OUTCOME IS. OKAY, ON SB
863 BY ALAN PELLERIN, A PELLERIN
I LACKEY BENNETT. BERMAN.
CERVANTES. CERVANTES I EASILY
LOW WEBER. SO WE'LL KEEP THAT
BILL ON CALL FOR OUR ABSENT
MEMBERS. AND YOU MAY PROCEED TO
YOUR NEXT BILL WHICH IS ITEM 12
SB 1441. THANK YOU. OKAY. SO
THIS BILL SEEKS TO PROVIDE CLEAR
TIMELINES IN THE ELECTION
PETITION REVIEW PROCESS, HELPING
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS HANDLE COSTS
FROM ADDED WORKLOAD. WHEN A
PETITION TO PLACE AN INITIATIVE
OR RECALL ON THE BALLOT FAILS TO
QUALIFY FOR THE BALLOT DUE TO
INSUFFICIENT SIGNATURES,
PROPONENTS HAVE THE RIGHT TO
EXAMINE THE PETITION AND THE
REASONS FOR THE SIGNATURE
REJECTIONS. NOW, STATE LAW
ESTABLISHES A TIMELINE FOR THE
INITIATION OF THE REVIEW
PROCESS, BUT IT'S COMPLETELY
SILENT AS TO THE TIMELINE FOR
CONCLUDING THE EXAMINATION.
WHILE MOST PETITION REVIEWS TAKE
ONLY A FEW DAYS, IN SOME CASES A
COUPLE WEEKS TO COMPLETE, THERE
WAS ONE RECENT CASE IN LA COUNTY
THAT LASTED 14 MONTHS AND COST
THE COUNTY, YOU KNOW, UPWARDS
NEARLY $2 MILLION. IN ADDITION
TO THE APPROXIMATELY $4 MILLION
SPENT TO CONDUCT THE INITIAL
VERIFICATION OF SIGNATURES, THE
LACK OF A CLEAR DEADLINE IN LAW
ALLOWED FOR THE REVIEW TO BE
JUST DRAGGED ON, CREATING
SIGNIFICANT FINANCIAL IMPACTS
FOR THE COUNTY. ONE IMPORTANT
POINT TO UNDERSTAND HERE IS THAT
THE PETITION REVIEWS BY
PROPONENTS, YOU KNOW, ARE NOT
THEY'RE NOT A MECHANISM FOR
CHALLENGING THE ELECTION
OFFICIALS DETERMINATION. ACTUAL
CHALLENGES TO THE DETERMINATION
ARE DONE THROUGH THE JUDICIAL
PROCESS. THE REVIEW PROCESS,
INSTEAD CAN BE HELPFUL FOR
UNDERSTANDING POTENTIAL ISSUES
IN THE SIGNATURE GATHERING
PROCESS THAT THE PROPONENTS CAN
CORRECT FOR THE FUTURE. WHILE
THE INSTANCE IN LÀ WAS A CLEAR
OUTLIER, IT DID HIGHLIGHT THE
POTENTIAL FOR EXPLOITATION OF
THIS PROCESS UNTIL THERE ARE
MORE GUARDRAILS INSTITUTED. AND
IN THIS BILL SEEKS TO ADDRESS
THIS BY ESTABLISHING A
REASONABLE 60 DAY LIMIT BY FOR
PROPONENTS TO EXAMINE A FAILED
PETITION ENABLING COUNTY
ELECTIONS OFFICIALS TO RECOVER
THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE
ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL AND
RESOURCES. AND THIS IS GOING TO
HELP COUNTY ELECTION OFFICIALS
BETTER ALLOCATE RESOURCES FOR
FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS, AND
ENSURE PROPONENTS DON'T ABUSE
THE REVIEW PROCESS WHILE STILL
PROTECTING THIS CRITICAL
TRANSPARENCY OPPORTUNITY. AND
WITH ME HERE TO TESTIFY AND
SUPPORT, WE HAVE ADELIA LOZADA,
WHO'S ON HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
LA COUNTY OFFICE OF REGISTRAR
RECORDER. THANK YOU. AND YOU
HAVE TWO MINUTES. GOOD MORNING,
CHAIR POWELL PELLERIN AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. MY
NAME IS ADELIA LOZADA. I AM A
DIVISION MANAGER WITH THE LOS
ANGELES COUNTY REGISTRAR,
RECORDER, COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY IS PROUD TO
SPONSOR SB 1441 AS SENATOR ALLEN
STATED, THIS BILL DOES TWO
THINGS. FIRST, IT ESTABLISHES A
60 DAY PERIOD FOR THE PROPONENTS
OF FAILED PETITIONS TO COMPLETE
THEIR EXAMINATION OF
DISQUALIFIED SIGNATURES ON
PETITIONS THAT FAIL TO QUALIFY
FOR THE BALLOT. THIS 60 DAY
PERIOD ARGUABLY EXCEEDS THE SAME
TIME FRAME. ELECTIONS OFFICIALS
HAVE TO INITIALLY VERIFY THOSE
SIGNATURES. SECOND, THIS BILL
ALLOWS ELECTIONS OFFICIALS TO
RECOVER EXTRAORDINARY COSTS OF
EXPECTING DISQUALIFIED
SIGNATURES WHEN THOSE COSTS
EXCEED THE NORMAL OPERATING
BUDGET. THE COST RECOVERY
PROVISIONS OF SB 1441 HELP TO
ENSURE THAT ADDITIONAL PUBLIC
FUNDS ARE NOT USED. WHEN
PROPONENTS OF A FAILED PETITION
REQUEST TO INSPECT DISQUALIFIED
SIGNATURES AT EXTRAORDINARY
REQUESTS. CURRENTLY, EXISTING
LAW DOES NOT ADDRESS HOW LONG
PROPONENTS OF A FAILED PETITION
HAVE TO EXAMINE THOSE
DISQUALIFIED. SIGNATURES NOR
DOES IT ADDRESS WHO PAYS THOSE
COSTS TO SECURELY PRESENT
PETITION DOCUMENTS FOR
INSPECTION. BY ADDRESSING THIS
GAP IN LAW, SB 1441
SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVES AND
ELECTIONS OFFICIALS ABILITY TO
MANAGE THE EXAMINATION OF FAILED
PETITIONS EFFICIENTLY AND
RESPONSIBLY. I RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST THE COMMITTEE'S AYE VOTE
ON SB 1441, AND I'M HAPPY TO
ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU
MAY HAVE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
SO MUCH. IS THERE ANYBODY IN THE
ROOM WHO WOULD LIKE TO REGISTER
YOUR SUPPORT FOR THIS BILL? IF
SO, PLEASE GO TO THE MIC, STATE
YOUR NAME, ORGANIZATION AND YOUR
POSITION, PLEASE. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. ANDY BIRNBAUM FROM LOS
ANGELES COUNTY AND STRONG
SUPPORT AS WELL AS SPONSORSHIP.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. GOOD MORNING.
LARISSA MERCADO. ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
CLERKS AND ELECTION OFFICIALS,
PROUD CO-SPONSOR AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. CHAIR
MEMBERS. TANISHA BOATNER, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES AND
SUPPORT. ANY WITNESSES IN THE
ROOM WHO ARE PRIMARY WITNESSES
IN OPPOSITION? IF SO, PLEASE
STEP UP TO THE TABLE SEEING NONE
. ANYONE JUST WANT TO STEP UP TO
THE MIC TO REGISTER YOUR
OPPOSITION. SEEING NONE, I'LL
BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?
ASSEMBLY MEMBER. SALLY. THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR, YOU SAID THIS
BILL IS NEEDED TO, COMBAT ABUSE
OF THE PROCESS. CAN YOU TELL ME
WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO,
PLEASE? YEAH. WELL, BASICALLY
THERE, RIGHT NOW, THERE'S NO
RULE IN LAW ABOUT THE CONCLUSION
OF EXAMINATIONS. WE HAD A
SITUATION IN LOS ANGELES THAT
LASTED 14 MONTHS. IT COST THE
COUNTY, YOU KNOW, A LITTLE LESS
THAN $2 MILLION. JUST THIS ONE
CASE ALONE. THAT WAS, BY THE
WAY, ON TOP OF THE OF THE OF THE
4 MILLION THAT THE COUNTY HAD
ALREADY SPENT TO CONDUCT THE
INITIAL VERIFICATION OF
SIGNATURES, SO AND IN THE END OF
THE DAY, AFTER EXHAUSTIVE,
EXAMINATION OVER AND OVER AGAIN,
THE, THE COUNTY'S INITIAL,
DETERMINATION WAS, WAS DEEMED
ACCURATE AND CORRECT. SO THAT'S
WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS
HERE. I MEAN, THE VAST MAJORITY
OF CASES GET RESOLVED VERY
QUICKLY, BUT THERE ARE OUTLIERS.
AND IT DID THIS CASE DID
HIGHLIGHT THE POTENTIAL FOR, FOR
EXPLOITATION OF THE PROCESS
UNTIL THERE MORE GUARDRAILS
INSTITUTED. SO YOU'RE REFERRING
TO THE RECALL, THE FAILED RECALL
OF GEORGE GASCON, CORRECT?
THAT'S RIGHT. YEAH. OKAY. SO
THEY THE PROPONENTS SUBMITTED
715,000 SIGNATURES, WHICH WAS
ABOUT 150,000 MORE THAN THEY
NEEDED. THE REGISTRAR FAILED
ABOUT 27% OF ALL SIGNATURES.
THAT WAS ALMOST 200,000
SIGNATURES WERE REJECTED BY THE
REGISTRAR OF VOTERS, AND SO AND
MA'AM, YOU WORK FOR THE
REGISTRAR? YES, I DO, THANK YOU.
OKAY. SO, THERE WAS A PROCESS
DONE TO EXAMINE IT. DO YOU KNOW
WHAT THE RESULTS OF THAT
EXAMINATION WERE? I'LL ASK YOU,
SINCE YOU'RE PART OF IT. HOW
MANY SIGNATURES DID YOU
IMPROPERLY REJECT? NONE. THANK
YOU. YOU DIDN'T EXCUSE ME? YOU
DIDN'T REJECT MORE THAN 20,000
RECALL PETITION SIGNATURES
IMPROPERLY. THAT IS CORRECT.
NONE WERE IMPROPERLY REJECTED. I
DON'T THINK THAT'S ACCURATE. I
THINK IT WAS FOUND THAT OF HALF
THE SIGNATURES EXAMINED, 20,000
SIGNATURES WERE IMPROPERLY
REJECTED FOR THE FOLLOWING
REASONS. AMONG MANY, YOUR OFFICE
CLAIMED THAT PEOPLE WERE NOT
REGISTERED TO VOTE EVEN THOUGH
THEY WERE REGISTERED TO VOTE.
YOUR OFFICE CLAIMED THAT PEOPLE
ACCIDENTALLY SUBMITTED MORE THAN
ONE SIGNATURE, AND THEREFORE YOU
WOULD NOT COUNT ANY SIGNATURE.
YOUR OFFICE ALSO SAID THAT THE
ADDRESS AND THE RECALL PETITION
WAS DIFFERENT FROM THE VOTER'S
REGISTERED ADDRESS, EVEN THOUGH
THEY WERE ACTUALLY THE SAME
ADDRESS, AND YOU INVALIDATED A
SIGNATURE AS PRINTED, EVEN
THOUGH THE VOTER'S SIGNATURE ON
FILE ITSELF WAS PRINTED. DO YOU
DENY EACH AND EVERY ONE OF
THOSE, DO YOU NOT? YOU DON'T
HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT I'M TALKING
ABOUT, NO. I UNDERSTAND THAT
YOU'RE READING THE PROPONENTS,
CLAIMS THAT WE FAILED TO
IMPROPERLY, VALIDATE THE
SIGNATURES. I WOULD ALSO POINT
TO THE FACT THAT THIS HAS BEEN
ADJUDICATED IN COURT, AND THE
DECISION HAS REMAINED AS TO HOW
MANY SIGNATURES WERE THEY ABLE
TO EXAMINE THAT YOU REVIEWED?
THEY WERE ABLE TO EXAMINE THE
DISQUALIFIED SIGNATURES AS UNDER
THE LAW, WHICH ALLOWS THEM TO
ASCERTAIN WHICH SIGNATURES WERE
DISQUALIFIED AND FOR WHAT
REASONS. ALL 100% OF THE
DISQUALIFIED SIGNATURES. MY
UNDERSTANDING OF THE REVIEW
PROCESS IS THAT WE HAD 14
PEOPLE, DURING THE DAY, WAITING
FOR THEM TO COME TO THE OFFICE
TO REVIEW THEM, AND THEY FAILED
TO SHOW UP A MAJORITY OF THE
TIME. OKAY AND DURING THE
REVIEW, THE INITIAL WHAT DO YOU
CALL THE INITIAL PROCESS WHERE
YOU'RE REVIEWING THE SIGNATURES?
YES. WHAT DO YOU CALL THAT. SO
THAT'S THE SIGNATURE
VERIFICATION PROCESS. ARE ARE
WERE THE PROPONENTS ALLOWED TO
MONITOR THAT PROCESS WHILE YOU
WERE CHECKING THE SIGNATURES
INITIALLY UNDER EXISTING LAW?
THE SIGNATURE VERIFICATION
PROCESS IS NOT SUBJECT TO
DISCLOSURE. AND SO THE OFFICE
FOLLOWED THE LAW IN THAT CASE.
OKAY. THAT WAS MY QUESTION. SO
THE ANSWER IS NO, THEY'RE NOT
ABLE TO MONITOR YOUR INITIAL
CHECKING OF THE SIGNATURES.
CORRECT. ARE YOU ALLOWED TO ARE
YOU ALLOWED THE CURRENT LAW
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S. ARE YOU
ALLOWED TO ARE THE PUBLIC
ALLOWED TO MONITOR THE SIGNATURE
VERIFICATION FOR A GENERAL
ELECTION UNDER EXISTING LAW?
PETITION DOCUMENTS ARE EXEMPT
FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE AND NO
ONE IS ALLOWED TO VIEW THEM. IN
FACT, EVEN IF YOU SIGNED A
PETITION, YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE
TO CALL OUR OFFICE AND ASK US
WHETHER OR NOT YOU SIGNED THAT
PETITION. THAT'S HOW CLOSELY
PETITIONS ARE GUARDED AS PRIVATE
UNDER EXISTING LAW. SO IN THE
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, AM I
ALLOWED TO GO WATCH THE
SIGNATURE VERIFICATION PROCESS?
UNDER EXISTING LAW, NO ONE IS
ABLE TO OBSERVE THE SIGNATURE
VERIFICATION PROCESS ON
PETITIONS. WHY ARE YOU NOT
ANSWERING MY QUESTION? SHE IS
ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION. NOT.
SHE'S TALKING ABOUT PETITIONS.
I'M TALKING ABOUT IF THERE'S A
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, WHICH
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE IN NOVEMBER,
CAN I WALK IN AND WATCH YOU
CHECK THE SIGNATURES? YOU MEAN
ON VOTE BY MAIL BALLOT
ENVELOPES? VOTE BY MAIL BALLOTS?
YES. OKAY, BE CLEAR THEN. THANK
YOU. I APOLOGIZE I DIDN'T
UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION, BUT
THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING ON MAIL
BALLOTS. YES. MAIL BALLOT
SIGNATURE VERIFICATION ON MAIL
BALLOTS UNDER EXISTING LAW IS
OPEN AND OBSERVABLE, AND YOU ARE
ABLE TO DO THAT. THOUGH IT IS
IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE LAWS
AND THE PROCESS FOR MAIL BALLOTS
AND PETITIONS ARE TOTALLY
DIFFERENT, BUT IT CAN BE
CONFUSING. THE SAME THING MY
POINT, MY POINT IS THOUGH, IS
THAT IF WE WANT TO, IF WE WANT
TO LIMIT THE EXAMINATION
PROCESS, WE SHOULD HAVE THE SAME
TRANSPARENCY IN THE PETITION
VERIFICATION PROCESS. BECAUSE
WHAT'S HAPPENING IS IT'S YOUR
YOUR OFFICE IS DOING IT IN THE
DARK, IN BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. NO
ONE GETS TO SEE WHAT YOU'RE
DOING. THEY DON'T GET TO REVIEW
IT IN REAL TIME. SO THEIR ONLY
OPPORTUNITY TO CHECK YOUR WORK
IS AFTER THE FACT. AND WHAT THIS
BILL WILL DO IS DENY THAT
OPPORTUNITY. FOR PROPONENTS TO
CHECK YOUR WORK, AND TO MAKE
SURE THAT VOTERS ARE NOT BEING
DISENFRANCHIZED BY HAVING THEIR
SIGNATURES REJECTED FOR IMPROPER
REASONS. OKAY, YOU'VE MADE YOUR
POINT. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANY
OTHER MEMBER ON THE COMMITTEE
WHO HAS A QUESTION OR COMMENT?
I'M NOT DONE MAKING POINTS,
MADAM CHAIR, DOES THE PETITION
REVIEW PROCESS ALLOW FOR
SIGNATURES TO BE CURED? I'M
SORRY, NO. UNDER EXISTING LAW,
THERE IS NO CURE PROCESS FOR
VOTERS TO CURE A PETITION
SIGNATURE IN THE SAME WAY THAT
THERE IS IN MAIL BALLOTS. OKAY.
UNDER EXISTING LAW, IS THERE A,
IS THERE SOMETHING ANALOGOUS TO
THE 1% MANUAL COUNT FOR THE WAY
WE CHECK FOR BALLOT ACCURACY FOR
PETITIONS? MY UNDERSTANDING OF
THE 1% MANUAL TALLY PROCESS IS
THAT PROCESS IS IN PLACE TO
VERIFY THAT THE MACHINES COUNTED
ACCURATELY, AND PETITION
SIGNATURES ARE MANUALLY
VERIFIED. SO IN FACT, WE DO A
100% MANUAL REVIEW. UNLIKE THE
TALLYING OF VOTES WHERE WE ONLY
DO A 1. OKAY, SENATOR, LET ME
ASK YOU, WOULD YOU BE WILLING IN
IN EXCHANGE FOR PUTTING THESE
ONEROUS FINANCIAL BURDENS ON
PROPONENTS WHO WANT TO ACTUALLY
SEE IF THERE IF ANYONE WAS
DISENFRANCHIZED, WOULD YOU BE
OPEN TO MIRRORING THE RULES FOR
PETITIONS? THE SAME TO ELECTIONS
SUCH AS ALLOWING PEOPLE TO
OBSERVE THE SIGNATURE
VERIFICATION PROCESS, ALLOWING
VOTERS TO CURE SIGNATURES
IMPROPERLY REJECTED, AND HAVING
SOME SORT OF, YOU KNOW, 1% COUNT
SO WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S
FAIRNESS AND TRANSPARENCY AND
ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE PROCESS.
YEAH SO A FEW THINGS TO MENTION.
FIRST OF ALL, THERE IS WORK
UNDERWAY WITH THE COMMITTEE ON
THIS COST RECOVERY COMPONENT SO
THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE
WE'RE IN DISCUSSION ABOUT. SO
AND IF YOU IF YOU WANT TO WEIGH
IN ON THAT, I ENCOURAGE YOU TO
TALK TO THE COMMITTEE AND THE
CHAIR, BUT WE'RE VOTING ON IT
TODAY. IS THERE SOMETHING ARE
YOU SAYING THERE'S SOMETHING
COMING THAT WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT?
WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF MADAM
CHAIR WANTS TO WANTS TO TALK
ABOUT IT, BUT. WELL, WE HAVE
RAISED SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE
COST RECOVERY AND THE AUTHOR IS
GOING TO COMMIT TO WORK ON
CLARIFYING THE COST RECOVERY
MECHANISM PROVISIONS, AFTER IT
GETS OUT OF COMMITTEE. AND WE
WILL BE ABLE TO SEE THIS AGAIN
IF IT COMES TO THE FLOOR, I SEE.
OKAY, BUT WHAT I WOULD WHAT I
WOULD SAY IS THAT THE CHALLENGE
HERE IS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
TWO VERY DIFFERENT SYSTEMS, THE
PETITION REVIEW PROCESS IS NOT
FOR THE PURPOSE OF CHALLENGING
AND DETERMINATION BY ELECTIONS
OFFICIALS OR PROVIDE FOR A CURE
OF INVALIDATED SIGNATURES. YOU
KNOW, SO, SO, SO RIGHT NOW, THE
WAY TO CHALLENGE THE ELECTION
OFFICIALS FINDINGS IS THROUGH
THE COURTS, THAT'S THE WAY THE
SYSTEM WORKS. NOW, YOU KNOW, IF
YOU IF YOU THINK THAT WE OUGHT
TO HAVE A DIFFERENT APPROACH TO
THE RECALL PETITION PROCESS,
THAT THAT IS THAT IS, YOU KNOW,
MUCH MORE ROBUST IN THE, IN THE,
IN THE, IN THE EXAMINATION.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU OUGHT
TO LOOK AT. WALK ME THROUGH
THAT. HOW DO YOU GO TO COURT IF
YOU DON'T HAVE EVIDENCE? BECAUSE
UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM,
EVIDENCE WOULD BE NØ. YOU'RE NOT
ALLOWED TO WATCH. YOU'RE NOT
ALLOWED TO COLLECT ANY EVIDENCE.
LIKE YOU SAID, WE'RE NOT ALLOWED
TO WATCH THE SIGNATURE
VERIFICATION PROCESS, WE'RE NOT
ALLOWED TO, GO AND TRY TO CURE
SIGNATURES FROM VOTERS. SO HOW
WOULD YOU HOW WOULD YOU
CHALLENGE WHAT THE REGISTRAR OF
VOTERS IS DOING WHEN YOU'RE NOT
EVEN ALLOWED TO SEE IT? SO SURE.
SO PERHAPS, IF I MAY, THE
SALIENT POINT MIGHT BE THAT,
WHEN A VOTER AFFIXES THEIR
SIGNATURE TO A PETITION, IT'S
AKIN TO CASTING A VOTE ON A
BALLOT. AND SO, BY MERE FACT OF
VIEWING THAT A VOTER SIGNATURE
IS PRESENT, YOU ARE IN FACT
SEEING THEIR VOTE ON THAT
PARTICULAR ISSUE. AND THAT IS,
SORT OF WHAT AT HAND HERE IS THE
POLICY DECISION ON ON VOTER CÁC.
AND AS SENATOR ALLEN MENTIONED,
SB 1441 DOES NOT SEEK TO CHANGE
EXISTING LAW. IT SIMPLY SEEKS TO
ADD GUIDEPOSTS SO THAT IT CANNOT
BE EXPLOITED AND HIGHLY
POLITICAL, PETITION PROCESSES.
AND SO IF WE LOOK AT IT FROM THE
PERSPECTIVE OF WE'RE PROTECTING
VOTERS PRIVACY, THE ONLY WAY TO
SEEK REMEDY, IF A PROPONENT
FEELS THAT THE UNINTERESTED
REGISTRAR OF VOTERS HAS SOMEHOW
PUT THEIR THUMB ON THE SCALE, IS
TO GO THROUGH THE LEGISLATIVE
PROCESS AND ANY MONIES SPENT
WOULD BE BETTER SPENT IN THAT
EFFORT, SINCE THAT'S HOW THE
LAW. I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY
PRIVACY INTEREST IN AFFIXING
YOUR SIGNATURE ON A PETITION.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT VALIDATING
WHETHER THE SIGNATURE IS
AUTHENTIC OR NOT. SO, SENATOR, I
GO BACK. THAT'S YOUR OPINION. SO
YEAH, IT'S ABSOLUTELY A PRIVATE
ISSUE. YEAH. I MEAN, THERE'S A
LOT OF PEOPLE THAT DON'T WANT TO
YOU KNOW, JUST LIKE A SECRET
BALLOT, RIGHT? THERE'S A PRIVACY
INTEREST IN YOUR ABILITY TO, TO,
TO CAST A SECRET SECRET BALLOT.
BUT WE COULD SEE IT AFTER THE
FACT. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT'S
THE DIFFERENCE? THE CHALLENGED
ONES. YOU CAN THE CHALLENGED
ONES. SO WHY CAN'T THE CHALLENGE
ONES BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW? I
DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS WITHOUT
HAVING THIS ENORMOUS FINANCIAL
BURDEN ON ON PROPONENTS. I MEAN,
IT APPEARS THAT THE DESIGN HERE
IS TO MAKE IT HARD, IF NOT
IMPOSSIBLE, TO CHALLENGE THE
WORK OF THE REGISTRAR OF VOTERS.
AND SHE'S NODDING HER HEAD. SHE
DOESN'T WANT TO BE CHALLENGED. I
RESPECT YOUR NO, YOU DON'T I
DON'T KNOW. I DID NOT ASK A
SECOND. ASSEMBLYMEMBERS DO NOT
HARASS THE WITNESS. I'M NOT
HARASSING HER. YES, YOU ARE SHE.
I DID NOT ASK YOU A QUESTION.
YOU DID NOT SPEAK TO ME. YOU'RE
RIGHT, I APOLOGIZE. YOU ARE A
SERVANT OF THE PUBLIC. YOU ARE
COMING INTO THE. HOLD ON A
SECOND. NO, YOU. DO YOU HAVE A
QUESTION OR A POLITE CIVIL
COMMENT? WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE
A POLITE CIVIL COMMENT, MADAM
CHAIR. WHEN SHE, AS A GOVERNMENT
WORKER, COMES TO A LEGISLATIVE
BODY TO TRY TO CHILL AND STOP
THE VOTERS FROM EXERCISING THEIR
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. RIGHT I
HAVE A PROBLEM. THAT IS
ABSOLUTELY NOT WHAT THIS BILL
DOES. BUT IF THAT'S YOUR
OPINION, YOU MAY HAVE IT AND YOU
ARE DONE. ANY OTHER COMMITTEE
MEMBER HAVE A COMMENT. NOT DONE.
AND THIS BILL.
THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL GAME.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. ANY
OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM
ANY OTHER MEMBER ON THE
COMMITTEE? ASSEMBLY MEMBER LOWE.
WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR ONE,
BUT WE WERE GETTING THE FINAL
COMMENTS. BUT IF YOU'D LIKE TO
MAKE ONE, I WOULD ENTERTAIN THAT
AT THIS POINT. MOVE TO MOVE THE
MOTION. AND NUMBER ONE, AND JUST
AS, YOU. IS OUR VOTERS THAT IS
THAT RIGHT? YES. THAT'S CORRECT.
THANK YOU. AND I JUST WANT TO
ACKNOWLEDGE, THE CHALLENGE AND
DIFFICULTY, ESPECIALLY IN THIS
PERIOD OF TIME, ON THE RHETORIC
THAT EXISTS. AND, JUST AS A
PUBLIC SERVANT THAT I KNOW THAT
YOU'RE EQUALLY COMMITTED TO THAT
OF DEMOCRACY. AND I JUST WANT TO
REFLECT THE GOODWILL AND THE
NATURE OF THAT. WE ALL SUPPORT
DEMOCRACY AND HELPING TO ENSURE
THAT WE MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY
OF THE ELECTORAL PROCESS. AND
JUST BY YOU BEING HERE, COMING
TO OUR STATE CAPITOL TO REFLECT
THAT AND ADVOCATING FOR WHAT YOU
THINK IS BEST IN PARTNERSHIP
WITH THE STATE SENATOR, I JUST
WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT AS
WELL. AND PROVIDING AN
ENVIRONMENT, ESPECIALLY FOR
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO MAY BE
WITNESSING THE DISCOURSE AND THE
DEBATE, THAT WE DO WANT TO
SUPPORT IN A FASHION THAT IS
CONDUCIVE TO HELPING PROVIDE AN
ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH EVERYONE
FEELS COMFORTABLE AND SAFE TO
HAVE THEIR INPUT, AND ALSO TO
ADVOCATE FOR WHAT THEY BELIEVE
IN AS WELL, TOO. AND SO WITH
THAT, I STAND BY MAKING THAT
MOTION IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. WE
HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND
SENATOR. YOU MAY CLOSE. WELL, I
APPRECIATE THE ROBUST
DISCUSSION. I YOU KNOW,
OBVIOUSLY THERE'S A, YOU KNOW, A
TREND LINE IN OUR COUNTRY RIGHT
NOW WHERE THERE ARE FOLKS WHO
ARE ACTIVELY TRYING TO, YOU
KNOW, SOW DOUBT AND MISTRUST OF
PROCESSES THAT HAVE WORKED VERY
WELL FOR OUR SYSTEM FOR A LONG,
LONG TIME. AND I THINK A LOT
ABOUT THIS FASCINATING PIECE IN
THE NEW YORK TIMES THAT CAME OUT
A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO ABOUT A
REGISTRAR RECORDER IN A COUNTY
IN NEVADA THAT VOTED, YOU KNOW,
82% FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP. BUT
THERE'S A GROUP OF FOLKS THAT
BELIEVE THAT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN
90% FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP, AND
THEY'RE NOW RECALLING THE
REGISTRAR, WHO'S BEEN A LONG
TIME REPUBLICAN REGISTRAR,
BECAUSE THEY'RE SO HOPPED UP BY
ALL OF THE ELECTION
MISINFORMATION THAT'S OUT THERE.
AND I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, I
UNDERSTAND UNFORTUNATELY, THAT
HAS BECOME A PART OF OUR OF OUR
POLITICAL REALITY. AND I THINK
IT HELPS TO INFORM SOME OF THE
CONCERNS THAT YOU'RE BRINGING TO
THE TABLE. ASSEMBLY MEMBER. YOU
KNOW, I CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, THE
GOOD THING ABOUT A DISCUSSION
LIKE THIS IS THAT IT GETS, YOU
KNOW, I THINK WE'RE ALL LEARNING
ABOUT THE DIFFERENCES IN LAW
BETWEEN, THE, THE, THE, YOU
KNOW, THE SIGNATURE VERIFICATION
PROCESS ASSOCIATED WITH A, WITH
SENDING IN A VOTE BY MAIL BALLOT
VERSUS THE PETITION PROCESS FOR
A RECALL, I REMEMBER THIS RECALL
PROCESS IS AN EXTRAORDINARY
PROCESS THAT TAKES PLACE OUTSIDE
OF THE NORMAL COURSE OF
BUSINESS. WE ALL HAVE ELECTIONS
IN FACT, D.A. GASCON IS UP FOR
ELECTION RIGHT NOW AND IS, YOU
KNOW, DOWN 20 POINTS IN THE
POLLS. SO THERE'S GOING TO BE A
ROBUST SELECTION RIGHT NOW IN
LOS ANGELES. AND, YOU KNOW, HE'S
IN THE FIGHT FOR HIS LIFE
THROUGH A THROUGH A NORMAL
PROCESS. AND WE'LL SEE WHAT
HAPPENS IN NOVEMBER, YOU KNOW WE
DO HAVE THIS SPECIAL PROCESS IN
PLACE FOR RECALLS AND, YOU KNOW,
BUT IN THE END OF THE DAY, THESE
FOLKS WERE UNABLE TO COLLECT THE
VALID SIGNATURES THAT IT'S
SUBJECT TO A COURT PROCESS. ALL
THE KINDS OF ISSUES THAT YOU
JUST RAISED ARE SUBJECT TO
DISCOVERY AND THE NORMAL
TRANSPARENCY ASSOCIATED WITH
WITH A COURT PROCESS. BUT WHAT
I, WHAT I UNLESS WE'RE GOING TO
DRAMATICALLY INCREASE RESOURCES
FOR COUNTIES OFFICES WE ARE
PUTTING A RIDICULOUS BURDEN ON
COUNTIES SUCH AS LOS ANGELES. IF
WE'RE NOT ALLOWING THEM TO GO
ABOUT DOING THEIR WORK, WHEN
YOU'VE GOT CERTAIN PEOPLE THAT
ARE OUT THERE JUST TRYING TO
SLOW DOWN THE PROCESS AND
INCREASE COSTS MILLION FOLD, AND
I SO I JUST I THAT'S THE
CHALLENGE THAT WE'RE FACING
HERE. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU
KNOW, WE HAVEN'T STRUCK AN
ADEQUATE BALANCE FOR YOU.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER, I'M CERTAINLY
HAPPY TO TALK ABOUT ADDITIONAL
DETAILS, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE
INTERESTED IN DOING. BUT AT THE
END OF THE DAY, WE'VE WE'VE COME
TO WHERE WE FEEL IS A VERY
REASONABLE TIME FRAME, THERE'S A
PROCESS THAT'S GROUNDED IN IN
YEARS AND YEARS OF PRACTICE AND
LAW, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE, YOU
KNOW, AS I SAY, THE WHOLE
SIGNATURE VERIFICATION PROCESS,
YOU KNOW, THROUGHOUT, YOU KNOW,
MODERN CALIFORNIA HISTORY, YOU
KNOW, THE PETITION REVIEWS FOR
BY PROPONENTS FOR RECALLS HAS
NOT ARE NOT A MECHANISM FOR
CHALLENGING THE ELECTIONS.
OFFICIAL DETERMINATION. THOSE
ARE THOSE ARE DONE THROUGH THE
JUDICIAL PROCESS. I UNDERSTAND
YOU DISAGREE WITH THAT SYSTEM
THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE. SO BY ALL
MEANS INTRODUCE A BILL. LET'S
HAVE THAT THAT DISCUSSION. BUT
IF GIVEN THE CURRENT CONSTRUCT
OF LAW THIS IS A THIS FROM MY
PERSPECTIVE IS A REASONABLE AND
COST EFFECTIVE WAY OF ADDRESSING
THIS CURRENT CHALLENGE.
PETITIONS WILL WILL BE WILL BE
CHALLENGED, YOU KNOW, THEY WILL
BE DONE IN A TIMELY MANNER. AND
IF THERE ARE EXTRAORDINARY
PROBLEMS, THEY WILL BE THEY'LL
BE DEALT WITH IN COURT. AND THIS
IS CAREFULLY CRAFTED. WE'VE
TALKED TO LOTS OF PEOPLE, AND,
YOU KNOW, BUT BUT AGAIN, HAPPY
TO, TO FURTHER ENGAGE WITH
ANYONE WHO HAS CONCERNS. AND
WITH THAT, I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR MY VOTE. THANK YOU. I'D LIKE
TO THANK THE AUTHOR FOR BRINGING
THIS BILL FORWARD. AND I WANT TO
THANK THE WITNESS FOR YOUR
TESTIMONY TODAY. IT WAS VERY
HELPFUL AND YOUR PATIENCE IS
GOLDEN, WHAT OCCURRED IN LOS
ANGELES IS HOPEFULLY AN ANOMALY.
HOWEVER, I UNDERSTAND THE NEED
FOR AN EXPLICIT PETITION REVIEW
IN TIME AND THE NEED FOR A COST
RECOVERY MECHANISM. AND AS WE
STATED EARLIER, YOUR COMMITMENT
TO WORK ON CLARIFYING THE COST
RECOVERY MECHANISM PROVISIONS IS
SOMETHING I LOOK FORWARD TO. AND
WITH THAT, I RECOMMEND A SUPPORT
POSITION. SECRETARY PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL ON SB 1441. ALLEN, THE
MOTION IS DUE. PASS AND BE
REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS. PELLERIN I,
PELLERIN I, LACKEY NO. LACKEY
NO. BENNETT. BENNETT, I, BERMAN.
CERVANTES CERVANTES I ASSALI NO.
ASSALI NO. LO LOW I WEBER. WE'RE
GOING TO GO AHEAD AND PUT THAT
BILL ON CALL FOR OUR ABSENT
MEMBERS. AND I BELIEVE YOU HAVE
A SECOND BILL. YES, A THIRD, A
THIRD, A THIRD. YES. OKAY. THIS
ONE IS HOPEFULLY THE CHARM.
OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK
YOU. REALLY APPRECIATE IT. OKAY.
WELL, SO ON A, ON A, ON A
RELATED TOPIC, BUT DIFFERENT.
DIFFERENT. DON'T WORRY. IT'S
NOTHING TO DO WITH, PETITION
REVIEW, BACK IN 2016, I AUTHORED
THE VOTERS CHOICE ACT, SB 450,
WHICH OFFERED COUNTIES A NEW WAY
TO CONDUCT ELECTIONS THAT
INCREASES ACCESS AND CONVENIENCE
FOR VOTERS. SO UNDER THE VCA,
COUNTIES CAN CHOOSE TO SWITCH
FROM A TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD
POLLING PLACE TO A SYSTEM THAT
OFFERS TEN DAYS OF EARLY VOTING.
SAME DAY VOTER REGISTRATION,
ACCESSIBLE VOTING MACHINES FOR
VOTERS WITH DISABILITIES,
ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE SUPPORT
SERVICES, AND THE ABILITY FOR
VOTERS TO VOTE IN ANY LOCATION
IN THE COUNTY. THIS WAS AT LEAST
PARTLY INSPIRED BY OUR
HISTORICALLY LOW, 31% VOTER
TURNOUT IN THE 2014 GENERAL
ELECTION, THE PRO TEM AT THE
TIME TASKED ME AS THE ELECTIONS
CHAIR AT THE TIME AND SAID, HEY,
WE REALLY GOT TO FIGURE OUT A
WAY TO MAKE IT TO KIND OF REALLY
LOOK AT OUR ELECTION SYSTEM AND
WENT TO COLORADO, LEARNED ABOUT
ALL SORTS OF DIFFERENT MODELS
AROUND THE COUNTRY. YOU KNOW,
RED STATES, BLUE STATES. WE
BROUGHT IN LOTS OF DIFFERENT
MODELS. AND, AND IN THE END OF
THE DAY, YOU KNOW, FIGURED OUT
THAT THIS WOULD BE A GOOD WAY OF
CREATING A SYSTEM THAT IS HIGH
IN INTEGRITY, BUT THAT PROVIDES
MORE ACCESS TO THE BALLOT FOR
PEOPLE. THIS OLD MODEL OF THE
IDEA THAT YOU CAN ONLY VOTE IN
ONE PLACE AND ONE LOCATION
BETWEEN A SET NUMBER OF HOURS ON
ONE DAY, REALLY WASN'T WORKING
FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE. AND WE WERE
TRYING TO MAKE IT, YOU KNOW,
EASIER FOR PEOPLE TO ACCESS THE
BALLOT WHILE STILL MAINTAINING
REALLY STRONG INTEGRITY CONTROLS
. SO NOW NEARLY 20 MILLION
VOTERS, 77% OF THE ELIGIBLE
VOTING POPULATION IN OUR STATE
LIVE IN ONE OF THE 29 COUNTIES
THAT HAVE ADOPTED THE VOTERS
CHOICE ACT. WE DID A REVIEW IN
THE SENATE SIDE COMMITTEE. I'M
NOT SURE IF YOU DID ONE OVER
HERE OF THE VCA IMPLEMENTATION.
IT WAS, AND A LOT OF INTERESTING
DISCUSSION HAPPENED. THERE WAS A
THERE WAS A REPORT THAT CAME OUT
FROM THE CENTER FOR INCLUSIVE
DEMOCRACY THAT NOTED BENEFICIAL
ASPECTS OF THE VCA MODEL,
INCLUDING INCREASED TRANSPARENCY
AND ACCOUNTABILITY, COMMUNITY
ENGAGEMENT WITH THE ELECTION
PROCESS, THERE, YOU KNOW, ARE
FEWER REPORTED VOTING PROBLEMS
AT VOTE CENTERS. AND THAT WAS
ONE OF THE THINGS WE KNEW. IF WE
HAD THESE DEDICATED CENTERS WITH
PEOPLE WHO COULD WORK DAY AFTER
DAY AND REALLY GET TO KNOW THE
SYSTEM, YOU'D AVOID SOME OF THE
PROBLEMS THAT WOULD HAPPEN.
THESE THESE EMERGENCIES ON
ELECTION DAY AT A AT A PRECINCT
LOCATION WHERE THE MACHINE GOES
DOWN, YOU HAVE ALL THESE
VOLUNTEERS WHO DON'T KNOW WHAT
THEY'RE DOING. SO, SO WE FEWER
VOTING PROBLEMS, MORE ACCESS TO
BILINGUAL POLL WORKERS, MORE
VOTING MACHINES FOR VOTERS WITH
DISABILITIES COMPARED TO NON VCA
COUNTIES. NOW, THERE WERE SOME
OTHER, YOU KNOW, CHALLENGES THAT
WERE RAISED BY THE REPORT TO.
THEY FOUND TURNOUT GAPS STILL
EXIST. THEY FLUCTUATE FROM
ELECTION TO ELECTION WITH VOTERS
OF COLOR ACROSS THE STATE
PARTICIPATING AT LOWER RATES.
IT'S A CHALLENGE WE HAVE ALL
OVER THE COUNTRY, NOW, SINCE THE
PANDEMIC, WITH IN-PERSON, YOU
KNOW, WITH, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY
THERE'S THIS VOTE BY MAIL MODEL
THAT'S ALSO BEEN IMPLEMENTED,
BUT WE DID SEE THAT, THAT, THAT,
THAT IN-PERSON VOTING WAS
ACTUALLY UTILIZED MORE IN VCA
COUNTIES. AND IT REALLY WAS A
VITAL OPTION FOR MARGINALIZED
VOTERS FOR THE SAME REASONS. I
JUST DISCUSSED, YOU KNOW, THE
OLD MODEL OF ONLY BEING ABLE TO
VOTE ON A TUESDAY IN PERSON
DURING WORKING HOURS,
EFFECTIVELY WITH A LITTLE EXTRA
TIME IS HARD FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE
TO ACCOMMODATE WITH THEIR BUSY
SCHEDULES. SO WE HAD THIS
OVERSIGHT HEARING LAST DECEMBER.
WE REVIEWED THE REPORT, WE
REVIEWED VCA IMPLEMENTATION,
WHERE SOME COUNTY CLERKS
HIGHLIGHTED ADMINISTRATIVE
HURDLES, AND VOTING RIGHTS
ADVOCATES SUGGESTED POTENTIAL
IMPROVEMENTS. THIS BILL, SB ONE
450, PROPOSES A NUMBER OF
CHANGES TO STREAMLINE ELECTION
ADMINISTRATION UNDER THE VCA TO
ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE CONCERNS.
SO IN ITS CURRENT FORM, THE BILL
WILL REQUIRE, VCA SPECIFIC
MAILINGS TO BE SENT TO EACH
HOUSEHOLD RATHER THAN TO EVERY
REGISTERED VOTER, THAT'S BECOME
A MAJOR COST FOR COUNTIES IN A
WAY THAT'S NOT REALLY HELPFUL.
ULTIMATELY, FOR VOTER
INFORMATION, IT ADDRESSES SOME
SITUATIONS WHERE IRREGULARLY
SCHEDULED SPECIAL ELECTIONS AND
OVERLAPPING SPECIAL DISTRICTS
RESULT IN DUPLICATIVE AND
POTENTIALLY CONFUSING
INFORMATIONAL MAILERS TO IMPROVE
ELECTION MANAGEMENT. THE BILL
ALSO ESTABLISHES A DEADLINE FOR
COUNTIES TO FINALIZE ELECTION
ADMINISTRATION PLANS, AND
ESTABLISHES ADVISORY COMMITTEES
ON VOTER EDUCATION AND COMMUNITY
OUTREACH STRATEGIES. MY TEAMS
HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH
ADVOCATES, CLERKS, SECRETARY OF
STATE WHO SUPPORTS THIS BILL,
ON, ON ON OUTSTANDING VCA
IMPLEMENTATION CONCERNS LIKE THE
LOW UTILIZATION OF EARLY VOTING
THAT ARE NOT CURRENTLY ADDRESSED
BY THE BILL, WE FIND THERE'S A
THE FIRST FEW DAYS VERY FEW
PEOPLE ARE GOING TO VOTE IN
PERSON AT THE VCA AT THE AT THE
VOTE CENTERS, WE UNDERSTAND
THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT
PERSPECTIVES ON HOW TO ADDRESS
THESE ISSUES. WE CONTINUE THESE
THESE DISCUSSIONS WITH
STAKEHOLDERS TO SEE, IF WE CAN
FIND AS MANY SOLUTIONS AS
POSSIBLE WITH FOLKS. I
APPRECIATE THE SUGGESTIONS THAT
THE ADVOCATES HAVE PROVIDED, AND
WE'VE BEEN WORKING TOGETHER ON
LANGUAGE TO ADDRESS ISSUES
RAISED IN THEIR LETTER AND LOOK
FORWARD TO CONTINUING
DISCUSSIONS. AND WITH THAT, I
WILL RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. OKAY, WE HAVE A
MOTION AND WE HAVE A SECOND, DO
YOU HAVE ANY PRIMARY WITNESSES
IN SUPPORT? WE DON'T. OKAY.
ANYONE IN THE ROOM WHO WISHES TO
STAND UP AND STATE YOUR NAME IN
SUPPORT WIENER OR WHATEVER
POSITION YOU HAVE. DORA ROSE,
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF
CALIFORNIA, WE ARE VERY MUCH
APPRECIATIVE OF ALL OF THE
DISCOURSE WITH THE AUTHOR'S
OFFICE AND THE AUTHORS STAFF,
AND WE HAVE A SUPPORTIVE,
AMENDED POSITION ALSO ON THAT
SUPPORT. IF AMENDED POSITION IS
DISABILITY RIGHTS. CALIFORNIA,
ASIAN AMERICAN ADVANCINGJUSTICE
JUSTICE, ASIAN LAW CAUCUS NHÀ
EDUCATIONAL FUND, AND INLAND
EMPIRE UNITED AND MY COLLEAGUE
ARE BRITTANY STONESIFER FOR ACLU
CALIFORNIA ACTION, ALSO A
SUPPORTIVE, AMENDED POSITION
ALONG WITH THE COALITION. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, JONATHAN
MENDOCINE CALIFORNIA COMMON
CAUSE. VERY APPRECIATIVE OF
WORKING WITH THE AUTHOR'S
OFFICE. ALSO HAVE A SUPPORTIVE,
AMENDED POSITION. OKAY ANYONE IN
THE ROOM WHO'S A PRIMARY WITNESS
IN OPPOSITION TO THE BILL,
ANYONE WHO WANTS TO JUST STATE
THEIR NAME IN OPPOSITION TO THE
BILL, SEEING NONE, WE'LL BRING
IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE. ANY
COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? DID YOU
CUT OFF MY MICROPHONE ON THE
LAST ROUND? POINT OF POINT OF
INQUIRY? YES. I DID, AND YOU
JUST CAN YOU UNILATERALLY CUT
OFF MY MICROPHONE AND DENY THE
PUBLIC MY ABILITY TO BE HEARD? I
TURNED OFF YOUR MICROPHONE. YOU
HAD SAID YOUR POINT. CLEARLY WE
ALL HEARD IT AND SO, WHAT IS THE
BASIS FOR TURNING OFF THE
MICROPHONE? I CHOSE TO YEAH. SO
YOU'RE LIKE THE DICTATOR HERE IN
THIS DEMOCRACY. YOU HAD MADE
YOUR POINT. WE ALL HEARD YOUR
POINT. OKAY. I WANT TO APPEAL. I
MAKE A MOTION TO APPEAL THE
RULING OF THE CHAIR. I DO NOT
THINK YOU SHOULD BE TURNING OFF
OUR MICROPHONES WITHOUT MAKING
SOME SORT OF ORDER OR FINDING. I
DID SAY THAT YOU WERE DONE. AND
I WAS MOVING ON, SO THANK YOU.
SURE I APPEAL TO THE RULING OF
THE CHAIR TO UNILATERALLY TURN
OFF OUR MICROPHONES. I DO NOT
THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE OR FAIR
OR CONSISTENT WITH AN OPEN AND
FAIR DEMOCRACY. I DO NOT.
I MADE IT CLEAR THAT YOU WERE
DONE WITH YOUR TESTIMONY AND
YOUR COMMENT, AND I WAS MOVING
ON TO ANOTHER MEMBER TO MAKE
TIME FOR THEM TO HAVE A COMMENT.
SO I THINK I MADE THAT VERY
CLEAR TO THE PEOPLE HERE. YOU
RECALL THE RULE.
OKAY. WE NEED TO THEN TAKE A
VOTE ON THAT. IT'S A MAJORITY OF
THOSE PRESENT AND VOTING AND.
THE QUESTION IS, SHOULD THE
DECISION OF THE CHAIR BE UPHELD?
SO THE CHAIR IS ASKING FOR AN
AYE VOTE ON THAT MOTION.
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
PELLERIN I PELLERIN I LACKEY. NO
LACKEY. NO BENNETT I BENNETT I
BERMAN. CERVANTES CERVANTES I
ASSALI. NO ASSALI. NO. LOW WEBER
. YOUR MOTION FAILS. 3 TO 2.
THANK YOU. SENATOR. YEAH. LET ME
SAY, FIRST OF ALL, I HAVE SOME
FRIENDS FROM FROM MY HOMETOWN IN
SANTA MONICA. THE YOUNG FAMILY.
AND THEY'RE ON A ON A ROAD TRIP.
THROUGH SACRAMENTO. AND I DO
WANT TO SAY, THANK YOU TO
SIMILAR ASSEMBLY MEMBER WHO HAS
MADE THIS THE MOST EXCITING,
COMMITTEE HEARING I'VE HAD IN A
VERY LONG TIME. AND SO FOR MY
FRIENDS THAT HAVE YET TO WITNESS
IT IN PERSON HAS BEEN, REALLY
FANTASTIC. SO, YOU KNOW, LOOK, I
MEAN, AT THE END OF THE DAY,
THIS BILL IS ABOUT, YOU KNOW,
TRYING TO, MAKE SURE THAT WE, WE
MEET, WE FULFILL THE PROMISE OF
THE VOTERS CHOICE ACT, WE, YOU
KNOW, WE NOT WE REALLY LOOK AT
HOW THE SYSTEM HAS WORKED, TRY
TO FIGURE OUT WAYS TO INCREASE
EFFICIENCIES AS I MENTIONED,
THERE'S A LOT OF DUPLICATION IN
THE CURRENT MODEL. THEY WERE PUT
IN PLACE FOR GOOD REASONS AT THE
TIME WHEN WE WERE WE WERE
LAUNCHING THIS BRAND NEW
INITIATIVE, AND WE WANT TO
BASICALLY LOOK AT THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SYSTEM AND
LEARN FROM IT AND TRY TO FIND
SOME WAYS TO SAVE SOME MONEY FOR
THE COUNTIES. AND THEN WITH
THAT, WITH THOSE EXTRA
RESOURCES, WE CAN ROLL THOSE
INTO, INTO MORE EFFECTIVE WORK
OF VOTER OUTREACH, VOTER
EDUCATION, AND EFFORTS TO
INCREASE VOTER PARTICIPATION. SO
THAT'S THAT'S THE CORE GOAL
HERE. VERY COMMITTED TO WORKING
WITH THE, YOU KNOW, THE FOLKS
WHO SUPPORT, IF AMENDED, THEY'RE
GOOD FRIENDS AND ALLIES ARE THE
PEOPLE THAT WE WORKED WITH WITH
THE INITIAL BILL, BUT THAT'S THE
SPIRIT WITH WHICH WE'RE
APPROACHING THIS EFFORT. I
BELIEVE ASSEMBLY MEMBER BENNETT
HAS A COMMENT OR QUESTION. YEAH,
IT'S A IT'S A IT'S A QUESTION AS
MUCH AS ANYTHING. BUT,
UNFORTUNATELY, IN MY COUNTY,
THERE IS AN EFFORT BY THE BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS TO RESTRICT ALL
VOTING BACK TO JUST ELECTION DAY
. RIGHT? I AM TRYING TO,
ASCERTAIN TO WHAT EXTENT, WE
HAVE TO WHAT EXTENT THAT THAT
IS, AN OPTION. TO WHAT EXTENT
DOES THIS BILL, ADDRESS THAT OR
RESTRICT THAT ABILITY? I REALLY
APPRECIATE THE QUESTION,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER, BECAUSE THIS IS
THE CHALLENGE, AND I JUST I, I,
I TO OUR FRIENDS IN THE ADVOCACY
COMMUNITY, YOU KNOW, AND
EVERYONE HERE KNOWS THIS, BUT
BUT THE VOTERS CHOICE ACT WAS A
VOLUNTARY PROGRAM. COUNTIES
COULD CHOOSE WHETHER TO OPT IN
OR NOT. AND, YOU KNOW, AS I
MENTIONED, 29 COUNTIES HAVE
OPTED IN. THE REST OF THE
COUNTIES HAVE NOT. SO THE
COUNTIES CAN ALSO CHOOSE TO PULL
OUT. AND, YOU KNOW, WE THE PITCH
TO THE COUNTIES WAS THAT WE'RE
GOING TO SAVE YOU MONEY RIGHT
NOW. YOU'RE SPENDING ALL THIS
MONEY ON ALL OF THESE PRECINCTS
THAT DON'T WORK VERY WELL ON
ELECTION DAY. WITH ALL THESE
CHALLENGES. AND IN RETURN FOR
HAVING LESS PHYSICAL PLACES TO
VOTE, WE PUT IN PLACE ALL THESE
ADDITIONAL PROTECTIONS. YOU'RE
GOING TO SAVE SOME MONEY ON THAT
SIDE, AND IT'S GOING TO BE ABLE
TO PROVIDE FOR MORE ACCESS TO
THE BALLOT FOR YOUR FOR YOUR FOR
YOUR VOTERS, THAT WAS THE PITCH
TO THE COUNTIES. 29 COUNTIES
DECIDED TO JOIN IN, BUT NOW
THEY'RE FINDING THAT IT'S BEEN
CHALLENGING, THEY'RE BEING ASKED
TO SEND OUT ALL THESE EXTRA
MAILERS, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT DON'T
PROVIDE A LOT OF ADDITIONAL
BENEFIT IN TERMS OF VOTER
EDUCATION, BUT THAT ARE VERY
COSTLY. YOU HAVE THESE VOTE
CENTERS THAT ARE OPEN FOR ALL
THIS EXTRA TIME WITH VERY LITTLE
UTILIZATION, SO, SO THE THAT'S
WHAT WE'RE GRAPPLING WITH HERE.
HOW DO WE REALLY LEARN FROM THE
450, THE VCA MODEL, YOU KNOW,
MAKE SOME REASONABLE CHANGES
THAT ARE GOING TO, YOU KNOW,
ADDRESS THE FINANCIAL PRESSURES
THAT ARE CURRENTLY ON THE
COUNTIES THAT AREN'T REALLY
PROVIDING A LOT OF BENEFIT, ROLL
SOME OF THOSE RESOURCES INTO
PROGRAMS THAT WILL PROVIDE MORE
BENEFIT. AND ALSO, YOU KNOW, BUT
ALSO SAVE COUNTIES SOME MONEY SO
THAT THEY CAN FEEL COMFORTABLE
STAYING IN THIS MODEL. AND
THAT'S, THAT'S THAT IS OUR CORE
GOAL HERE. AND I, I WANT
EVERYONE TO RECOGNIZE THAT, YOU
KNOW, THE DOING NOTHING IS
DANGEROUS BECAUSE IF THIS IF THE
EXISTING VCA PROGRAM, WHICH HAS
WORKED SO WELL FOR OUR STATE ON
A ON THE WHOLE, IT PROVES
FINANCIALLY UNTENABLE FOR
COUNTIES AND THEY START PULLING
OUT. WE WILL HAVE LOST A LOT OF
PROGRESS. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS
? I APPLAUD THE AUTHOR FOR
STAYING AFTER THIS ISSUE FOR A
LONG PERIOD OF TIME, SO THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. SO I'LL MOVE TO
I MOVE THE BILL. WE HAVE A
MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND FOR
THE BILL? ARE WE ALREADY HAD
ONE. RIGHT. WE HAD IT. SORRY,
SORRY. OKAY. SO. THANK YOU. WE
DO HAVE A MOTION BY CERVANTES
AND SECONDED BY BENNETT, AND
THAT'S FOR MOVING SB 1450 TO, A
DUE PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS. AND
I JUST WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR
FOR BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD.
THE VOTERS CHOICE ACT MODEL HAS
BEEN AVAILABLE FOR ALL COUNTIES
SINCE 2020. SO IT HASN'T BEEN IN
PLACE FOR TOO LONG. I THINK THE
SENATE'S VCA OVERSIGHT HEARING
WAS TIMELY AND FULL OF
THOUGHTFUL DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW
THE MODEL IS CURRENTLY WORKING,
AND RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS. AS THE
ANALYSIS POINTS OUT, THERE'S A
COALITION OF ORGANIZATIONS
SEEKING FURTHER AMENDMENTS, AND
WE HEARD FOR SOME OF THEM TODAY,
AND I WILL RECOMMEND SUPPORT FOR
THIS BILL WITH THE AUTHOR'S
COMMITMENT TO CONTINUE TO WORK
WITH STAKEHOLDERS TO SEE IF
THERE IS CONSENSUS ON OTHER
CHANGES. SO WITH THAT, WE'LL GO
AHEAD AND CALL THE ROLL ON SB
1450. ALLEN PELLERIN I PELLERIN
I LACKEY. LACKEY NOT VOTING.
BENNETT. BENNETT I BERMAN.
BERMAN I CERVANTES. CERVANTES I
AZALI. AZALI IS NOT VOTING LOW
LOW I WEBER. ZERO. THAT BILL IS
OUT 5 TO 0. BUT WE'LL KEEP IT
OPEN FOR THE ABSENT MEMBERS.
THANK YOU MEMBERS THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO
MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. THAT'S A
TRIFECTA, RIGHT. YOU GOT THREE
BILLS OUT. WE'LL NOW MOVE ON TO,
SENATOR LEMMON'S BILL. OH, WHILE
SHE'S COMING UP, LET'S GO AHEAD
AND TAKE UP THE COMMITTEES
CONSENT CALENDAR. THERE IS ONE
BILL ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
THE COMMITTEE SECRETARY, PLEASE
READ THE ITEM ON CONSENT,
CONSENT IS FILED. ITEM NUMBER
14, SB 1493, BY SENATOR BLAKE
SPEER AND THE MOTION IS DUE PASS
AND BE REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE
ON APPROPRIATIONS WITH
RECOMMENDATION TO CONSENT. DOES
ANY MEMBER WISH TO REMOVE THAT
ITEM FROM CONSENT? SEEING NONE,
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND WE HAVE A
MOTION SO MOVED. WE HAVE A
MOTION BY SOME MEMBER LACKEY. DO
WE HAVE A SECOND, SECOND, SECOND
BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER LOWE AND
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
PELLERIN I PELLERIN. AYE. LACKEY
LACKEY. AYE. BENNETT. BENNETT.
AYE BERMAN. BERMAN. AYE.
CERVANTES. CERVANTES AYE. SALLY.
SALLY. AYE LOW. LOWE. AYE. WEBER
THE CONSENT CALENDAR IS Þ.
WEBER. AYE. THE CONSENT CALENDAR
IS ADOPTED. GREAT. SENATOR LIMÓN
WELCOME. YOU MAY BEGIN. THANK
YOU. CHAIR. AND MEMBERS, I WANT
TO FIRST START OFF BY THANKING
THE CHAIR AND THE COMMITTEE
STAFF FOR, A LOT OF WORK THAT
HAS GONE ON REALLY OVER A NUMBER
OF YEARS WITH ME DIRECTLY OVER
THE LAST TWO YEARS. AND UP UNTIL
YOU KNOW, THIS WEEK WE HAVE BEEN
TRYING TO MOVE THIS BILL FORWARD
. AND SO I WANT TO JUST
RECOGNIZE THAT AS A RESULT, MANY
COMMITTEE MEMBERS HAVEN'T SAT
WITH THIS WITH THE NEW VERSION
OF THIS BILL, AND SO THAT IS
REALLY A FUNCTION OF, OF OUR
ATTEMPT TO MOVE THIS BILL
FORWARD WITH, YOU KNOW, THE
CHAIR AND THE COMMITTEE. AND
WE'RE VERY, VERY GRATEFUL FOR
THAT. BUT I ALSO JUST WANT TO
RECOGNIZE THAT PEOPLE HAVEN'T
SAT WITH THIS. AND SO IT FEELS,
LIKE, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THIS IS
COMING NEW. AND I WANT TO JUST
TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR
THAT PROCESS IN SAYING THAT
WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO MOVE THIS
FORWARD, AND THIS IS AS A RESULT
OF THAT, BUT I AM GRATEFUL THAT
WE ARE HERE TODAY HEARING THIS.
BILL, I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT I
AM ACCEPTING THE AMENDMENTS
TODAY. THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS
TODAY. AND I'M VERY GRATEFUL
AGAIN TO THE CHAIR AND TO THE
COMMITTEE WHO HAVE SPENT
COUNTLESS HOURS, TRYING TO HELP
US MOVE THIS FORWARD. CALIFORNIA
IS CURRENTLY THE HOME TO 4.6
MILLION ELIGIBLE UNREGISTERED
VOTERS, A DISPROPORTIONATE
NUMBER OF WHOM ARE YOUTH PEOPLE
WITH DISABILITIES BLACK, LATINO,
ASIAN AMERICAN, NATIVE,
INDIGENOUS AND OTHER PEOPLE OF
COLOR. INDIVIDUALS AT TIMES WITH
LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY AND
LOW INCOME CITIZENS. SB 299 IS
AN OPPORTUNITY TO UPGRADE OUR
CURRENT VOTER REGISTRATION
SYSTEM AND HELP WELCOME ELIGIBLE
, ELIGIBLE VOTERS INTO OUR
DEMOCRACY. THE CURRENT MOTOR
VOTER PROCESS IS STILL LEAVING
OUT MILLIONS OF ELIGIBLE VOTERS
EACH YEAR, 1 MILLION ELIGIBLE
VOTERS CONDUCT A LICENSE
TRANSACTION AT THE DMV, BUT DO
NOT REGISTER TO VOTE. AT THE
SAME TIME, THE CURRENT MOTOR
VOTER PROCESS ASKS REGISTRATION
QUESTIONS, EVEN IF A PERSON IS
CLEARLY NOT A US CITIZEN,
EXPOSING NON-CITIZENS TO SEVERE
CONSEQUENCES IF THEY MISTAKE, AS
AMENDED, THIS BILL WILL DO THREE
THINGS ONE. IT REQUIRES THE DMV
TO IMPLEMENT A NONCITIZEN
FILTERING SYSTEM. SO IF A PERSON
PROVIDES PROOF OF NON
CITIZENSHIP, SUCH AS A GREEN
CARD, THE APPLICANT WILL
AUTOMATICALLY BE FILTERED OUT OF
THE VOTER REGISTRATION SYSTEM.
IT ALSO REQUIRES THE DMV TO
AUTOMATICALLY CHECK VOTER
REGISTRATION STATUS DURING A
DRIVER'S LICENSE OR ID
TRANSACTION, AND TAILOR THE
MOTOR VOTER PROCESS TO WHETHER
THE PERSON IS UNREGISTERED OR
ALREADY REGISTERED TO VOTE. IN
CALIFORNIA AND LAST, THIS BILL
GRANTS THE SECRETARY OF STATE
THE AUTHORITY TO ADOPT
REGULATIONS TO GENERATE A LIST
OF PEOPLE PRE-APPROVED
REGISTRATION BASED ON
CONFIRMATION CITIZENSHIP STATUS
THROUGH THE DMV, OR
IDENTIFICATION APPLICATION
PROCESS. SB 299 HAS A BROAD AND
DIVERSE COALITION OF SUPPORTERS,
MANY OF WHICH HAVE BEEN DOING
THE WORK TO REGISTER THE
POPULATION. THE POPULATION
GROUPS THIS BILL AIMS TO SUPPORT
. I HAVE WITH ME TODAY DOLORES
HUERTA AND ALSO PROFESSOR LAURA
REY FROM UCLA TO SPEAK IN
SUPPORT OF THE BILL AND NEIL
O'BRIEN FROM THE INSTITUTE OF
RESPONSIVE GOVERNMENT TO ANSWER
TECHNICAL QUESTIONS. THANK YOU
AND YOUR WITNESSES EACH HAVE TWO
MINUTES EACH. OKAY, GOOD MORNING
, CHAIR PELLERIN AND COMMITTEE
MEMBERS, MY NAME IS DOCTOR LAURA
REY LAKE. I'M A PROFESSOR IN THE
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS AT
UCLA, AND I'M SPEAKING IN STRONG
SUPPORT FOR SB 299. VOTER
REGISTRATION IS A PRIMARY AND
PERSISTENT OBSTACLE TO VOTING.
4.6 MILLION ELIGIBLE
CALIFORNIANS ARE NOT REGISTERED
TO VOTE. EXCUSE ME, THAT'S 1 IN
6 PEOPLE THAT THAT ARE ELIGIBLE
WHO ARE NOT REGISTERED. ONLY 13%
OF 16 AND 17 YEAR OLDS HAVE
PRE-REGISTERED TO VOTE, WHICH IS
ABYSMALLY LOW. REGISTRATION
REFORM IS SORELY NEEDED.
CALIFORNIA'S CURRENT AUTOMATIC
VOTER REGISTRATION SYSTEM
THROUGH THE DMV IS NOT ACTUALLY
AUTOMATIC. IT REQUIRES ELIGIBLE
PEOPLE TO AFFIRMATIVELY OPT IN
TO REGISTER. MY RESEARCH HAS
IDENTIFIED SECURE AUTOMATIC
VOTER REGISTRATION OR SAVER, AS
AN EVIDENCE BASED SOLUTION THAT
WOULD VASTLY IMPROVE REGISTER
REGISTRATION RATES IN CALIFORNIA
UNDER THE SYSTEM PROPOSED BY
THIS BILL. IF A PERSON DOES NOT
REGISTER TO VOTE DURING A
LICENSE TRANSACTION AT THE DMV
BUT HAS PROVIDED THE DMV WITH
CLEAR PROOF OF ELIGIBILITY,
INCLUDING CITIZENSHIP, THE
SECRETARY OF STATE CAN LIST THEM
AS PRE-APPROVED FOR REGISTRATION
AND PROVIDE THEM WITH A
STREAMLINED WAY TO ACTIVATE
THEIR REGISTRATION. IF THEY
CHOOSE TO. TEN STATES AND
WASHINGTON, D.C. HAVE ADOPTED,
SAVOR AND HAVE BROUGHT MILLIONS
OF ELIGIBLE VOTERS INTO THE
POLITICAL PROCESS. DATA FROM
COLORADO, OREGON, DELAWARE AND
MINNESOTA SHOW SIGNIFICANT
INCREASES IN REGISTRATIONS WITH
SAVOR, PARTICULARLY FOR LATINO,
BLACK, AND ASIAN AMERICAN
CITIZENS AND FOR YOUNG PEOPLE.
THESE SYSTEMS AUTOMATICALLY
FILTER OUT NON-CITIZENS, AND THE
SECRETARY OF STATE CAN ENSURE
PARALLEL PROTECTIONS. HERE VOTER
REGISTRATION WAS IMPLEMENTED IN
CALIFORNIA IN THE LATE 1800S AS
A STRATEGY OF VOTER SUPPRESSION.
PLEASE CONCLUDE IF YOU CAN,
AIMED AT MAKING IT MORE
CUMBERSOME FOR MINORITIES AND
POOR CITIZENS TO VOTE AND THIS
LEGACY CONTINUES TODAY AS
CALIFORNIA'S UNREGISTERED
CITIZENS ARE DISPROPORTIONATELY
BLACK, LATINO, ASIAN, OR 18 TO
24, I URGE YOU TO SUPPORT SB
299. THANK YOU. WE'LL NOW MOVE
ON TO YOUR NEXT WITNESS. AND
IT'S AN HONOR TO HAVE A
DEMOCRACY WARRIOR SUCH AS
YOURSELF HERE TODAY. DOLORES
HUERTA. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIRMAN. YES, THE MY NAME IS
DOLORES HUERTA, AND I'M SPEAKING
ON BEHALF OF MY FOUNDATION, THE
DOLORES HUERTA FOUNDATION, THAT
WORKS ON EMPOWERING OF
ESPECIALLY LOW INCOME PEOPLE.
WELL AS WAS SAID BEFORE, WE KNOW
THAT THE BURDEN OF REGISTRATION
HAS ALWAYS BEEN A METHOD OF
DISCRIMINATION. VOTER
REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS WERE
DESIGNED TO SUPPRESS TURNOUT BY
POOR AND LESS EDUCATED
COMMUNITIES. INSTEAD OF A ONE
STEP PROCESS FOR ELIGIBLE
PEOPLE, VOTING BECOMES A MORE
COMPLEX, MULTI-STEP PROCESS
REQUIRING PLANNING AND KNOWLEDGE
OF THE LAW. THESE EFFECTS STILL
TODAY AFFECT HUNDREDS OF HAVE
THE EFFECTS OF HUNDREDS OF YEARS
LATER EACH ELECTION. MILLIONS OF
PEOPLE, MANY OF THEM BLACK,
BROWN, YOUNG AND POOR, DON'T
VOTE BECAUSE THEY AREN'T
REGISTERED. MANY OF THESE PEOPLE
FIND REGISTRATION PROCEDURES
CONFUSING, DAUNTING, OR
INCONVENIENT, BUT THE BURDEN IS
STILL PUT ON THEM TO OVERCOME
THESE CHALLENGES. IT'S NO
ACCIDENT THAT HERE IN
CALIFORNIA, WE STILL HAVE, AS
WAS SAID, 4.6 MILLION PEOPLE
THAT ARE NOT REGISTERED RIGHT
NOW, THEY'RE ELIGIBLE PEOPLE
ELIGIBLE PEOPLE TO VOTE. AND
THIS POPULATION AGAIN, IS THE
DISPROPORTIONALLY LATINO, BLACK,
ASIAN AMERICAN, YOUNG AND POOR,
GIVEN THE FACT THAT CALIFORNIA
SECRETARY OF STATE CAN HAVE THE
POWER TO IDENTIFY ELIGIBLE AND
REGISTERED CALIFORNIANS AT THE
DMV AND PROVIDE THEM AN EASIER
PATH TO REGISTRATION AND VOTING,
INSTEAD OF INDIVIDUALS ALONE
HAVING TO BEAR THE BURDEN FOR
REGISTRATION BY THEMSELVES, THE
STATE CAN TAKE ON THE
RESPONSIBILITY FOR GETTING
ELIGIBLE PEOPLE ON THE ROLLS.
THIS IS A CHALLENGE THAT WE NEED
TO OVERCOME AFTER THE CENTURIES
THAT WE HAVE OF VOTER
SUPPRESSION BY REGISTRATION. AT
THE SAME TIME, THIS BILL ADDS
CRUCIAL PROTECTIONS TO PERVADE
TO PREVENT UNINTENTIONAL
REGISTRATION BY NONCITIZENS FOR
NON-CITIZEN COMMUNITIES IN THE
UNITED STATES AND THROUGHOUT THE
STATE. THIS IS A MEANINGFUL
CHANGE TO FURTHER REDUCE THE
RISK OF AN HONEST MISTAKE DURING
A DMV TRANSACTION. THIS IS A
VERY COURAGEOUS AND HISTORICAL
STEP FOR US TO TAKE. WE KNOW, AS
WE SAID, THERE ARE MANY, MANY
OTHER STATES HAVE ALREADY TAKEN
THIS STEP AND WE KNOW THAT IT
WILL TAKE TIME TO ACTUALLY PUT
THE PROCEDURES IN PLACE. BUT WE
HAVE TO START SOMEWHERE IN
CALIFORNIA. SHOULD ALWAYS BE
FIRST, NOT LAST. OKAY, SO THIS
IS OUR HISTORICAL MOMENT THAT WE
CAN ACTUALLY MAKE THIS CHANGE.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU,
WE'LL NOW HEAR FROM ANY
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT WHO WANT TO
STEP UP TO THE MIC, STATE YOUR
NAME. ORGANIZATION AND YOUR
POSITION. WITNESSES AND SUPPORT.
GOOD MORNING. THANK YOU. CAN PUT
THE MIC UP A LITTLE BIT. THAT'S
VERY TRUE. THANK YOU, THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR. MEMBERS, SEDALIA
KING, ON BEHALF OF CATALYST,
CALIFORNIA. AND STRONG SUPPORT
AND ALSO BY PROXY, THE
CALIFORNIA BLACK POWER NETWORK.
THANK YOU. CARLITO, ON BEHALF OF
HMONG INNOVATING POLITICS AND
THE ASIAN PACIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL
NETWORK, THANK YOU. IN SUPPORT.
GOOD MORNING. GRACE YANG, ON
BEHALF OF MY GIRLS IN ACTION AND
THE ASIAN SOLIDARITY COLLECTIVE
IN SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING.
CHÁVEZ, IN SUPPORT OF SB 209 ON
BEHALF OF A CALIFORNIA CALLS AND
THE POWER PACK, ERIC PAYNE,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE
CENTRAL VALLEY URBAN INSTITUTE
IN STRONG SUPPORT, KELLY WONG,
ON BEHALF OF CHINESE PROGRESSIVE
ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT MICHAEL
LOCKE SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF
ASIAN AMERICANS AND PACIFIC
ISLANDERS FOR CIVIC EMPOWERMENT.
WE'RE ONE OF THE CO-SPONSORS.
I'M ALSO A BOARD MEMBER OF OCA
ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN
ADVOCATES, ONE OF THE NATION'S
OLDEST, ASIAN AMERICAN CIVIL
RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS. OUR
NATIONAL CENTER, AS WELL AS OUR
EAST BAY, SAN MATEO COUNTY AND
SILICON VALLEY CHAPTER SUPPORT.
THANK YOU, JULIE NIELSEN,
NATIONAL UNION OF HEALTHCARE
WORKERS AND SUPPORT. SARAH
BRENNAN ON BEHALF OF NEXT GEN
CALIFORNIA, IN SUPPORT. LYNN
NORWOOD, PROXY FOR I UNITED IN
SUPPORT ALSO FOR NEXT GEN
CALIFORNIA. MORNING. FAITH LEE
WITH ASIAN AMERICANS ADVANCING
JUSTICE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA,
WE'RE IN SUPPORT. JUANITA CHAVEZ
WITH THE DOLORES HUERTA
FOUNDATION AND A BOARD MEMBER OF
JUSTICE FOR MY SISTER. GOOD
MORNING. FROM CALIFORNIA COLAB.
I STRONGLY SUPPORT THIS BILL.
VERA NGUYEN WITH ORANGE COUNTY
ACTION, AND I SUPPORT. GOOD
MORNING, SYDNEY FONG, BY PROXY,
ON BEHALF OF CHIRLA ACTION AND
ALLIANCE SAN DIEGO. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. WE WILL NOW MOVE ON
TO PRIMARY WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION. AS A REMINDER, EACH
PRIMARY WITNESS HAS A MAXIMUM OF
TWO MINUTES. YOU MAY STEP UP TO
THE TABLE AND HAVE A SEAT AND BE
SURE YOU'RE SPEAKING INTO THE
MIC. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING,
I'M BRITTANY STONECIPHER WITH
ACLU CALIFORNIA ACTION. WE AND
OTHERS YOU'LL HEAR FROM SHARE
THE GOALS BEHIND THIS BILL OF
INCREASING REGISTRATION AMONG
ELIGIBLE VOTERS AND PROTECTING
NONCITIZENS. WE STRONGLY SUPPORT
THOUGHTFULLY DESIGNED AND
EFFECTIVE AUTOMATIC VOTER
REGISTRATION PROGRAMS, LIKE THE
ONE WE CURRENTLY HAVE AT THE
DMV. SINCE ITS ROLLOUT IN 2018,
CALIFORNIA'S AVR AUTOMATIC VOTER
REGISTRATION SYSTEM HAS BECOME
ONE OF THE MOST POWERFUL TOOLS
OUR STATE HAS FOR MAINTAINING
ACCURATE VOTER ROLLS AND
REGISTERING NEW VOTERS. IN ONLY
SIX YEARS, THE PROGRAM HAS
RESULTED IN OVER 26 MILLION NEW
OR UPDATED VOTER REGISTRATION
TRANSACTIONS. IT'S NOW THE TOP
REGISTRATION METHOD FOR YOUTH
AND VOTERS OF COLOR, AND ONLY
14% OF ELIGIBLE DMV USERS OPT
OUT, DESPITE BEING EITHER
UNREGISTERED OR HAVING AN
OUTDATED REGISTRATION. THE DMV'S
EXISTING AVR SYSTEM HAS WORKED
SO WELL THAT WE BELIEVE THAT ONE
OF THE MOST EFFECTIVE
INVESTMENTS OF CALIFORNIA'S
LIMITED RESOURCES WOULD BE TO
EXTEND THIS AVR MODEL TO OTHER
STATE AGENCIES, SUCH AS COVERED
CALIFORNIA AND CALFRESH,
ALLOWING US TO REACH VOTERS THAT
HAVE NOT ARE NOT BEING SERVED BY
THE DMV. WE'VE EXPRESSED
CONCERNS ABOUT PREVIOUS VERSIONS
OF THE BILL'S BILL THAT WOULD
CREATE SIGNIFICANT RISKS FOR
NONCITIZENS WITHOUT EVIDENCE
THAT THIS COSTLY RESTRUCTURING
OF OUR AVR PROGRAM WOULD RESULT
IN IMPROVED EQUITY OR ENGAGEMENT
. UNFORTUNATELY, THE LATEST
AMENDMENTS DO NOT RESOLVE THESE
CONCERNS, PRIMARILY BECAUSE THEY
WOULD STILL MAKE THE DMV
RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING
CITIZENSHIP STATUS, WHICH IS
DANGEROUS AND UNNECESSARY.
SIMILARLY, WE'RE CONCERNED THAT
BY CREATING AN ENTIRELY NEW
PREAPPROVED REGISTRANT AND
ACTIVATION SYSTEM WITHOUT CLEAR
LANGUAGE OR PROCEDURES, THE
AMENDMENTS PRESENT SIGNIFICANT
QUESTIONS ABOUT IMPLEMENTATION
THAT HAVE YET TO BE RESOLVED.
INSTEAD OF INVESTING MILLIONS TO
ADD CITIZENSHIP DETERMINATIONS
TO THE DMV WORKLOAD, CALIFORNIA
SHOULD CONTINUE TO IMPROVE THE
DMV'S EXISTING AVR SYSTEM AND
THOUGHTFULLY EXPAND ITS MODEL TO
ADDITIONAL AGENCIES. THESE
REASONS WE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR NO VOTE, AND I'M ALSO
AUTHORIZED TO NOTE THAT NHÀ LEÓN
EDUCATIONAL FUND, WHICH HAS MORE
THAN TWO DECADES OF DIRECT
EXPERIENCE MOBILIZING LATINO
COMMUNITY MEMBERS IN CALIFORNIA,
REGISTERS ITS NØ AND OPPOSITION
AS WELL. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING. I'M JOHNNY
SYNOTIS, AND I'M A PARTNER AT
THE IMMIGRATION FIRM VANDERHOLT
LLP. GIVEN THE STATE OF
IMMIGRATION LAW, THE RISKS OF
SHIFTING TO A BACK END, OPT OUT
SYSTEM FAR OUTWEIGH ANY
PERCEIVED POTENTIAL BENEFITS.
ERRORS IN A BACK END SYSTEM
COULD REGISTER NONCITIZENS TO
VOTE, EVEN WHERE THEY MAKE CLEAR
TO DMV EMPLOYEES THAT THEY ARE
NOT US CITIZENS. NON-CITIZENS
WHO ARE AUTOMATICALLY REGISTERED
TO VOTE COULD THEN BELIEVE THAT
THEY ARE AUTHORIZED TO VOTE
BECAUSE THEY WILL RECEIVE VOTING
MATERIALS IN THE MAIL. THIS
EXPOSES THEM TO SEVERE LIFE
ALTERING CONSEQUENCES, INCLUDING
IMPRISONMENT AND DEPORTATION. IF
A MISTAKE IS MADE IN THE BACK
END SYSTEM, THERE ARE FIVE
SEPARATE GROUNDS OF REMOVAL THAT
COULD BE CHARGED AGAINST A
NON-CITIZEN, SEVERAL OF WHICH
CONTAIN NO INTENT REQUIREMENT.
WHILE VOTING IN A CALIFORNIA
STATE ELECTION WOULD REQUIRE
THAT THE NON-CITIZEN WILLFULLY
AND KNOWINGLY VOTE UNLAWFULLY,
THERE IS NO INTENT REQUIREMENT
FOR VOTING IN A FEDERAL
ELECTION, AND ALTHOUGH
PROPONENTS OF THIS BILL ARGUE
THAT MISTAKENLY REGISTERED
NON-CITIZENS WOULD BE PROTECTED
BY AN OFFICIAL AUTHORIZATION,
DEFENSE OR A USCIS POLICY, THE
OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF
NON-CITIZENS WOULD NOT BE ABLE
TO BENEFIT FROM THESE UNRELIABLE
AND LIMITED DEFENSES. PREVAILING
AGAINST THESE CHARGES IS
EXTREMELY DIFFICULT, AND
NON-CITIZENS DO NOT HAVE THE
RIGHT TO COUNSEL. REMOVAL
PROCEEDINGS ALSO SPAN MANY YEARS
. FURTHERMORE, SUPREME COURT
DOCTRINE MAKES CLEAR THAT
JUDICIAL REVIEW IS SEVERELY
RESTRICTED OR EVEN PRECLUDED IN
THESE SORTS OF FACTUAL
SCENARIOS. THE AMENDMENTS TO SB
299 DO NOT RESOLVE THESE
CONCERNS, BECAUSE THE DMV, AT
THE END OF THE DAY, IS STILL
MAKING CITIZENSHIP
DETERMINATIONS. FOR THESE
REASONS, THE POSSIBILITY OF
EXPOSING AN ALREADY VULNERABLE
CLASS OF INDIVIDUALS SHOULD BE
AVOIDED. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
THE ROOM WHO JUST WANT TO STEP
UP TO THE MIC AND EXPRESS YOUR
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL? IF SO,
PLEASE COME ON UP. STATE YOUR
NAME, ORGANIZATION AND POSITION.
DR. ROSE, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS
OF CALIFORNIA IN RESPECTFUL,
CONTINUED OPPOSITION. I ALSO
HAVE THE PROXY OF THE BRENNAN
CENTER, ALSO IN OPPOSITION, AND
OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
LATINO ELECTED AND APPOINTED
OFFICIALS, ALSO IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
AND ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS
FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS? YES.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER BENNETT, I HAVE
GREAT RESPECT FOR THE AUTHOR. I
HAVE GREAT RESPECT FOR THE
BRENNAN INSTITUTION, AND THE
SINCERITY OF THE OPPOSITION HERE
TODAY, AND SO, BECAUSE OF MY
RESPECT, CERTAINLY FOR THE
AUTHOR, I WILL BE SUPPORTING THE
BILL TODAY, BUT THESE ARE LÀ
THESE THIS IS NOT THE OPPOSITION
THAT I EXPECTED TO HEAR FROM
PEOPLE WHO WERE REALLY TRYING TO
DECREASE THE ABILITY OF PEOPLE
TO VOTE. THIS IS OPPOSITION FROM
PEOPLE WHO ARE REALLY CONCERNED
ABOUT A LEGITIMATE ISSUE, WHICH
IS HAVING AN IMMIGRANT FAMILY
LIVING IN OUR HOME FOR THE LAST
16, 17 YEARS. I COULD SEE THEM
EASILY GETTING THE GETTING THE
BALLOT, NOT KNOWING WHETHER WHAT
THAT MEANS, WHETHER THAT MEANS
THEY ARE NOW BEEN DETERMINED
ELIGIBLE TO VOTE. I COULD SEE
ERRORS BEING MADE AND IT'S A
LEGITIMATE ISSUE, AND I HOPE
YOU'LL CONTINUE TO WORK ON THAT
AS, AS AS IT MOVES FORWARD.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?
SURE. YES. ASSEMBLY MEMBER
CERVANTES. YES. THANK YOU. WELL,
FIRST OFF, I KNOW THAT, YOU
KNOW, I THANK THE AUTHOR FOR THE
WORK THAT YOU'RE DOING ON THIS
BILL, AND THANK YOU TO ALL THOSE
THAT TESTIFIED TODAY, CAN YOU
JUST SHARE AGAIN THE NON-FILM,
THE NON-FILTER NONCITIZENS
FILTER AT THE DMV? THAT WAS AN
AMENDMENT THAT WAS INSERTED.
CORRECT. THANK YOU. AND SO WITH
THAT, THAT DOES MAKE ME FEEL
COMFORTABLE WITH WHERE WE'RE AT
TODAY, GIVEN THE WORK THAT WE'VE
BEEN DOING AND JUST TRYING TO
EXPAND OUR DEMOCRATIC PROCESS IN
CALIFORNIA, AND AS YOU SAID IT
BEST, DOLORES, THAT WE NEED TO
CONTINUE LEADING THE WAY AND
AGAIN, MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE
FURTHER INCREASING, OUR VOTER
PARTICIPATION IS SO CRITICAL.
AND I BELIEVE THIS PRE-APPROVED
PROCESS IS SO ESSENTIAL. AND I'M
GRATEFUL TO THE AUTHOR FOR
TAKING THE LEAD ON THIS. AS WE
FURTHER STRENGTHEN OUR
DEMOCRATIC PROCESS IN CALIFORNIA
. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS
OR QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS?
ASSEMBLY MEMBER WEBER. GOOD
MORNING, SO QUICK QUESTION FOR
YOU. SO WITH THIS PRE-APPROVED
LIST THAT YOU WOULD PROVIDE TO
THE SECRETARY OF STATE, WHAT
EXACTLY IS THE SECRETARY OF
STATE SUPPOSED TO DO WITH THAT
PRE-APPROVED LIST? RIGHT SO
SURE. SO I'M GOING TO HAVE NEAL,
TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT IT, BUT,
ONE WAY TO THINK ABOUT A
PRE-APPROVED LIST IS SIMILAR TO
LIST. AND CERTAINLY I THINK THE
CHAIR WILL BE MUCH MORE
SOPHISTICATED IN DESCRIBING IT
THAN I WILL. BUT THINK OF, YOU
KNOW, KIND OF THE HIGH SCHOOL
LIST. IT SITS THERE READY. AND
THEN WHEN YOU ARE AFFIRM RIGHT.
THE PRE ENROLLMENT WE DO WITH
HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS FROM 16 TO
18, IT SITS THERE AND THEN ONCE
SOMEONE AFFIRMS THAT THEY WOULD
LIKE TO BE PART OF THE VOTER
ROLL, THEN THEN THEY MOVE ON TO
THE VOTER ROLL SO THAT IS THE
CONCEPT THAT WE ARE WORKING
WITH. BUT I'M GOING TO HAVE NEAL
SPEAK A LITTLE BIT MORE TO IT,
SURE, NEIL O'BRIEN INSTITUTE FOR
RESPONSIVE GOVERNMENT ACTION.
THE IDEA OF THE PRE-APPROVED
LIST IS IF THE SECRETARY OF
STATE DECIDES TO MOVE FORWARD
WITH THIS PROGRAM, IT'S NOT
MANDATORY, SHE CAN WORK WITH THE
DMV, COUNTY CLERKS AND OTHER
INTERESTED GROUPS TO SET UP A
SYSTEM WHERE IF SOMEBODY
DECLINES VOTER REGISTRATION IN
THEIR LICENSE TRANSACTION, BUT
THE DMV SYSTEM INDICATES THAT
THIS PERSON HAS PROVIDED A US
PASSPORT OR A BIRTH CERTIFICATE,
OR ONE OF A SPECIFIED SET OF
DOCUMENTS THAT CONCLUSIVELY
ESTABLISHES CITIZENSHIP. THIS IS
INFORMATION THE DMV SYSTEM IS
ALREADY RECORDING, THE SECRETARY
OF STATE CAN SAY, I WOULD LIKE
TO SEE A LIST FROM THE DMV OF
PEOPLE WHO'VE PROVIDED ONE OF
THESE SPECIFIED DOCUMENTS, AND
ARE OF 16 YEARS OR OLDER, AND
THAT LIST CAN EXIST IN THE
SECRETARY OF STATE'S FILES. AND
THEN THE SECRETARY OF STATE, BY
REGULATION, CAN DECIDE HOW TO
OUTREACH TO THOSE PEOPLE. SHE
CAN SAY, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE
EVIDENCE FROM THE DMV THAT YOU
ARE ELIGIBLE TO REGISTER TO VOTE
IN CALIFORNIA. HERE ARE OPTIONS
FOR YOU TO ACTIVATE YOUR
REGISTRATION. AND SHE CAN
PERHAPS CREATE STREAMLINED WAYS
FOR THEM TO ACTIVATE THEIR
REGISTRATION IF THEY CHOOSE.
NOBODY WOULD BE REGISTERED ON
THE PRE-APPROVED LIST UNLESS AND
UNTIL THEY TAKE SOME AFFIRMATIVE
ACTION TO ACTIVATE THEIR
REGISTRATION. RIGHT? SO AS OF
RIGHT NOW, THERE IS NO PROCESS
IN PLACE FOR THIS. SO WE WOULD
BE VOTING ON SOMETHING THAT'S
NOT EVEN SET UP TO GO, RIGHT
NOW, THIS PROCESS WOULD BE
CREATED BY THIS BILL. IF THE
SECRETARY OF STATE AND IT WOULD
GIVE THE SECRETARY OF STATE
DISCRETION TO LAUNCH THIS
PROGRAM IF SHE SO CHOOSES. OKAY.
THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS FROM COMMITTEE
MEMBERS? ASSEMBLY MEMBER. SALLY.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, I GUESS
I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED WITH THE
OPPOSITION. DO WE NOT? CURRENTLY
ALLOW PEOPLE TO REGISTER TO VOTE
AT THE DMV, INCLUDING NOT. I
MEAN, WE THEORETICALLY,
NONCITIZENS ARE OFFERED THE
OPPORTUNITY TO REGISTER.
CURRENTLY, WE CURRENTLY HAVE A
FRONT END OPT OUT AVR SYSTEM AT
THE DMV, SO WHAT'S THE
DIFFERENCE HERE? THIS WOULD WITH
THE AMENDMENTS REFERRING TO THIS
AUTHORIZATION OF THE SECRETARY
SPECIFICALLY AS MR. BEJJANI
SAID, THIS WOULD AUTHORIZE THE
SECRETARY OF STATE TO CREATE A
PRE-APPROVED REGISTRANTS LIST
THAT WOULD BE TAKEN FROM
DOCUMENTS SHOWN AT THE DMV. SO
INSTEAD OF A PERSON ATTESTING TO
THEIR OWN ELIGIBILITY, THE DMV
WOULD BE USING, DOCUMENTS TO
MAKE A CITIZENSHIP
DETERMINATION. BUT BUT THE
PERSON STILL HAS TO CHOOSE TO
REGISTER TO VOTE, THOUGH. DON'T
THEY? THAT IS UNCLEAR. UNDER THE
AMENDMENTS THAT WE'VE SEEN,
THERE'S CURRENTLY NO SUCH THING
AS CHOOSING TO ACTIVATE FROM A
PRE REGISTRANTS LIST THAT
DOESN'T EXIST RIGHT NOW. UNDER
IN CALIFORNIA, WE DO HAVE A 16
AND 17 YEAR OLD PRE REGISTRANT
LIST, BUT THAT'S AN AUTOMATIC
TRIGGER WHEN THE PERSON BECOMES
18. AND SO THAT WE HAVEN'T SEEN
LANGUAGE BECAUSE THESE ARE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS AND WE'VE
ONLY SEEN THE ANALYSIS. BUT OUR
UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE
ISN'T ANY SPECIFIC GUIDANCE AS
TO WHAT IT MEANS TO ACTIVATE THE
REGISTRATION. AND WE'RE
CONCERNED THAT BY PUTTING THE
DMV IN CHARGE OF DETERMINING
CITIZENSHIP, THEN PUTTING PEOPLE
ON A PRE AUTHORIZATION LIST, AND
THEN SOMEHOW WITHOUT NECESSARILY
DETERMINING GIVING THEM THE
OPPORTUNITY TO ATTEST TO THEIR
CITIZENSHIP, WE'RE ESSENTIALLY
CREATING A BACK DOOR TO A BACK
END SYSTEM. I UNDERSTAND,
SENATOR, DO YOU WANT TO I MEAN,
THE PROBLEM IS WE GOT THIS
LANGUAGE LIKE A DAY OR TWO AGO.
SO IT'S BEEN, CORRECT. IT'S A
LITTLE DIFFICULT TO DIGEST,
WHAT? DO YOU HAVE A RESPONSE TO
THAT ON WHETHER PEOPLE ARE GOING
TO BE PUT ON SOME PRE
REGISTRATION LIST THAT MAY NOT
OTHERWISE BE ELIGIBLE? THAT IS
NOT THE INTENT. THE INTENT IS
ACTUALLY TO MAKE IT EVEN MORE
CLEAR. BUT YEAH. BUT THE WAY THE
BILL IS WRITTEN IT SAYS THAT THE
BASICALLY THEY'RE GOING TO BE
ASSUMED ELIGIBLE UNLESS THEY
PROVIDE SOME DOCUMENTATION
SHOWING THEY'RE NOT ELIGIBLE. SO
WHAT WOULD A WHAT WOULD SOMEONE
WHO IS NOT HERE LEGALLY SHOW
THAT THE DMV WOULD THEN CONCLUDE
THEY'RE NOT ELIGIBLE, SO THERE'S
ACTUALLY TWO FILTERS HERE. SO
UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM, THIS
WOULD BE ADDING A FILTER THAT
SAYS IF A PERSON PROVIDES A
GREEN CARD, IF A PERSON PROVIDES
A VISA, THOSE ARE LEGAL
IMMIGRANTS. YES. PEOPLE WHO ARE,
LEGALLY HERE WHO ARE GOING
THROUGH THE DMV PROCESS BUT ARE
NOT ELIGIBLE TO REGISTER TO VOTE
. LET'S ADD A FILTER FOR THOSE
PEOPLE. LET'S MAKE SURE THAT
ANYBODY WHO PROVIDES A GREEN
CARD, ANYBODY WHO PROVIDES A
VISA, DOESN'T HAVE VOTER
REGISTRATION INFORMATION
TRANSMITTED UNDER THE CURRENT
SYSTEM, BECAUSE THE CURRENT
SYSTEM WOULD ASK THOSE PEOPLE TO
REGISTER TO VOTE, AND THEY COULD
MAKE AN HONEST MISTAKE. OKAY,
THE PRE-APPROVED LIST WOULD ONLY
BE THE FLIP SIDE OF THAT. IF A
PERSON PROVIDES A US PASSPORT,
IF A PERSON PROVIDES A BIRTH
CERTIFICATE, THE ONLY THOSE
PEOPLE WHO ARE LOGGED AS
PROVIDING ONE OF THOSE DOCUMENTS
WOULD BE, WOULD BE ADDED TO THIS
LIST. THE SECRETARY OF STATE
COULD CREATE IT'S DISCRETIONARY
TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE. IT'S
NOT MANDATORY IN THE BILL. THE
FIRST FILTER APPLIES WHEN, THE
FIRST FILTER WOULD BE ADDED TO
THE CURRENT SYSTEM. SO RIGHT NOW
SOMEBODY'S GOING THROUGH, THE
DMV TRANSACTION, THOSE QUESTIONS
ARE ASKED TO EVERYBODY APPLYING
FOR A STANDARD LICENSE OR A REAL
ID. SO SOMEONE WHO'S HERE
UNLAWFULLY WOULD STILL BE ASKED
IF THEY WANT TO REGISTER. SO
PEOPLE WHO ARE UNDOCUMENTED ARE
GO INTO A SEPARATE CATEGORY OF
LICENSE CALLED AN AB 60 LICENSE,
WHICH IS NOT COVERED BY THE
MOTOR VOTER PROCESS. THOSE
PEOPLE ARE ALREADY EXCLUDED IN
ORDER TO GET A LICENSE IN
CALIFORNIA, YOU MUST PROVIDE
PROOF OF LAWFUL PRESENCE, A
STANDARD LICENSE OR A REAL ID.
OKAY, SO I KNOW I HAVE A REAL ID
I HAD TO PROVIDE, YOU KNOW,
BIRTH CERTIFICATE, ALL THAT
STUFF. SO FOR A NON REAL ID
DRIVER'S LICENSE, YOU'RE SAYING
THOSE PEOPLE ARE NOT OFFERED THE
OPPORTUNITY TO REGISTER TO VOTE
UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM?
THERE'S THREE CATEGORIES.
THERE'S REAL ID, THERE'S
STANDARD ID AND THERE'S AB 60.
AB 60 IS THE CATEGORY FOR PEOPLE
WHO ARE UNDOCUMENTED. THAT GROUP
IS EXCLUDED FULLY FROM MOTOR
VOTER. FOR PEOPLE IN THE
STANDARD AND REAL ID CATEGORIES,
THEY MUST PROVIDE PROOF OF
LAWFUL PRESENCE TO GET THEIR
DRIVER'S LICENSE. OKAY, SO I
GUESS THE CONFUSION IS ABOUT THE
PRE-AUTHORIZATION OR
REGISTRATION LIST. DO YOU HAVE
ANY, EXPLANATION, FURTHER
EXPLANATION ON HOW THIS IS GOING
TO WORK. SO I MEAN, THIS THIS
BILL ALLOWS THE PROCESS TO GET
WORKED OUT. AND SO THIS IS WHERE
WE'VE MADE THE CHANGES. THE
INTENT IS DEFINITELY TO HAVE A
PRE-APPROVED LIST, AS HAS BEEN
DESCRIBED IN TERMS OF THE
DIFFERENT BUCKETS, RIGHT. OF
THOSE THAT ARE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE.
THAT IS THE IDEA. I'M TRYING TO
UNDERSTAND WHAT THE GOAL IS
HERE. YEAH. ONE DAY YOU'RE GOING
TO PASS A BILL AND FLIP A
SWITCH. AND SO EVERYONE ON THE
PRE-APPROVED LIST WILL BE
AUTOMATICALLY REGISTERED. IS
THAT SORT OF THE GOAL HERE. SO
THE IDEA IS THE ULTIMATE GOAL IS
TO FIGURE OUT A WAY FOR THOSE
WHO ARE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE IN OUR
STATE, TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO
VOTE. AND SO THIS DOESN'T
NECESSARILY GET US THERE.
THERE'S, YOU KNOW, OVER 4
MILLION OF FOLKS ON THAT LIST.
THIS THE WHY DO YOU SAY THEY
DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO
REGISTER, TO VOTE, TO HAVE THE
ABILITY TO VOTE? Þ ABILITY TO
VOTE TO VOTE? OH, I SEE TO VOTE.
YOU AGREE THEY HAVE THE ABILITY
TO REGISTER RIGHT. AND SO WE
WANT TO MAKE IT EASIER TO
REGISTER TO VOTE. BUT DO YOU
THINK THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE
WHO JUST DON'T WANT TO REGISTER?
DO YOU THINK IT'S A RIGHT?
PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO NOT
PARTICIPATE IN THE IN THE VOTING
SYSTEM. A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T
WANT TO. I'LL BE HONEST WITH
YOU. I EVEN, YOU KNOW, JUST
CAMPAIGNING. PEOPLE DON'T I
DON'T WANT TO REGISTER, I DON'T
WANT TO VOTE. AND THAT I THINK,
THAT THAT'S A REAL FACTOR. WHY
THE NUMBERS ARE WHERE THEY ARE.
AND I THINK THIS BILL WILL STILL
ALLOW FOR AFFIRMATION. THAT WAS
VERY, VERY IMPORTANT TO THE
CHAIR. RIGHT. AND WE TALKED
SIGNIFICANTLY AT LENGTH TO THE
CHAIR ABOUT THIS. SO WHAT THIS
BILL DOES IS BASICALLY SAYS
YOU'RE ON A PREREGISTERED LIST
WHEN YOU'RE READY. IF YOU'RE
READY TO PULL THAT TRIGGER, YOU
CAN GO AND YOU CAN GO VOTE. AND
SO ALL THIS DOES IS CREATE THAT
PROCESS, THE VERIFICATION
PROCESS, TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU
CAN BE ON THIS LIST. WELL I LIKE
THE FIRST FILTER. I'M A LITTLE
UNEASY WITH, WITH THIS, THIS NEW
LIST WE'RE CREATING. AND MAYBE I
HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE CHAIR
BECAUSE I KNOW YOU. HOW WOULD
THIS WORK WITH THE AIR. YOU'VE
CHAMPIONED THE ERIC SYSTEM TO BE
USED AS A TOOL. IS THIS GOING TO
WORK WITH THAT OR SOMETHING
DIFFERENT OR I WOULD SUSPECT IT
COULD WORK TOGETHER. AND WHEN
I'M THINKING OF THIS PREAPPROVED
REGISTRATION LIST, I'M THINKING
OF WHAT WE CALL IN THE ELECTION
SPACE, THE PENDING FILE. WHERE
WHERE VOTERS THAT MAY BE MISSING
DATA OR SOMETHING ARE IN A FILE
THAT IS NOT ACTIVE, BUT IT WOULD
BE ACTIVE ONCE WE HEAR FROM THAT
VOTER TO CORRECT WHATEVER'S, IN
ERROR. SO, I WOULD THINK IT
WOULD WORK LIKE THAT. DOES ERIC
LOOK AT CITIZENSHIP STATUS?
ABSOLUTELY YES. YEAH. AND ERIC
WOULD, PROVIDE THE COUNTIES WITH
INFORMATION ON WHO'S MOVED AWAY
FROM THEIR COUNTY INTO THEIR
COUNTY AND THEN A LIST OF PEOPLE
WHO WERE, ELIGIBLE, BUT NOT
REGISTERED FOR THE COUNTY
REGISTER TO REACH OUT TO THEM.
AND WHAT'S THE STATUS OF ERIC?
ERIC IS IN SENATE
APPROPRIATIONS. I THINK. OKAY.
TEST. ALL RIGHT. THESE THINGS
ARE GOING TO PLAY TOGETHER. SO
IT'S CONFUSING, BUT I APPRECIATE
I'M PROBABLY GOING TO LAY OFF
TODAY UNTIL I GET A BETTER FEEL
OF WHAT'S GOING ON. THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER BERMAN. THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR. THANK YOU,
SENATOR LIMÓN, I'M STRUGGLING A
LOT WITH WITH THIS BILL. IT
DOESN'T YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T
HELP THAT WE DIDN'T GET THE
LANGUAGE UNTIL RECENTLY. AND
IT'S COMPLICATED. AND A LOT OF
US ARE STILL KIND OF SORTING
THROUGH WHAT THE, VARIOUS
IMPACTS ARE. AND THERE ARE STILL
A LOT OF UNKNOWNS, IN TERMS OF,
YOU KNOW, IF THIS GETS
IMPLEMENTED, HOW IT WOULD ROLL
OUT, I'M IMPRESSED BY THE GROUP
OF, OF ADVOCATES, THAT WAS HERE
IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL. I'M ALSO
STRUCK BY THE ADVOCATES THAT
HAVE SERIOUS AND LEGITIMATE
CONCERNS, AND, WHO HAVE BEEN
WORKING IN THIS SPACE IN
CALIFORNIA IN THIS COMMITTEE
HEARING ROOM FOR DECADES, NOT
NECESSARILY YOUTUBE PERSONALLY.
BUT YOUR ORGANIZATIONS AND I
KNOW OUR HAVE BEEN DOING
EVERYTHING THAT YOU CAN TO
REGISTER AS MANY PEOPLE AS
POSSIBLE. I KNOW, BECAUSE I'VE
CARRY LEGISLATION. I'M CURRENTLY
CARRYING LEGISLATION, AROUND THE
MOTOR VOTER, PROCESS AND
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE.
YOU KNOW HOW SERIOUSLY YOU TAKE
THIS WORK, HOW MUCH YOU WANT TO
REGISTER AS MANY PEOPLE AS
POSSIBLE IN THE SAFEST WAY
POSSIBLE AND WITHOUT UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES. AND, I HAVE A TON
OF TRUST AND FAITH IN YOUR
KNOWLEDGE AND, ANALYSIS OF THE
SITUATION. AND SO THAT MAKES ME
HAVE A LOT OF PAUSE IN TERMS OF
SOMETHING THAT'S A BIG UNKNOWN,
THAT WE DIDN'T REALLY GET THE
DETAILS ABOUT UNTIL A COUPLE OF
DAYS AGO. I WILL ALSO SAY, AND
I'VE TOLD THIS TO SOME FOLKS, IN
PRIVATE, THAT I'VE BEEN STRUCK
BY THE BROAD SWATH OF PROMINENT
LOBBYISTS, THAT HAVE REACHED OUT
TO ME IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL.
I'VE BEEN CHAIR OF THIS
COMMITTEE FOR FIVE AND A HALF
YEARS. I'VE SERVED ON IT AS A
MEMBER FOR A YEAR AND A HALF. I
THINK NOW I HAVE NEVER BEEN
APPROACHED BY THAT MANY
PROMINENT LOBBYISTS, ABOUT A
BILL, ABOUT ABOUT REGISTERING
FOLKS TO VOTE, OR I DON'T THINK
ANY BILL. IN THE ELECTION SPACE.
I USUALLY GET THAT IN THE BNP
SPACE, AND THAT JUST, CAUSES ME
TO WONDER WHY, AND WHO'S BEHIND
IT. AND, YOU KNOW, MY TEAM HAD A
LITTLE TROUBLE TRYING TO FIGURE
OUT WHO ALL WAS BEHIND IT. I GOT
A LITTLE CLARITY ON THAT THIS
MORNING. I STILL HAVE SOME WORK
AND RESEARCH. I WANT TO DO, ON
THE FLIP SIDE, THE BEST THING
THIS BILL HAS GOING FOR IT IS
ITS AUTHOR, WHO HAS BEEN A CLOSE
FRIEND OF MINE FOR THE SEVEN AND
A HALF YEARS THAT WE'VE BEEN IN
THE LEGISLATURE AND WILL BE FOR
DECADES MORE. SO I AM STRUGGLING
, AND I WAS HOPING I'D KIND OF
COME TO A CONCLUSION WHILE I WAS
TALKING. EVERYTHING OUT, AND I
HAVEN'T YET. BUT, IF I DO VOTE
FOR THE BILL, IT WILL BE WITH A
LOT OF RESERVATION, AND IT WILL
BE WITH AN ADMONITION TO MY GOOD
FRIEND, AND HER SUPPORTERS THAT
YOU WORK WITH THE OPPOSITION. I
MIGHT WANT TO HAVE A MEETING
OVER THE SUMMER RECESS, TO GET A
BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF SOME,
YOU KNOW, DETAILS AND ALSO SOME
MOTIVATIONS, TO, TO UNDERSTAND
WHY, YOU KNOW, WHY YOU ARE RIGHT
AND WHY THE OPPONENTS ARE WRONG
AND, AND PROBABLY, IT'S A LOT
MORE GREAT THAN THAT. AND THEN
WHAT YOU PLAN TO DO TO ADDRESS
THEIR CONCERNS, SO I'M GOING TO
WAIT UNTIL THE CHAIR TALKS
BECAUSE I RESPECT ALL THE,
EXPERIENCE SHE HAS IN THIS
SPACE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M
GOING TO DO RIGHT NOW, BUT I
HAVE A LOT OF CONCERN, AND
REALLY WANT TO, IMPRESS UPON THE
SUPPORTERS OF THE BILL YOU
HAVEN'T ADDRESSED THOSE CONCERNS
YET, AND YOU NEED TO DO MORE TO
DO THAT, QUICKLY. THANKS. THANK
YOU. AND ASSEMBLY MEMBER BENNETT
, I'D LIKE TO ADD ONE OTHER
CAUTION THAT HASN'T BEEN BROUGHT
UP YET, AND THAT IS THAT THERE
IS CERTAINLY A CONCERTED EFFORT
NATIONALLY TO TRY TO IDENTIFY
EVIDENCE OF VOTER FRAUD. AND
THAT PLAYS INTO A, YOU KNOW, A
VERY, IT A VERY DANGEROUS, SORT
OF TENDENCY THE ALMOST THE
BEGINNING OF, OF, WELL, JUST SAY
THAT VERY DANGEROUS TENDENCY.
AND SO WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL
THAT WE DON'T DO SOMETHING THAT
INADVERTENTLY ALLOWS SOMEBODY TO
SAY, LOOK, SEE THIS? THE X
NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN CALIFORNIA
WERE NOT CITIZENS, AND YET THEY
WERE ABLE TO VOTE, THAT, THAT
THAT COULD GO A LONG WAYS AND
HAVE SOME VERY SIGNIFICANT
IMPACTS, WHICH IS WHY I ALSO,
ENCOURAGED YOU SO MUCH TO TRY TO
WORK WITH THE OPPOSITION AND
ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES AS THIS
BILL, IF THIS BILL MOVES
FORWARD. THANK YOU. YES, YOU
MAY. ASSEMBLY MEMBER BERMAN I
HATE TO GO TWO ROUNDS, BUT ONE
THING I FORGOT TO MENTION IS,
FRANKLY, CONCERNS ABOUT OUR
ABILITY TO IMPLEMENT IT. AND THE
ABILITY, ESPECIALLY WHILE THE
DMV I KNOW HAS BEEN STRUGGLING
WITH NEW MODE OF VOTER, YOU KNOW
, I HAVE SERIOUS CONCERNS THAT
WE'RE THROWING A LOT OF WRENCHES
INTO THE GEARS AT A TIME WHEN WE
REALLY NEED TO BE FOCUSING ON ON
WHAT WE'VE CURRENTLY TASKED THEM
WITH DOING, AND SO THAT'S JUST
ANOTHER KIND OF COMPONENT THAT I
WOULD LOVE TO GET MORE FEEDBACK.
AND, YOU KNOW, I KNOW THE
LANGUAGE HASN'T BEEN OUT FOR
THAT LONG, BUT I WOULD LOVE TO
GET MORE FEEDBACK FROM THE
PEOPLE THAT WE ARE ASKING TO DO
THINGS WITH THIS BILL, TO, YOU
KNOW WHAT? WHAT THEY THINK, AND
WHAT CONCERNS OR LACK OF
CONCERNS THEY HAVE. SO I WOULD
JUST REALLY WANT TO RAISE THAT
UP THAT WE CAN HAVE THE BEST OF
INTENTIONS, BUT IF WE DON'T HAVE
THE ABILITIES AND CAPABILITIES,
THEN, THEN WE'RE REALLY, SETTING
OURSELVES BACK, AND I THINK WE
DON'T HAVE A GREAT TRACK RECORD,
WHEN IT COMES TO KIND OF BIG
TECHNOLOGICAL, PROJECTS, HERE IN
SADLY, YOU KNOW, IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. SO THAT'S ANOTHER
AREA WHERE I HAVE SOME CONCERNS.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS
FROM MEMBERS ON THE COMMITTEE
SEEING? NONE. SENATOR, YOU MAY
CLOSE. THANK YOU. AND, YOU KNOW,
I WANT TO THANK ALL OF THE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS FOR ALL OF THE
FEEDBACK, CERTAINLY AS I
STARTED, YOU KNOW, WE AND I
RECOGNIZE THAT YOU HAVE NOT HAD
SOME TIME TO SIT WITH THIS, AND
IT REQUIRES MORE WORK. SO THERE
IS CERTAINLY A COMMITMENT ON MY
END TO DO THAT WORK, TO WORK
VERY CLOSELY WITH THE CHAIR,
WITH THE COMMITTEE, TO BE ABLE
TO DEVELOP THAT, IT SHOULD THIS
BILL MOVE FORWARD TODAY, WE
SHARE THE SAME CONCERNS, AND WE
WANT THIS TO BE THE BEST SYSTEM.
AND I WILL SAY, YOU KNOW, THIS
IS MY SECOND YEAR WORKING ON
THIS ISSUE, IN TWO BILLS, THIS
YOU KNOW, ISSUE WITH TWO BILLS.
AND I REGRET THAT, YOU KNOW, AS
MUCH AS I HAVE RESPECT FOR THE
OPPOSITION, THEY'VE NOT BROUGHT
EVEN A COMMA THAT I CAN AMEND
INTO THE BILL. AND SO I THINK
IT'S REALLY DIFFICULT TO FIGURE
OUT HOW TO MOVE FORWARD, WHERE
WE DON'T HAVE AMENDMENTS, WHERE
WE DON'T HAVE IDEAS THAT ARE
ANYTHING BUT WE DON'T LIKE THIS.
AND SO I WILL CONTINUE TO WORK,
WITH THE OPPOSITION AS I HAVE.
WE'VE HAD MANY OF MEETINGS, I
THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT WE
HAVE HEARD FROM THIS COMMITTEE
HOW IMPORTANT IT IS TO DO THAT.
AND SO WE WILL DO THAT AND WE
WILL COMMIT TO THAT. BUT I WANT
TO MAKE SURE THAT FOLKS KNOW IT
HASN'T BEEN BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T
TRIED. IT HASN'T BEEN BECAUSE WE
HAVEN'T PUT TIME INTO IT. IT
HASN'T BEEN BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T
HAD MEETINGS. AND SO I AM
COMMITTED, YOU KNOW, TO, TO WORK
WITH IF THIS BILL MOVES FORWARD
TO DO THAT WORK, THIS BILL WOULD
CREATE THE PROCESS. IT WOULDN'T,
YOU KNOW, AND SO SOME OF THE
BLANKS THAT YOU HAVE HEARD TODAY
AND THAT YOU HAVE IDENTIFIED ARE
BLANKS THAT WE WANT TO, ALSO
FIGURE OUT AS IT MOVES FORWARD.
BUT LIKE I SAID, WE WILL BE
WORKING CLOSELY WITH THE
COMMITTEE, AND WITH THE CHAIR,
OF COURSE. AND WE HAVE AGREED
THAT AS THIS BILL, SHOULD THIS
BILL MOVE FORWARD, IF IT
REQUIRES FURTHER CONVERSATIONS
TO BRING IT BACK, THAT IS
SOMETHING THAT IS IN YOU KNOW,
THE REALM OF REALITY FOR THIS
BILL AS IT MOVES FORWARD, I AM
GRATEFUL TO OUR SPONSORS TO, YOU
KNOW, INCREDIBLE NUMBER OF, YOU
KNOW, 100 PLUS ORGANIZATIONS
THAT ARE SUPPORTING THIS BILL,
WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE PROGRESS.
WE COME TODAY KNOWING THAT WE'RE
NOT GOING TO GET OUR ULTIMATE
GOAL WHERE WE STARTED LAST YEAR
WITH THIS BILL. THIS IS A STEP
FORWARD, BUT IT ISN'T GETTING US
TO THE ULTIMATE GOAL. BUT WE
FEEL IT'S A NEEDED STEP, AND SO
WITH THAT, I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR AN AYE VOTE. SO I JUST WANT
TO THANK THE AUTHOR FOR WORKING
WITH ME AND MY STAFF ON THIS
BILL. IT'S BEEN QUITE A JOURNEY.
I DO BELIEVE THE AUTHOR AND I
AND, ALL THE GROUPS IN SUPPORT
AND OPPOSITION ALL HAVE THE SAME
GOAL TO IMPROVE VOTER
REGISTRATION FOR ALL
CALIFORNIANS. AND WHILE I HAVE
MANY QUESTIONS ON HOW THESE NEW
MODIFICATIONS TO THE MOTOR VOTER
PROGRAM WILL OPERATE, HOW DMV IS
GOING TO BE CAPABLE OF DOING
THIS RIGHT NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT
PROBABLY 2030 OR BEYOND, THE
SECRETARY OF STATE GETTING
FEEDBACK FROM THEM. AND, AND AS
I STATED TO YOU AND I'VE SAID
BEFORE, IS I DO FEEL VERY
STRONGLY THAT VOTER REGISTRATION
SHOULD BE SOMETHING THAT A VOTER
CONSENTS TO DO AND KNOWS THAT
THEY'RE DOING THAT. SO I THINK
WE COULD SET UP SOME PROCEDURES
FOR THAT WITH THIS PREAPPROVED
VOTER REGISTRATION LIST. AND,
AND THIS BILL WILL BE, DO PASS
AS AMENDED AND REREFERRED TO THE
TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE. SO
THERE'S ANOTHER POLICY COMMITTEE
WHERE WE CAN BE DISCUSSING AND
GIVING FEEDBACK TO THEM AS WELL.
SO I AM TODAY RECOMMENDING
SUPPORT FOR THIS BILL TO ALLOW
FOR THOSE CONTINUED EVALUATIONS
AND DISCUSSIONS FROM ALL THE
STAKEHOLDERS. AND I HAVE A
COMMITMENT FROM THE AUTHOR TO DO
THAT. SO WITH THAT, DO I HAVE A
MOTION? I HAVE A MOTION BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER CERVANTES. I
HAVE A SECOND BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
BENNETT. SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL ON SB 299. LIMÓN
PELLERIN, A PELLERIN I LACKEY.
LACKEY NOT VOTING BENNETT
BENNETT I BERMAN VERY VERY VERY
CAUTIOUS I BERMAN CAUTIOUS I
CERVANTES. CERVANTES I EASILY
NOT VOTING EASILY NOT VOTING LOW
WEBER NOT WEBER NOT VOTING. WE
WILL PUT THAT BILL ON CALL FOR
OUR ABSENT MEMBERS. THANK YOU
THANK YOU THANK YOU. WE ARE NOW
MOVING ON TO THANK YOU TO
SENATOR HURTADO FOR GRACIOUSLY
ALLOWING OUR, SENATOR NEWMAN TO
COME AND PRESENT HIS SCA ONE. TO
USE THE BATHROOM.
DO YOU WANT TO DO IT? LOOKS LIKE
YOU'RE GOING IN OKAY. SOUNDS
GOOD. PROBABLY CAN DO QUICK.
LOOKS HOPEFULLY WE'VE GOT A. YOU
KNOW, EVERYONE. SHE'S A STRANGER
. THE SECRETARY WAS HOLDING
HERSELF BACK FROM PARTICIPATING
IN. I I KNEW YOU GUYS WERE GOING
TO SAY THAT. I WAS LIKE, OH, SHE
DRESSED VERY INCONSPICUOUSLY.
YES. I DIDN'T PUT ON ANYTHING.
JUST BLACK. I GUESS HUMANS DO.
ARE WE WAITING? SENATOR HURTADO,
YOU'VE CHANGED. SO I THOUGHT WE
WERE WAITING FOR THE CHAIR. I'M
SORRY. YOU MAY GO, VICE CHAIR.
THANK YOU, MR. VICE CHAIR,
MEMBERS, THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT SENATE
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ONE,
INTRODUCED AT THE BEGINNING OF
LAST YEAR, WHICH, IF PASSED BY
THE LEGISLATURE AND APPROVED BY
THE VOTERS, WILL ENSURE THAT
STATEWIDE AND LEGISLATIVE
RECALLS IN CALIFORNIA ARE FAIR,
DEMOCRATIC AND EFFECTIVE BY
IMPLEMENTING A SIMPLE BUT MUCH
NEEDED CHANGE TO THE RECALL
PROCESS THAT WILL SHIELD THE
PROCESS FROM ABUSE AND POLITICAL
GAMESMANSHIP WHILE STILL
PRESERVING THE RECALL. AS THE
ULTIMATE EXPRESSION OF DIRECT
DEMOCRACY AND ELECTORAL
ACCOUNTABILITY. AS VIVIDLY
ILLUSTRATED BY THE MOST RECENT
STATEWIDE RECALL EFFORT.
CALIFORNIA'S RECALL PROCESS IN
ITS CURRENT FORM IS PROBLEMATIC.
ARTICLE TWO, SECTION 15 OF THE
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
PRESCRIBES THAT A STATE LEVEL
RECALL BALLOT BE PRESENTED TO
VOTERS IN THE FORM OF TWO
CONJOINED QUESTIONS, AND A AND
A, B QUESTION A WHETHER A
MAJORITY OF VOTERS BELIEVES THAT
THE STATE LEVEL ELECTED
OFFICIALS SHOULD BE RECALLED,
AND B THE QUESTION AS TO WHO
SHOULD REPLACE THAT OFFICIAL IN
THE EVENT OF MAJORITY SUPPORT
FOR A RECALL. SCA ONE, WHEN
APPROVED AS A BALLOT MEASURE BY
CALIFORNIA'S VOTERS, WOULD AMEND
HOW STATE LEVEL RECALL ELECTIONS
ARE CONDUCTED SO THAT ONLY ONE
QUESTION, QUESTION A, WOULD
APPEAR ON THE BALLOT SHOULD THE
OFFICIAL IN QUESTION BE RECALLED
YES OR NO, AND THAT THE SECOND
QUESTION BE WOULD BE ELIMINATED.
A RECALL, I THINK WE WOULD ALL
AGREE, SHOULD BE A REFERENDUM ON
WHETHER AN ELECTED OFFICIAL
ACCUSED OF MALFEASANCE OR OF
OTHERWISE BETRAYING THE PUBLIC
TRUST, STILL RETAINS THE FAITH
AND CONFIDENCE OF HIS OR HER
CONSTITUENTS, NOT AN OPPORTUNITY
TO MANIPULATE THE ELECTORAL
SYSTEM AND THEREBY SUBVERT THE
RESULTS OF NORMAL ELECTORAL
PROCESSES. IN ELIMINATING THE
SECOND QUESTION, SCA ONE WILL
REMOVE THE INCENTIVE FOR
ENGINEERING RECALLS THAT SEEK TO
DO SO IN REMOVING QUESTION B
FROM THE RECALL BALLOT AND
MAKING YOUR RECALL VOTE A SIMPLE
YES OR NO AFFAIR. CALIFORNIA
WOULD JOIN SEVEN OTHER STATES IN
PROVIDING FOR A RECALL PROCESS
THAT IS DELIBERATE AND
PURPOSEFUL, WHILE BEING LESS
SUSCEPTIBLE TO POLITICAL
GAMESMANSHIP THAN OUR CURRENT
SYSTEM. THE EXPERIENCE OF THE
MOST RECENT RECALL EFFORT MADE
CLEAR TO CALIFORNIA'S VOTERS THE
FLAWS AND FRUSTRATIONS OF OUR
CURRENT SYSTEM. POLLING FROM
BEFORE THE 2021 RECALL VOTE ON
GOVERNOR GAVIN NEWSOM FOUND THAT
69% OF VOTERS CONSIDERED THE
RECALL THAT PARTICULAR RECALL A
WASTE OF TAXPAYER MONEY, AND 68%
WANTED FIXES TO OUR EXISTING
RECALL PROCESS. THESE SENTIMENTS
WERE MORE THAN VALIDATED WHEN
THE RECALL FAILED, WHEN THE WITH
THE GOVERNOR ENJOYING A MARGIN
OF VICTORY VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL
TO HIS ORIGINAL ELECTION RESULTS
IN 2018. TO THE FRAMERS OF THE
INITIATIVE, THE REFERENDUM AND
THE RECALL IN 1911. HERE IN
THESE HALLS, THESE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS WERE
INTENDED TO ALLOW FOR DIRECT
REFORMIST ACTIONS BY THE PEOPLE
AT A TIME WHEN THE POLITICAL
DECK AT THAT TIME SEEMED ALL TOO
OFTEN STACKED IN FAVOR OF
SPECIAL INTERESTS AT THE EXPENSE
OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST. IT'S
IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THESE
ESSENTIAL FEATURES OF STATE
GOVERNANCE WERE DEVISED AND
PROMULGATED DURING AN ERA VERY
DIFFERENT THAN THE CURRENT TIME,
WHEN APPLIED IN THE CONTEXT OF
TODAY'S POLARIZED AND
CONTENTIOUS POLITICS, THE RECALL
PROCESS IN ITS CURRENT FORM,
OFFERS BAD POLITICAL ACTORS
OUTSIZED INCENTIVES FOR
TARGETING AN ELECTED OFFICIAL
WITH WHOM THEY DISAGREE IN ORDER
TO ACHIEVE THROUGH A SPECIAL
RECALL ELECTION, WHAT THEY
OTHERWISE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO
ACHIEVE UNDER NORMAL ELECTORAL
CONDITIONS. IN OFFERING
CALIFORNIA'S VOTERS THE
OPPORTUNITY TO ELIMINATE THE
SECOND QUESTION, SCA WILL UNDO
THE EFFECTIVE WEAPONIZATION OF
OUR RECALL PROCESS WHILE STILL
PROPERLY PRESERVING ITS
ESSENTIAL ROLE AS A VALIDATOR OF
POPULAR CONSENT AND,
IMPORTANTLY, A TOOL FOR
ENFORCING ETHICAL ACCOUNTABILITY
AMONG ELECTED OFFICIALS. IN THE
CASE OF A SUCCESSFUL
GUBERNATORIAL RECALL DURING THE
FIRST TWO YEARS OF A GOVERNOR'S
TERM, THIS PROVISION WOULD WOULD
REPLACE, WOULD PROVIDE FOR A
REPLACEMENT ELECTION THAT WOULD
BE CONSOLIDATED WITH THE NEXT
REGULAR REGULARLY SCHEDULED
STATEWIDE PRIMARY OR GENERAL
ELECTION. IF A RECALL IS
SUCCESSFUL IN THE LAST TWO YEARS
OF A GUNNER'S TERM, THE
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR WOULD SERVE
AS THE GOVERNOR FOR THE
REMAINDER OF THAT TERM UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF SCA ONE. IN THE
CASE OF A SUCCESSFUL RECALL OF A
STATE LEVEL OFFICEHOLDER OTHER
THAN THE GOVERNOR, THE RECALLED
OFFICIAL WOULD BE REPLACED IN
THE SAME MANNER AS IF THEY
HAPPENED TO RESIGN OR LEAVE
OFFICE FOR ANY OTHER REASON. FOR
STATEWIDE OFFICERS, SUCH AS THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OR THE
TREASURER, THE GOVERNOR WOULD
APPOINT A REPLACEMENT FOR THE
REMAINDER OF THEIR TERM FOR
STATE LEGISLATORS, THE POSITION
WOULD BE LEFT VACANT UNTIL A
SPECIAL ELECTION COULD BE HELD
IN MUCH THE SAME MANNER AS IF
ANY OF US WERE TO LEAVE EARLY
FOR WHATEVER REASON. IN SURVEYS,
A MAJORITY OF CALIFORNIA'S
VOTERS HAVE CLEARLY INDICATED
THAT THEY WANT TO SEE PRECISELY
SUCH AN APPROACH TO RECALL
REFORM ON THE BALLOT. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU TAKE
THE FIRST STEP TOWARD GRANTING
VOTERS THAT THAT WISH WITH YOUR
AYE. VOTE TODAY WITH ME TO
TESTIFY TODAY ARE CALIFORNIA
SECRETARY OF STATE, THE
HONORABLE DOCTOR SHIRLEY WEBER,
AND DORA ROSE. ON BEHALF OF THE
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS. THANK
YOU SO MUCH. AND IT'S A GREAT
HONOR TO HAVE OUR SECRETARY OF
STATE IN THE ROOM. SO, DOCTOR
WEBER, YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM
CHAIR. AND MEMBERS OF THE
ELECTION COMMITTEE. I'M JUST
GRATEFUL YOU DIDN'T CALL ME TO
TALK AT THE OTHER BILL THAT JUST
PASSED, I TRIED TO DRESS IN
SOMETHING THAT WAS INCONSPICUOUS
SO THAT YOU WOULD NOT KNOW WHO I
WAS, BUT IT DIDN'T SEEM TO WORK.
MY DAUGHTER WINKED HER EYE AT ME
SO SHE GAVE ME AWAY, AS A
SPONSOR OF SCA ONE, WE ARE HERE
TO UNDERSCORE HOW NECESSARY IT
IS TO MINIMIZE THE STATE EXPENSE
TO AVOID POTENTIALLY AND
UNDEMOCRATIC OUTCOMES, AND TO
MINIMIZE CONFUSION ON THE PART
OF CALIFORNIA VOTERS. CALIFORNIA
INCURRED SIGNIFICANT EXPENSES IN
THE ATTEMPT IN 2021. RECALL OF
GOVERNOR NEWSOM. ACCORDING TO
THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE PRICE
TAG FOR THE STATE WAS OVER $275
MILLION. NOT INCLUDING THE 175
MILLION SPENT BY CAMPAIGNS
THEMSELVES, ONLY 20 STATES,
INCLUDING CALIFORNIA, HAVE LAWS
GOVERNING RECALL OR REMOVAL
PROCEDURES. TWO OF THOSE STATES,
IDAHO AND VIRGINIA, HAVE ENACTED
THE RECALL MEASURES SINCE, SINCE
BASICALLY THE TIME SCA WAS
INTRODUCED. SO THEY HAVE NEW
LAWS. VIRGINIA LAW IS NOT A TRUE
RECALL MEASURE, BUT PROVIDES FOR
REMOVAL OF STATE OFFICERS BY THE
COURT FOR SPECIFIED OFFENSES.
RECALL ELECTIONS ARE RELATIVELY
RARE OUTSIDE OF CALIFORNIA, BUT
IN THE GOLDEN STATE HERE, SINCE
1913, WE'VE HAD 179 RECALL
ATTEMPTS OF A STATE TO REMOVAL
OF A STATE OFFICER OFFICIAL,
MANY OF THEM JUDGES, AND 11
RECALL ATTEMPTS FOCUSING ON THE
STATEWIDE OFFICE HOLDERS,
INCLUDING OUR CURRENT GOVERNOR.
CALIFORNIANS ARE UNIQUE IN THAT
IT DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY
PARTICULAR RATIONALE FOR
DEMANDING A RECALL, AND HAS
AMONG THE LOWEST THRESHOLD FOR
TRIGGERING RECALL ELECTIONS.
VALID VALIDATED SIGNATURES FROM
12% OF THE NUMBER OF VOTERS IN
THE LAST ELECTION FOR THE OFFICE
IN QUESTION. MANY OF OUR STATES
HAVE A RECALL PROCESS AT AT
LEAST A MINIMUM THRESHOLD OF 25%
OF THE VOTERS, ACCORDING TO OUR
2022 REPORT ISSUED BY THE LITTLE
HOOVER COMMISSION. REFORMING THE
RECALL CALIFORNIA'S CURRENT
RECALL PROCEDURES OPEN THE DOOR
TO UNDEMOCRATIC OUTCOMES BY
ALLOWING A REPLACEMENT CANDIDATE
TO WIN OFFICE BY RECEIVING FEWER
VOTES THAN THE INCUMBENT, AND
GIVEN THE FREQUENCY OF RECALL
EFFORTS. THE REPORT RAISED
CONCERNS THAT THE RECALL IS
SUBJECT TO ABUSE. SCA ONE OFFERS
REFORM THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH
THE COMMISSION'S, WITH THE
COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION.
INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, DURING
THIS TIME FRAME WE HAD A NUMBER
OF HEARINGS THAT TOOK PLACE AND
IN THE LEGISLATURE, NOT ONLY
JOINT HEARINGS AMONG THE VARIOUS
LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEES, I HAD
ACCESS TO SOME FORMER MEMBERS
AND JUDGES THAT I MET WITH ME
CONCERNING LOOKING AT IT IN
TERMS OF THE AND WE ALSO WORK
WITH THE HOOVER COMMISSION. SO
WE HAD A NUMBER OF PERSONS
ACTUALLY ADDRESSING SO MANY
ISSUES. IT'S INTERESTING THAT
WITH ALL THE FLAWS, CALIFORNIA
WANTED ITS RECALL ELECTION,
PEOPLE WANTED ME TO CHANGE IT. I
SAID IF IT WAS UP TO ME, I
WOULDN'T HAVE IT AT ALL. I WOULD
USE THE PROCESS OF VOTING. IT'S
HOW YOU PUT PEOPLE IN AND OUT OF
OFFICE. I WOULD ALSO PUT IN SOME
STANDARDS BY WHICH YOU COULD
REMOVE PEOPLE, RATHER THAN JUST
HAVE THIS OPEN ENDED THING THAT
TOOK PLACE, BUT THAT WAS NOT
WHAT CALIFORNIA WANTED.
CALIFORNIA WANTED THE ABILITY TO
HAVE EASY ACCESS TO REMOVAL OF
OFFICERS. AND I WAS NOT ABOUT TO
UNDO THE WISHES OF CALIFORNIA BY
PUTTING IN THE WEBER LAW. SO AS
A RESULT, WE DECIDED THAT WE
WOULD BASICALLY ADHERE TO THOSE
WISHES. THEY WANT TO BE ABLE TO
RECALL PEOPLE. THEY DON'T WANT
THE RESTRICTIONS THAT ARE THERE.
AND AS A RESULT, CALIFORNIA IS
ONE OF THE FEW STATES THAT STILL
HAS RECALL AND DOESN'T HAVE ANY
STANDARDS BY WHICH PEOPLE ARE
RECALLED THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO
COMMIT ANY KIND OF CRIME OR
ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE. SO THIS
MEASURE UPDATES OUR PROCESS BY
FOR RECALLING A GOVERNOR BY
MAKING THESE CRITICAL CHANGES.
AND THESE WERE THE CHANGES THAT
ACTUALLY PEOPLE AGREED UPON,
ELIMINATING THE NEED FOR VOTERS
TO CHOOSE A SUCCESSOR FOR RECALL
A GOVERNOR, BECAUSE PEOPLE FELT
THAT THAT WOULD THAT OPENED UP
ALL KINDS OF QUESTIONS RATHER
THAN FOCUSING ON THE INDIVIDUAL,
LIMITING THE QUESTION, BUT PUT
BEFORE THEM OF WHETHER OR NOT
THE GOVERNOR SHOULD BE RECALLED.
IF THE RECALL THEN SUCCEEDS, THE
POSITION REMAINS VACANT UNTIL
FILL. IT REPEALS THE EXISTING
PROHIBITION AGAINST THE OFFICER
BEING A CANDIDATE TO FILL THAT
OFFICE AND A SPECIAL ELECTION,
AND IT PROHIBITS THE APPOINTMENT
OF THAT SAME OFFICER TO FILL THE
VACANCY THAT HE OR SHE HAS BEEN
RECALLED FROM. IF A GOVERNOR IS
RECALLED AFTER SERVING MORE THAN
TWO YEARS OF HIS OR HER TERM,
SCA PROVIDES THE LIEUTENANT
GOVERNOR WITH AUTOMATIC WILL
AUTOMATICALLY BECOME GOVERNOR
FOR THE DURATION OF THE
UNEXPIRED TERM, AVOIDING THE
NEED FOR A SPECIAL ELECTION
UNDER THAT SECTION, FINALLY, IT
ALSO CALLS FOR SPECIAL ELECTION
ONLY IF A GOVERNOR IS REMOVED
FROM OFFICE. DURING THE FIRST
TWO YEARS OF HIS TERM, THE
SPECIAL ELECTION WOULD THEN BE
CONSOLIDATED WITH THE STATEWIDE
PRIMARY ELECTION OR A STATEWIDE
GENERAL ELECTION. I RESPECTFULLY
ASKED YOUR SUPPORT FOR THIS
PARTICULAR MEASURE. I THINK IT
ANSWERS THE QUESTIONS THAT WE
HAD ABOUT PEOPLE RUNNING AND
PUTTING THEIR BET OUT TO
BASICALLY KNOCK SOMEONE OUT. WE
HAD, WHAT, 50 PEOPLE RUNNING FOR
GOVERNOR LAST TIME WHO WANTED TO
BE GOVERNOR, FILL IN CANDIDATES.
AND SO PEOPLE WERE TRYING TO
DECIDE IF THIS IS WHAT I WANTED
THAT I WANT. THIS WOULD
BASICALLY ANSWER THE QUESTION,
SHOULD THE RECALL THE PERSON
USING OUR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
WHO IS SUPPOSED TO STEP IN IN
CASE OF AN ABSENCE AND BEING
ABLE TO HAVE AN ELECTION, IF
NECESSARY, IN A REASONABLE
AMOUNT OF TIME? I APPRECIATE
YOUR TESTIMONY. THANK YOU. WE'LL
NOW MOVE ON TO I DON'T KNOW HOW
YOU FOLLOW. OKAY. AND I AND YOU
GOT TWO MINUTES TO DO IT. IT
GOOD MORNING, CHAIR MEMBERS. I'M
STILL DORA ROSE WITH THE LEAGUE
OF WOMEN VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA.
HERE'S A CO-SPONSOR. AND IN
SUPPORT OF SCA ONE. SO, YOU
KNOW, WHILE STATE RECALLS
QUALIFYING FOR THE BALLOT ARE
RARE, IT'S CLEAR THAT THE
CURRENT PROCESS IS SORELY IN
NEED OF REFORM. RIGHT NOW, OUR
STATE'S MOST IMPORTANT LEADERS
CAN BE PICKED AT LOW TURNOUT OFF
CYCLE ELECTIONS WITH
NON-REPRESENTATIVE ELECTORATES.
THAT MEANS THAT ELECTIONS ARE
LESS LIKELY TO INCLUDE BLACK,
BROWN, INDIGENOUS, LOW INCOME
AND YOUTH, AND REPLACEMENTS CAN
BE PUT INTO OFFICE WITH WITH LOW
PLURALITY SUPPORT RATHER THAN
THE MAJORITY OF VOTERS IN THE
ELECTION. ALSO, WHAT WE FOUND AT
THE LEAGUE IS THAT VOTERS HAVE
EXPRESSED DEEP CONFUSION OVER
WHETHER THEY'RE EVEN PERMITTED
TO VOTE FOR A REPLACEMENT
CANDIDATE IF THEY VOTE NO ON THE
FIRST QUESTION. AND THIS REALLY
CONFUSING SYSTEM CAN CAUSE
PEOPLE TO REFRAIN FROM ANSWERING
THAT SECOND QUESTION,
CONTRIBUTING TO AN UNDERVOTE FOR
THE REPLACEMENT CANDIDATES. SO
THIS JUST ISN'T A PARTIZAN
ISSUE. IT'S NOT ABOUT ABOUT WHO
WINS. IT'S ABOUT MAKING THE
PROCESS FAIR AND SENSIBLE FOR
EVERYONE. THE RECALL ITSELF IS A
REALLY IMPORTANT TOOL, ALLOWING
VOTERS TO HOLD ELECTED OFFICIALS
ACCOUNTABLE, BUT THE WAY THAT WE
EXECUTE IT HAS GOT TO BE
REFORMED IN A WAY THAT PRESERVES
THE SPIRIT OF DIRECT DEMOCRACY
AND MAINTAINS THE RECALL FOR
WHEN IT'S REALLY, TRULY NEEDED.
SO SCA ONE, AS HAS BEEN
INDICATED, WOULD REMOVE THAT
SECOND QUESTION FROM THE BALLOT
FOR ALL STATEWIDE AND
LEGISLATIVE RECALL ELECTIONS. IT
WOULD REQUIRE THAT IN THE EVENT
OF A SUCCESSFUL RECALL OF
REPLACEMENT, CANDIDATE IS
SELECTED WITH MAJORITY SUPPORT
IN A SEPARATE SUBSEQUENT
ELECTION, IT WILL ALSO ENSURE
THAT THESE SUBSEQUENT ELECTIONS
FOR GUBERNATORIAL AND OTHER
STATEWIDE CANDIDATES HAPPEN ON
CYCLE, WHEN THE TURNOUT IS
HIGHER AND THE ELECTORATE IS
MORE REPRESENTATIVE. SCA ONE
WILL MAINTAIN VOTERS POWER TO
HOLD OFFICEHOLDERS ACCOUNTABLE
AND REMOVE THOSE WHO BETRAY THE
PUBLIC TRUST, WHILE
SIMULTANEOUSLY FILTERING OUT
POLITICAL, POLITICIZED RECALL
ATTEMPTS THAT ALLOW THE RECALL
TO BE USED TO UNDERCUT THE WILL
OF THE MAJORITY AND DEGRADE
DEMOCRATIC, LEGITIMATE
LEGITIMACY. WE ASK THAT YOU
ALLOW THIS TO GO TO THE THANK
YOU SO MUCH BALLOT FOR THE
VOTERS. THANK YOU SO MUCH. ARE
THERE ANY WITNESSES IN THE ROOM
THAT WANT TO ADD ON AS
SUPPORTERS BY COMING UP TO THE
MIC STATING YOUR NAME,
ORGANIZATION AND POSITION,
PLEASE, ON BEHALF OF LIEUTENANT
GOVERNOR ELENI KOUNALAKIS AND
SUPPORT, THANK. GOOD MORNING
AGAIN, JONATHAN MENDOCINE WITH
CALIFORNIA COMMON CAUSE VERY
PROUD TO CO-SPONSOR AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. ERIC PAYNE, THE
CENTRAL VALLEY URBAN INSTITUTE
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ARE THERE
ANY WITNESSES IN THE ROOM WHO
ARE OUR PRIMARY WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION TO THIS SCA, SEEING
NONE. ANYONE IN THE ROOM WANTING
TO JUST GO TO THE MIC AND
EXPRESS YOUR OPPOSITION TO THIS
BILL, SEEING NONE, I WILL BRING
IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE FOR ANY
COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS. AND JUST
A LITTLE HEADS UP THAT WE STILL
HAVE FOUR MORE BILLS TODAY. I
HAVE A QUESTION. YES. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER. SALIH, SENATOR. SO WHY
DO YOU THINK THE SYSTEM IS
CURRENTLY WEAPONIZED? I MEAN,
JUST BECAUSE WE HAD ONE FAILED
RECALL ATTEMPT, WE'VE HAD WE'VE
HAD MORE THAN ONE ATTEMPT, I
THINK TO MY WITNESSES, WHEN WAS
THE LAST RECALL ELECTION BEFORE
THIS ONE, WASN'T IT FOR GRAY
DAVIS? FOR THE GOVERNOR? FOR THE
GOVERNOR? YES. AND THAT WAS
SUCCESSFUL. WE GOT GOVERNOR
SCHWARZENEGGER FOR TWO TERMS. SO
WHY? WHY JUST BECAUSE IT FAILS
ON YOUR DEFINITION OF SUCCESSOR
TO SHADE. BUT SO THERE WAS ONE
RECALL FOR NEWSOM THAT THAT WAS
LOST 1 IN 20 YEARS. WHY ALL OF A
SUDDEN NOW THE WHOLE
CONSTITUTION HAS TO BE REWRITTEN
AND YOU THINK THIS IS A REVISION
OR AMENDMENT? I'M CURIOUS OF OUR
CONSTITUTION. THIS IS CLEARLY AN
AMENDMENT. THANK YOU. OKAY, THIS
ISN'T SUDDEN, AND I THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT IN THIS INSTANCE TO
THINK, ALONG A LONGER TIMELINE,
RIGHT. 1911 WAS WHEN THE
ORIGINAL DIRECT DEMOCRACY
PROVISIONS WERE ADDED TO THE
CONSTITUTION. AND SO WHAT SEEMS
LIKE A LONG TIME TO US IS
ACTUALLY IN GEOLOGICAL TIME, IF
YOU WILL, NOT VERY LONG AT ALL.
AND I THINK THERE WAS A
CONSENSUS, POST, 2004, IN THE
RECALL OF GOVERNOR DAVIS, THAT
THERE WAS A FLAW IN THE
CONSTITUTION THAT ALLOWED FOR
THE WEAPONIZATION OF THE RECALL,
YOU KNOW, GOVERNOR
SCHWARZENEGGER IS A FINE GUY,
BUT HE DID NOT RUN FOR GOVERNOR
IN THE FIRST PLACE. HE TOOK
ADVANTAGE OF THE CHAOS THAT
ENSUED AFTER THE QUALIFICATION
OF THE RECALL. AND SO YOU KNOW,
YOU DON'T THINK HE WAS
LEGITIMATE? OH, I DO THINK HE
WAS LEGITIMATE. BUT I THINK THE
PROCESS WAS WAS IN NEED OF
REFORM THEN I BELIEVE THE
PROCESS IS IN NEED OF REFORM
NOW. I'LL LET MY WITNESSES SPEAK
TO IT AS WELL. I THINK THE
GOVERNOR, HAD LESS THAN 50, I
BELIEVE, IN THE ELECTION, IN HIS
VICTORY. AND THAT'S ONE OF THE
CONCERNS THAT WHEN YOU HAVE AN
ELECTION LIKE THIS, IF SOMETHING
AS IMPORTANT AS THE GOVERNOR,
YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
WHOEVER TAKES THAT POSITION AT
LEAST HAVE THE MAJORITY ISSUES
WISHES OF THE PEOPLE. SO IT'S
NOT THAT EVERYBODY WAS OPPOSED
TO OR IN FAVOR OF GRAY DAVIS
BEING A RECALLED OR NOT. THE
QUESTION IS, BY THE PROCESS
ITSELF, SO THAT WE END UP WITH
THE GOVERNOR OR POTENTIALLY A
GOVERNOR. WE WOULD HAVE IN THIS
CASE ALSO, WHO HAD LESS THAN 50%
OF THE VOTE, AND SO IT BECOMES A
SITUATION WHERE YOU HAVE PEOPLE
WITH 30, 40% OF THE VOTE WHO
ACTUALLY BECOME GOVERNOR OF THE
LARGEST STATE IN THE UNION.
WELL, WHY NOT JUST HAVE A RUNOFF
PROCESS? I MEAN, A LOT OF STATES
DO THAT. LIKE IF YOU, YOU KNOW,
THEY TAKE THE TOP TWO AND THEY
RUN THEM OFF. THIS IS BASICALLY
SIMILAR TO THAT. BUT KEEP IN
MIND THIS THIS KEEPS AWAY FROM
HAVING PROBABLY 50 PEOPLE
RUNNING, BECAUSE THEN YOU'D HAVE
TO HAVE A COUPLE OF RUNOFFS,
POSSIBLY, BECAUSE PEOPLE
SOMETIMES WILL JUST JOIN THE
PARTY BECAUSE THERE'S A PARTY
GOING ON, AND PEOPLE DON'T
ALWAYS FOCUS. AND THOSE WHO ARE
VOTING SOMETIMES WONDER IF, IF I
VOTE FOR THIS AND THEN PICK A
PERSON. ALSO, AM I BEING
DISLOYAL TO THE PERSON THAT I
DECIDED NOT TO KEEP? AND SO IT
CONFUSES SOME FOLKS. WE HAD MORE
CONFUSION ABOUT PEOPLE ASKING,
DOES IF I VOTE FOR THE
REPLACEMENT, AM I ALSO BASICALLY
DOING IN SOMEONE ELSE WHO'S
BEING WHO I THAT I WANT TO KEEP?
AND SO THEY SAID, WELL, IF I
JUST VOTE FOR THE KEEPING, I
DON'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE
OTHER ONES, WHICH THEN OBVIOUSLY
IS NOT WHAT WE WANT. THAT ONLY
SEEMS WANT TO RECALL BECAUSE YOU
THINK IT'S AN ECONOMICALLY
FEASIBLE OR DESIRABLE TO HAVE,
AN ELECTION AMONG THE TWO. BUT
KEEP IN MIND, IF YOU WERE TO
RECALL THE GOVERNOR AND THEN YOU
HAD TO HAVE A RUNOFF BETWEEN THE
TWO, YOU END UP WITH ALMOST THE
SAME, NOT THE SAME PROCESS, BUT
A VERY SIMILAR PROCESS. BECAUSE
WE RECALL HIM, WE'RE GOING TO
HAVE TO HAVE AN ELECTION ANYWAY.
AND BECAUSE THE LIEUTENANT
GOVERNOR IS IN THE PLACE OF IS
BASICALLY THAT ELECTION WILL
HAVE MORE THAN TWO PEOPLE. SO
WHAT HAPPENS IF NO ONE GETS 50%
IN THAT ELECTION? SO ESSENTIALLY
WE'RE GOING TO GO FROM ONE
ELECTION TO WELL, YOU COULD DO
THAT SEVERAL TIMES. BUT THIS
ONE, THIS WAS A CLEARER FORM
THAT IS THERE THAT MOST FOLKS
DON'T HAVE, YOU PICK THE PERSON
AND PICK THE SUCCESSOR AT THE
SAME TIME. THE ISSUE IS SIMPLE.
DO YOU THINK THIS GOVERNOR
SHOULD BE RECALLED? THAT'S THE
REAL ISSUE. AND PEOPLE SHOULD
DEAL WITH THAT BECAUSE THAT'S
THE MOST SERIOUS ISSUE WE'RE
DEALING WITH. SHOULD WE OR
SHOULD WE NOT, RECALL THIS
GOVERNOR OR WHOMEVER? IS THIS
PERSON WORTHY OF REMAINING IN
OFFICE ONCE YOU HAVE MADE THAT
DECISION? AND THAT SHOULD BE A
CLEAR DECISION FOR CALIFORNIANS,
THEN AT THAT POINT, THEN THE
QUESTION BECOMES, OKAY, THEN IF
NOT HIM, BECAUSE HE'S NOT WORTHY
TO BE THERE, WHO'S NEXT? RIGHT.
I THINK THE VOTERS ARE VERY
CAPABLE AND SMART AND CAN FIGURE
THAT OUT. I THINK THIS IS A
PROBLEM FOR INCUMBENTS. WELL,
SENATOR, YOU WERE RECALLED. SO I
JUST I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S
FAIR FOR YOU TO ATTACK A RECALL
PROCESS THAT WAS USED AGAINST
YOU AND THEN SAY, THE THING IS,
DOESN'T WORK. IT DOESN'T. IT WAS
ABUSED. IT WAS WEAPONIZED. THAT
WAS THE VOTERS DECISION. AND I
DON'T LIKE THESE ATTACKS ON OUR
ON OUR CONSTITUTION, FRANKLY,
AND DILUTING THE POWER OF THE
PEOPLE. THERE HAS BEEN A THEME
AND A THREAT AND A TREND IN THIS
COMMITTEE, MADAM CHAIR, TO
DILUTE THE POWER OF THE PEOPLE
AND TO DILUTE OUR DEMOCRACY IN
FAVOR OF PROTECTING INCUMBENTS.
WITH ALL RESPECT, YOU SAID YOU
TALKED TO JUDGES AND LEGISLATORS
AND GOVERNORS. THOSE ARE ALL
PEOPLE WHO HAVE A CONFLICT. THEY
DO NOT WANT TO BE RECALLED. SO
THEY ARE ALL IN FAVOR OF ANY
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER SALIH, I BELIEVE
WE HAVE ANOTHER COMMITTEE MEMBER
WHO HAS A QUESTION CUT OFF WHEN
THEY DON'T AGREE WITH YOUR
VIEWPOINT. WE ARE HEARING YOUR
VIEWPOINTS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
AND ASSEMBLY MEMBER WEBER, YOUR
COMMENTS, THANK YOU. THANK YOU
CHAIR. I DON'T THINK YOU CUT
PEOPLE OFF WHEN YOU DON'T AGREE
WITH THEIR VIEWPOINTS. I THINK
YOU CUT PEOPLE OFF WHEN THEY
START GOING DOWN RABBIT HOLES.
BUT I WANT TO, FIRST OF ALL,
THANK THE SENATOR FOR BRINGING
THIS BILL FORWARD. THERE WAS A
LOT OF CONFUSION WITH THE LAST
RECALL, AND I THINK THAT, HAVING
A RECALL ON THE BALLOT IS A VERY
SERIOUS ISSUE, ONE THAT THE
VOTERS IN CALIFORNIA SHOULD BE
FOCUSED ON SOLELY WHEN MAKING
THAT DECISION, NOT FOCUSED ON
THE RECALL AND ALSO THE
POTENTIAL NEW ELECTION OF A
GOVERNOR AT THE SAME TIME. AND
SO I REALLY THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING THIS. I'D LIKE TO MOVE
THE BILL, AND LOOK FORWARD TO
HOPEFULLY THIS COMING ON THE
FLOOR SO THAT WE CAN ALLOW THE
CALIFORNIA VOTERS TO DECIDE IF
THEY ALSO WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS
CHANGE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WE
HAVE ANOTHER MEMBER, SELLING
MEMBER, BENNETT. I THINK THE
EXCHANGE THAT WE JUST HEARD A
FEW MOMENTS AGO HIGHLIGHTS THE
FACT THAT RECALLS ARE BEING
WEAPONIZED POLITICALLY AND THAT
THEY'RE GOING FAR BEYOND WHAT
THE VOTERS AND EVERYBODY
INTENDED. WHEN WE CREATED THE
RECALL, I CERTAINLY SUPPORT
THIS. I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT
TO EVERYBODY THAT LAST YEAR WE
SUPPORTED THE SAME LEGISLATION
FOR ALL LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS.
AND THE ONLY REASON THAT I
DIDN'T INCLUDE THE STATEWIDE
OFFICES, BECAUSE THIS HAS TO BE,
YOU KNOW, AN AMENDMENT AND
SENATOR NEWMAN WAS MOVING
FORWARD WITH THE AMENDMENT SIDE
OF IT. SO I WANT TO APPLAUD THE
AUTHOR FOR MOVING FORWARD. AND
IT DOES VERY CLEARLY. I THINK,
ADOPT THE REFORM THAT OF TWO
ISSUES. ONE, THE POLITICIZATION
OF RECALLS AND TWO, THE
INAPPROPRIATENESS OF HAVING
SOMEBODY GET ELECTED BECAUSE
THEY WERE ONE OF IN THIS
SITUATION WHERE YOU HAVE MY WE
HAVE PEOPLE WITHOUT A MAJORITY
BEING ELECTED BECAUSE THEY WERE
ONE OF 50 PEOPLE THAT RAN RECALL
OR AT THE LOCAL ELECTIONS. IT'S
EVEN FAR WORSE. SOME PEOPLE
GETTING ELECTED WITH 12 AND 15%
OF THE VOTE IN A RECALL
ELECTION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH
FOR DOING THIS. I SUPPORT THE
BILL. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS, SENATOR,
YOU MAY CLOSE AND ADDRESS ANY
CONCERNS THAT WERE EXPRESSED. I
APPRECIATE THE CONVERSATION. I
WANT TO THANK THE SECRETARY OF
STATE FOR TAKING TIME OUT OF HER
BUSY SCHEDULE, THANK MISS ROSE
AND LEÓN VOTERS AND COMMON CAUSE
FOR THEIR SUPPORT, SUPPORT OF
THIS EMINENTLY USEFUL AND
NECESSARY MEASURE. SO, YOU KNOW,
AS THE CURRENT SYSTEM IS CLEARLY
BOTH CONFUSING AND PROBLEMATIC
FOR REASONS WE'VE DISCUSSED, TO
THE SECRETARY'S POINT, YOU KNOW,
WE HAD WE HAD HEARINGS, LAST
YEAR, A NUMBER OF HEARINGS. WE
CONSIDERED A WIDE RANGE OF
SUGGESTIONS. AND WHAT WHAT WE
SETTLED ON, YOU KNOW, WAS
EFFECTIVELY, WHAT IF YOU COULD
DO ONE THING, THAT WOULD
REORIENT AND IMPROVE THE RECALL
PROCESS IN CALIFORNIA WHILE
MAINTAINING IT AS A NECESSARY
TOOL OF DIRECT DEMOCRACY? THIS
IS THAT ONE THING. REMOVING THE
SECOND QUESTION, ASSEMBLY MEMBER
WHO'S NOT HERE RIGHT NOW BROUGHT
UP MY RECALL. I'M AFRAID THAT'S
NOT THE BEST EXAMPLE FOR HIM TO
USE, BECAUSE IN FACT, I HAVE THE
STRANGE DISTINCTION OF BEING THE
ONLY LEGISLATOR IN CALIFORNIA
HISTORY TO BE RECALLED AND THEN
TO REGAIN MY OFFICE. BUT IT'S
PRECISELY FOR ONE OF THE FLAWS
IN THE SYSTEM. I WAS A RECALL,
BY THE WAY, IS NOT AN ELECTION.
IT'S TECHNICALLY A REFERENDUM.
AND IT'S A REFERENDUM ON THE
PROBITY AND INTEGRITY OF THE
TARGET OF THAT RECALL. AND SO
IT'S A YES OR A NO. IT'S NOT IT
SHOULD, SHOULD NOT BE IN MY
MIND, AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET FROM
A SPECIAL ELECTION WHAT YOU
COULD NOT SECURE THROUGH A
NORMAL ELECTION. WE'VE SEEN THAT
IN A NUMBER OF ELECTIONS,
INCLUDING MINE. THERE WERE SIX
CANDIDATES AS PART OF THE SECOND
QUESTION, NONE OF THOSE
CANDIDATES GOT MORE VOTES BY WAY
OF A CHOICE THAN I GOT. BY WAY
OF A NÓ. AND YET I WAS RECALLED,
ONE OF THE SIX ASCENDED TO MY
OFFICE AND THEN IN A NORMAL
ELECTION, IN THE NEXT ELECTION
CYCLE, I WON BY A VERY
SUBSTANTIAL MARGIN, THIS IS WHAT
WE'RE TRYING TO DO, WHICH IS TO
REMOVE THE OPPORTUNISM, THE
GAMESMANSHIP, AND RESTORE THIS
PROVISION TO WHAT THE ORIGINAL
FRAMERS INTENDED, WHICH WAS.
THIS IS A THIS SHOULD BE A
REFERENDUM ON THE INTEGRITY, THE
PROBITY, THE FITNESS OF AN
ELECTED OFFICIAL. AND FROM THERE
WE SHOULD FIND VIA DEMOCRATIC
MEANS THROUGH MAJORITY VOTE, THE
REPLACEMENT FOR THAT OFFICIAL. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE
. I WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR AND
CO-SPONSORS FOR THEIR ADVOCACY
ON THIS ISSUE. THE COMMITTEE
HELD THREE JOINT INFORMATIONAL
HEARINGS TO EVALUATE
CALIFORNIA'S RECALL PROCESS
AFTER THE 2021 GUBERNATORIAL
ELECTION. RECALL ELECTION. ONE
MAJOR CONCERN THAT THE
COMMITTEES HEARD WAS THAT OUR
CURRENT RECALL FORMAT HAS THE
POTENTIAL TO LEAD TO
FUNDAMENTALLY UNDEMOCRATIC
OUTCOMES. THIS MEASURE MEASURE
WILL ASK VOTERS IF THEY WANT TO
MODIFY THE RECALL PROCESS IN A
WAY THAT WILL SIMPLIFY THE
PROCESS, REDUCE CONFUSION AND
LEAD TO A MORE DEMOCRATIC
OUTCOMES, FOR THOSE REASONS, I
AM RECOMMENDING SUPPORT, AND I
WOULD BE HONORED TO BE ADDED AS
A COAUTHOR. GRATEFUL TO HAVE
YOU. THANK YOU. AND WE DO HAVE A
MOTION BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER WEBER,
A SECOND BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER
CERVANTES, I BELIEVE, AND A
SECOND, MADAM CHAIR. AND I MADE
A REQUEST YESTERDAY TO BE ADDED
AS A COAUTHOR. I JUST WANTED TO
MAKE SURE THAT GOT RECORDED.
OKAY. GLAD TO HAVE YOU AS WELL.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND WE'LL
HAVE OUR SECRETARY CALL THE
ROLL, PLEASE. ON SCA ONE, THE
MOTION IS BE ADOPTED AND BE
REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS. PELLERIN I,
PELLERIN I LAKI LAKI NØ BENNETT
I BENNETT I BERMAN. BERMAN I
CERVANTES. CERVANTES I AZALI.
LOWE WEBER. WEBER I. THAT BILL
IS OUT 5 TO 1, BUT WE'LL KEEP IT
OPEN FOR OUR ABSENT MEMBERS TO
ADD ON. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
AND AGAIN, A PLEASURE TO SEE
YOU. SECRETARY WEBER, THANK YOU
TO SENATOR HURTADO FOR YOUR
PATIENCE. COME ON DOWN. YOU'VE
GOT THREE BILLS UP WITH US
TODAY. IF YOU GET THEM ALL OUT,
IT'S GOING TO BE A HAT TRICK.
CAN WE GET A PHOTO? SURE OKAY,
SO WE HAVE, YOU WANT TO START
WITH, SENATE BILL 1151? YES.
OKAY. YOU MAY PROCEED WHEN
READY. THANK YOU. MADAM CHAIR,
MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE.
TRANSPARENT TRANSPARENCY AND
ACCOUNTABILITY ARE NOT JUST
IDEALS. THEY ARE ESSENTIAL
PILLARS THAT UPHOLD OUR
DEMOCRACY AND OUR DEMOCRATIC
INSTITUTIONS. AND WE MUST
CONTINUE TO HOLD THAT TO BE
TRUE. THIS IS NOT. SB 1151 IS
NOT. IT'S NOT A REPUBLICAN ISSUE
OR A DEMOCRATIC ISSUE. IT'S A
BILL THAT IS LOOKING TO ADDRESS
CONCERNS THAT COULD UNDERMINE
OUR DEMOCRATIC, PROCESSES. SB
1151, THE FOREIGN INFLUENCE,
TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
ACT REQUIRES INDIVIDUALS ACTING
AS AN AGENT OF A FOREIGN
PRINCIPAL TO DISCLOSE THEIR TIES
TO FOREIGN INTERESTS BY
REGISTERING THEIR ACTIVITIES
WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE.
THIS BILL IS A CRITICAL
DISCLOSURE MEASURE THAT BRINGS
TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
TO CALIFORNIA'S LEGISLATIVE AND
REGULATORY PROCESSES. FOREIGN
GOVERNMENTS AND FOREIGN ENTITIES
ARE ACTIVELY WORKING TO
MANIPULATE OUR DOMESTIC AND
FOREIGN POLICIES, LEGISLATION,
DEMOCRATIC PROCESSES, AND EVEN
PUBLIC OPINIONS. AND MOST OF US
DON'T EVEN KNOW ABOUT IT. BUT
DON'T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT.
REALLY. IT'S A MATTER OF LOOKING
BACK TO HISTORY. HISTORY
REPEATING ITSELF, THE USE OF
MODERN TECHNOLOGY, POLITICAL,
DARK MONEY, AND SHELL COMPANIES
HAVE MADE IT DISTURBINGLY EASY
FOR FOREIGN PRINCIPLES TO
INFILTRATE OUR GOVERNMENT
THROUGH ELECTIONEERING AND
INFLUENCE PEDDLING OF GOVERNMENT
OFFICIALS WITH TRUE
ACCOUNTABILITY OR PUBLIC
SCRUTINY. JUST LAST YEAR, THE US
GOVERNMENT BEGAN PROSECUTING
INDIVIDUALS IN VIOLATION OF THE
FOREIGN AGENTS REGISTRATION ACT
FOR FAILING TO DISCLOSE COVERT
ACTIVITIES AS AGENTS OF A
FOREIGN PRINCIPAL. THESE
PROSECUTIONS INCLUDED A FORMER
HIP HOP ARTIST, POLITICAL
ADVISERS AND CONSULTANTS, A, A
NEW JERSEY STATE SENATOR, AND
INCLUDING A US SENATOR. THEY
REFLECT A CONTINUED WILLINGNESS
TO TACKLE COVERT POLITICAL
INFLUENCE. HOWEVER, IN
CALIFORNIA, THE SEVERE LACK OF
TRANSPARENCY ALLOWS THESE HIDDEN
FORCES TO OPERATE UNCHECKED,
POTENTIALLY UNDERMINING THE
INTEGRITY OF OUR ELECTIONS AND
OUR POLICIES. GIVEN CALIFORNIA'S
POLICY LEADERSHIP AND THE
SIZABLE IMPACT OF OUR DECISIONS
ON A NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL
LEVEL, IT IS VITAL THAT ANYONE
WHO REPRESENTS A FOREIGN
PRINCIPAL FOREIGN INTEREST
ADHERES TO THE HIGHEST ETHICAL
STANDARDS POSSIBLE. ANYTHING
LESS IS UNACCEPTABLE. SB 1151
PUSHES FOR FURTHER TRANSPARENT
TRANSPARENCY IN OUR STATE'S
LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY
PROCESSES. BY CAPTURING ANY
PERSON ACTING AS A FOREIGN AGENT
WITHIN OUR OWN STATE. AND LET ME
BE CLEAR, IN NO WAY DOES THIS
BILL PLACE ANY LIMITATIONS ON
POLITICAL ADVOCACY, NOR IS IT
DESIGNED OR INTENDED TO INHIBIT
OR DISCOURAGE OR DISCOURAGE THE
EXPRESSION OF POLITICAL VIEWS IN
ANY KIND OF WAY. AND WITH THE
AMENDMENTS MADE ON JUNE 17TH, WE
ARE STRATEGICALLY FOCUSING THE
MERITS OF SB 1151 ON ACTIVITIES
THAT INFLUENCE LEGISLATIVE OR
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION BY
PROVIDING MOST OF THE EXEMPTIONS
FOUND IN THE FEDERAL FOREIGN
AGENTS REGISTRATION ACT. BY
DISCLOSING THE SOURCES OF
POLITICAL INFLUENCE, WE CAN
HARNESS PUBLIC TRUST IN OUR
POLITICAL SYSTEMS AND ENSURE
THAT WE ARE LEGISLATING AND
LEADING OUR CONSTITUENTS WITH
INTEGRITY. THIS BILL IS NOT
SOMETHING NEW, AND THE
REQUIREMENTS LAID OUT HERE
SHOULD NOT SURPRISE ANYONE. SB
1151 CLOSELY MIRRORS FARA IN
SUBSTANCE AND INTENT AND ENSURES
OUR DISCLOSURE MEASURES ARE
ENFORCEABLE BY THE CALIFORNIA
SECRETARY OF STATE AND THE FPPC.
SB 1151 PURPOSE IS TO SAFEGUARD
THE SOVEREIGNTY OF OUR
DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS IN A WAY
THAT BUILDS TRUST AND
TRANSPARENCY. I AM COMMITTED TO
GETTING THIS BILL RIGHT, AND MY
STAFF AND I WILL CONTINUE TO
WORK CLOSELY WITH THE FPPC TO
ADDRESS SOME OF THE ISSUES
RAISED IN THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS. AND WITH ME TODAY, I
DO HAVE, JUAN CARLOS, WHO'S BEEN
CLOSELY WORKING WITH ME ON THIS,
ON DRAFTING THIS LEGISLATION.
THANK YOU. OKAY, SO WE WILL MOVE
ON TO OUR PRIMARY WITNESSES AND
SUPPORT. AND YOU HAVE TWO
MINUTES. I'M THE ONLY TESTIMONY.
OH, OKAY. OKAY. ANYBODY IN THE
ROOM WHO WANTS TO STEP UP TO THE
MIC AND EXPRESS THEIR SUPPORT
FOR THE BILL? ANYONE IN
OPPOSITION SEE NOBODY WHO WOULD
LIKE TO TESTIFY. ANY COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE?
SEEING NONE, DO WE HAVE A
MOTION? SO MOVED. WE HAVE A
MOTION BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
BERMAN. A SECOND BY ASSEMBLY
MEMBER LACKEY, SENATOR, YOU MAY
CLOSE. I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR A
NO VOTE. THANK YOU. SO THIS
BILL, HAS HAS A DO PASS AND BE
REFERRED TO APPROPRIATIONS,
ENSURING THERE'S A DISCLOSURE AT
THE STATE LEVEL FOR INDIVIDUALS
WHO ENGAGE IN ACTIVITIES TO
INFLUENCE LEGISLATIVE AND
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS ON BEHALF
OF A FOREIGN ENTITY IS VERY
IMPORTANT, AND HOWEVER, AS
MENTIONED IN THE ANALYSIS, THIS
BILL UNINTENTIONALLY REQUIRES
SOME DUPLICATE FILINGS. SO WITH
THE AUTHOR'S COMMITMENT TO WORK
WITH THE FPPC TO ADDRESS THOSE
DUPLICATE FILING REQUIREMENTS,
THE BILL AND STREAMLINE THE
FILING PROCESS FOR AN AGENT OF A
FOREIGN PRINCIPAL, I WILL
RECOMMEND A SUPPORT POSITION
TODAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
ON SB 1111. WELL, 1151 SORRY.
HURTADO PELLERIN I PELLERIN I
LACKEY I LACKEY I BENNETT
BERMAN. BERMAN I CERVANTES.
ASSALI LOW. WEBER. WE'RE GOING
TO WAIT FOR SOME ABSENT MEMBERS
TO COME IN AND ADD ON. SO THAT
WILL BE ON CALL. AND YOU MAY
PROCEED NOW WITH YOUR NEXT BILL.
ITEM SIX SB 1155. THANK YOU, SO
SB 1155 AIMS TO BROADEN THE
SCOPE OF LOBBYING RESTRICTIONS
BY BY INCLUDING EXECUTIVE
MEMBERS OF STATE AGENCIES AND
APPOINTED OFFICIALS WHO RECEIVE
A SALARY. THE BILL PROPOSES A
ONE YEAR PROHIBITION PERIOD FOR
THESE OFFICIALS FROM ENGAGING IN
LOBBYING ACTIVITIES. STATE
AGENCY EXECUTIVES OFTEN
TRANSITION SEAMLESSLY INTO
LUCRATIVE LOBBYING ROLES,
POTENTIALLY LEVERAGING INSIDER
KNOWLEDGE FOR PERSONAL GAIN.
THIS PRACTICE HAS RAISED ETHICAL
CONCERNS AND UNDERMINED PUBLIC
TRUST IN THE INTEGRITY OF STATE
AGENCIES. TRADITIONALLY, STATE
REGULATIONS HAVE IMPOSED SHORT
COOLING OFF PERIODS, ALLOWING
OFFICIALS TO QUICKLY MOVE INTO
LOBBYING POSITIONS AFTER LEAVING
GOVERNMENT. THIS LOOPHOLE HAS
LED TO FORMER EXECUTIVES
ADVOCATING FOR INTERESTS THAT
MAY CONFLICT WITH THE PUBLIC
GOOD, ERODING CONFIDENCE IN
GOVERNMENT AND DECISION MAKING.
SB 1155 ADDRESSES THE ISSUE BY
PROPOSING A ONE YEAR COOLING OFF
PERIOD FOR EXECUTIVE MEMBERS OF
STATE AGENCIES AND APPOINTED
OFFICIALS BEFORE THEY CAN ENGAGE
IN LOBBYING ACTIVITIES BY
CREATING A LONGER BUFFER PERIOD.
THE BILL AIMS TO REDUCE
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, PROMOTE
TRANSPARENCY AND RESTORE TRUST
AND INTEGRITY OF STATE AGENCIES
AND THE POLICY MAKING PROCESS.
AGAIN, I AM COMMITTED TO WORKING
WITH THE FPPC AND THE COMMITTEE
TO CLARIFY IN OUR BILL THAT
THERE ARE NO LIMITATIONS, BUT
INSTEAD PROHIBIT ANY ATTEMPT BY
A COVERED PERSON TO INFLUENCE
LEGISLATIVE OR ADMINISTRATIVE
ACTION FOR ONE YEAR AFTER
LEAVING STATE SERVICE. THANK YOU
SO MUCH. DO WE HAVE ANY
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT OF THIS
BILL TODAY? ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO
EXPRESS THEIR OPPOSITION TO THE
BILL. MOVE THE BILL. I HAVE A
MOTION. I HAVE A SECOND.
SENATOR, YOU MAY CLOSE. THANK
YOU. I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN
AYE VOTE. SO, AGAIN, EXISTING
LAW HAS CLEAR REVOLVING DOOR
BANS IN PLACE, AND I SUPPORT
EFFORTS TO REEVALUATE AND ADJUST
THOSE POLICIES AS APPROPRIATE.
SO WHILE I SUPPORT THE GENERAL
DIRECTION OF THIS BILL, THE
ANALYSIS POINTS OUT THAT THE
SCOPE OF THE BILL IS A BIT
UNCLEAR. SO IF THE AUTHOR'S
INTENT IS TO MIRROR THE EXISTING
ONE YEAR BAN STANDARD AND APPLY
THAT STANDARD TO HEADS OF
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES, I WILL
GO AHEAD AND RECOMMEND SUPPORT
TODAY WITH THE AUTHOR'S
COMMITMENT TO WORK WITH THE FPPC
TO CLARIFY THE AUTHOR'S INTENT.
SO WITH THAT, WE HAVE A MOTION,
A SECOND AND SECRETARY, PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL ON SB 1155,
HURTADO. THE MOTION IS TO PASS
AND BE REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE
ON APPROPRIATIONS. PELLERIN I,
PELLERIN I, LACKEY A, LACKEY I,
BENNETT I, BENNETT I, BERMAN.
BERMAN I CERVANTES EASILY LOW.
WEBER I WEBER I THAT BILL IS UP
5 TO 0 AND YOU HAVE YOUR THIRD
BILL WHICH IS SB 1156. AND I
BELIEVE IT ENJOYS THE SUPPORT
SUPPORT POSITION. SO YOU MAY
PROCEED. OKAY. GIVEN IT IT IS
SUPPORT SUPPORT. AND IT'S MY
THIRD BILL. THANK YOU FOR
ALLOWING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO
PRESENT SB 1156. AS MANY OF YOU
ARE AWARE, WE HAVE SOME, A LOT
OF ISSUES, IT DEALING WITH SIGMA
AND GSA'S. THERE'S BEEN CONCERNS
THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT OUT ABOUT
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST WITH BOARD
MEMBERS. AND SO THIS WHAT THIS
BILL IS LOOKING TO DO IS JUST
MAKE SURE THAT EACH GSA IS
TRANSPARENT, THAT THEY'RE FILING
THEIR FORM SEVEN HUNDREDS AND
THAT THEY'RE DOING IT
ELECTRONICALLY. AND WITH THAT, I
WOULD RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN
AYE VOTE. DO WE HAVE ANY
WITNESSES IN THE ROOM IN
SUPPORT? COME ON UP. ARE YOU A
PRIMARY WITNESS OR JUST WANT TO
REGISTER? OKAY GOOD AFTERNOON,
MADAM CHAIR. AND MEMBERS.
ROSANNA CARVACHO ELLIOTT HERE ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
GROUNDWATER COALITION, I WANT TO
THANK THE SENATOR FOR TAKING
AMENDMENTS TO CLARIFY WHO THIS
APPLIES TO. A LOT OF GSA'S ARE
ALREADY DOING THIS. SO WE
APPRECIATE THE CLARIFICATION.
AND WITH THAT, WE WILL MOVE FROM
A SUPPORTIVE AMENDED TO A
SUPPORT POSITION. THANK YOU.
WONDERFUL. THANK YOU. ANYONE
ELSE IN THE ROOM IN SUPPORT OR
OPPOSITION? SOMEBODY STANDING UP
YOU KNOW. NO, NOT FOR ME OKAY,
ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS?
ASSEMBLY MEMBER BENNETT, JUST A
QUICK COMMENT. I THINK
GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY
AGENCIES, THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST THAT ARE
OUT THERE. AND ONE OF THE WAYS
TO TRY TO ADDRESS THAT IS WITH
THIS CLARIFICATION. SO I
APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR DOING
THAT. THERE ARE MORE ISSUES OF
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST THAT
REALLY SHOULD BE ADDRESSED WHEN
IT COMES TO GROUNDWATER
SUSTAINABILITY AGENCIES. THANK
YOU. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS? SEEING NONE. DO I
HAVE A MOTION? SO MOVED. I HAVE
A MOTION BY SOME MEMBER WEBER, A
SECOND BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
LACKEY, AND JUST WANT TO SAY
THANK YOU TO THE AUTHOR.
CERTAINLY STREAMLINING THE
FILING OF FORM 700 FOR GSA'S
WILL HELP PROVIDE TRANSPARENCY
AND ENSURE THAT THERE ARE MORE
ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC. SO FOR
THOSE REASONS, I'M RECOMMENDING
A SUPPORT, DID I LET YOU CLOSE?
DID YOU HAVE ANY CLOSING
COMMENTS OR JUST I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR A NO VOTE? VERY GOOD.
OKAY, OKAY. DON'T WANT TO CUT
YOU OFF. OKAY, GREAT. ALL RIGHT.
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
ON SB 1156. HURTADO, THE MOTION
IS DUE. PASS AND BE REFERRED TO
THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
PELLERIN. I PELLERIN I, LACKEY A
LACKEY I BENNETT. BENNETT I
BERMAN. BERMAN I CERVANTES.
ASSALI LOW. WEBER WEBER I ABOUT
FIVE ZERO. THAT BILL IS OUT 5 TO
0. BUT WE'LL LEAVE IT OPEN FOR
OUR ABSENT MEMBERS TO ADD ON. I
BELIEVE WE HAVE ONE MORE BILL.
ON HER WAY. OKAY. SHE'S ON HER
WAY. OKAY, LET'S LIFT SOME CALLS
WHILE WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY.
OKAY, SO I'M GOING TO LIFT THE
CALL ON ITEM 11, SB 1404 BY
SENATOR GLAZIER. THE CURRENT
VOTE IS 2 TO 0 WITH THE CHAIR
VOTING AYE, WILL OUR SECRETARY
PLEASE CALL THE ABSENT MEMBERS?
BERMAN. BERMAN. AYE. CERVANTES
LOW. WEBER HIGH. WEBER. I WE'RE
GOING TO KEEP THAT OPEN FOR OUR
ABSENT MEMBERS. AND MAYBE IF OUR
SERGEANT COULD PLEASE CALL ALL
OF OUR ABSENT MEMBERS AND ASK
THEM TO PLEASE COME TO THE
COMMITTEE SO WE CAN CLOSE OUT
THE VOTES. I WILL NOW GO AHEAD
AND LIFT THE CALL ON ITEM EIGHT.
SB 1181, AND THAT'S BY SENATOR
GLAZIER. THE CURRENT VOTE IS 1
TO 0 WITH THE CHAIR VOTING AYE.
SO YOU ALL KNOW HOW I VOTED. AND
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE
ABSENT MEMBERS LACKEY A LACKEY.
AYE BENNETT. BENNETT. AYE.
BERMAN. BERMAN. AYE. CERVANTES
LOW. WEBER. WEBER AYE. YES.
COULD I JUST ASK, DID YOU NEED
TO HAVE A SECOND FOR YOUR
MOTION, SINCE IT WAS JUST A10? I
JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE
PROTECTING. WE HAVE A SECOND. WE
HAD A SECOND. OKAY. GREAT. THANK
YOU. I KNOW I WAS LIKE, HOW DID
THAT HAPPEN? OKAY. AND THAT BILL
IS OUT 5 TO 0. BUT WE'LL KEEP IT
OPEN FOR ABSENT MEMBERS TO ADD
ON OKAY. VERY GOOD. ALL RIGHT.
NOW I'LL GO AHEAD AND LIFT THE
CALL ON ITEM NINE SB 1243 BY
SENATOR DODD. THE CURRENT VOTE
IS 2 TO 1, WITH THE CHAIR VOTING
AYE. OUR SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL
THE ABSENT MEMBERS LACKEY A
LACKEY. AYE. BENNETT THIS IS
DODDS. I'M SORRY. THIS IS SB
1243 BY DODD. YES. I'VE
COMMITTED TO THE AUTHOR THAT IF
MY VOTE IS NEEDED TO GET IT OFF
THE OUT OF COMMITTEE, I WILL BE
THERE. IF NOT, I WILL BE NOT
VOTING. SO I NEED TO KNOW WHAT
THE VOTE IS. AND I ALSO PROBABLY
WILL NEED TO WAIT UNTIL THE
OTHER MEMBERS COME BACK TO VOTE
TO DETERMINE WHERE I AM ON THAT.
OKAY? OKAY BERMAN. BERMAN I LOW
WEBER. WEBER. I WE HAVE THE FIVE
ZERO. SO THAT VOTE FOR THAT BILL
IS 5 TO 0. BUT WE'LL KEEP IT
OPEN FOR OUR ABSENT MEMBERS TO
ADD ON WHAT WHAT DOES IT NEED TO
GET OUT OF COMMITTEE. IT'S OUT
WITH THE FIVE VOTES. YES. RIGHT.
SO GOOD. SO YOU WANT TO REMAIN
NOT VOTING OKAY. ALL RIGHT. VERY
GOOD. SO, BENNETT, YOU'RE A NOT
VOTING. I'M NOT VOTING. OKAY.
THANK YOU. GOOD. ANYMORE WE HAVE
MORE OKAY. SO NOW I'M GOING TO
LIFT THE CALL ON ITEM FOUR SB
904 BY SENATOR DODD. THE CURRENT
VOTE FOR THAT BILL IS 2 TO 1
WITH THE CHAIR VOTING AYE. AND
OUR SECRETARY PLEASE CALL THE
ABSENT MEMBERS LACKEY. NO
LACKEY. NO. BENNETT. BENNETT
AYE. BERMAN. BERMAN. AYE LOW.
WEBER. WEBER AYE. THAT'S NO 42.
THAT WAS THE SONOMA MARIN
RAILROAD RAIL TRANSIT. YEAH. IN
FACT, I'LL COULD I HAVE THIS?
OKAY. I WILL NOW LIFT THE CALL
ON ITEM THREE SB 863 BY ALAN,
WHICH IS REGARDING MEASURES
PROPOSED BY THE LEGISLATURE. AND
THE CURRENT VOTE IS 2 TO 1 WITH
THE CHAIR VOTING AYE. SECRETARY,
PLEASE CALL THE OPPOSITE
MEMBERS. OH 2 TO 0 202. DID I
NOT SAY THAT RIGHT? 2 TO 1, 2 TO
0 2 TO 2 TO 0 TO 0. SORRY. OKAY
LACKEY. NO. LACKEY. NO NÓ.
BENNETT. AYE. BERMAN A BERMAN.
AYE. EASILY LOW. WEBER. WEBER
AYE. THAT'S HOW THAT BILL IS
OUT. 5 TO 1. BUT WE'LL KEEP THE
ROLL OPEN FOR OUR MISSING
MEMBERS. I'M NOW GOING TO LIFT
THE CALL ON ITEM 12. SB 1441,
WHICH IS ALSO BY SENATOR ALLEN.
AND THAT'S THE ONE REGARDING
EXAMINATION OF PETITIONS, TIME
LIMITATIONS AND REIMBURSEMENTS
OF COSTS. THE CURRENT VOTE ON
THAT BILL IS 4 TO 2, WITH THE
CHAIR VOTING AYE. SECRETARY,
PLEASE CALL THE ABSENT MEMBERS.
BERMAN AYE. BERMAN. AYE. WEBER
WEBER. AYE IT'S OUT 6 TO 2. THAT
BILL IS OUT. 6 TO 2. I AM NOW
GOING TO LIFT THE CALL ON ITEM
TWO. SB 299 BY SENATOR LIMÓN,
THAT IS HER BILL REGARDING THE
CALIFORNIA NEW MOTOR VOTER
REGISTRATION PROGRAM AND THE
CURRENT VOTE IS 4 TO 0 WITH THE
CHAIR VOTING AYE. OUR SECRETARY,
PLEASE CALL THE ABSENT MEMBERS
LOW. MISTER LOW IS NOT HERE.
CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO CHANGE MY
VOTE FROM, NOT VOTING TO. AYE,
WEBER IS CHANGING FROM NOT
VOTING TO. I THAT BILL IS OUT.
SO THAT BILL IS OUT 5 TO 0.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND KEEP IT OPEN
IN CASE OUR ABSENT MEMBER
RETURNS. I WILL NOW LIFT THE
CALL ON ITEM NUMBER FIVE. AND
THAT IS SB 1151 BY HURTADO. AND
THAT'S HER POLITICAL REFORM ACT
REGARDING FOREIGN AGENTS. THE
CURRENT VOTE ON THAT IS 3 TO 0,
WITH THE CHAIR VOTING AYE. OUR
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE
ABSENT MEMBERS. BENNETT BENNETT.
AYE CERVANTES. ASSALI LOW.
WEBER. WEBER I LOW THAT BILL. IS
THE HURTADO BILL ON OKAY LOW IS
I. SO THAT IS OUT 6 TO 0. ALL
RIGHT. WE HAVE SENATOR GONZALEZ.
YOU ARE OUR LAST AUTHOR TODAY
WITH OUR MARATHON HEARING. STEP
RIGHT UP. AND YOU MAY PROCEED.
GREAT. THANK YOU SO MUCH, MADAM
CHAIR. APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE.
ALL RIGHT. HELLO. SO I'M HERE
TODAY TO PRESENT SB 1337. IT
WOULD LIKE TO START BY ACCEPTING
THE COMMITTEE'S AMENDMENTS. AND
I'D LIKE TO THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR AND COMMITTEE STAFF, FOR
THIS INCREDIBLE WORK ON THE
BILL. SB 1337, AS BEEN
MENTIONED, WILL PROVIDE GREATER
TRANSPARENCY ABOUT THE FUNDERS
OF REFERENDUM THAT SEEK TO
OVERTURN STATE LAW. THIS BILL
WILL REQUIRE THE TOP THREE
FUNDERS TO BE LISTED DIRECTLY ON
EACH SIGNATURE PAGE. DIRECT
DEMOCRACY, OF COURSE, IS AN
IMPORTANT TOOL FOR CALIFORNIA
AND SB 1337 WILL ENSURE VOTERS
CAN MAKE INFORMED DECISIONS AND
ARE AWARE OF WHO IS FUNDING
EFFORTS TO OVERTURN LAWS BEFORE
DECIDING TO SIGN A PETITION WITH
ME TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT, I HAVE
TERRY BRENNAN FROM SEIU, AS WELL
AS MARQUIS MASON FROM CALIFORNIA
ENVIRO VOTERS, AND I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR A NO VOTE.
THANK YOU. EACH WITNESS HAS TWO
MINUTES. YOU MAY BEGIN. HELLO,
MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS MARQUISE
KING MASON. AND TODAY I'LL BE
SPEAKING ON CALIFORNIA VOTERS.
ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS? I SHOULD
SAY IT'S NO SECRET THAT MONEYED
INTERESTS ARE HEAVILY INVOLVED
IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS
NATIONWIDE, ESPECIALLY HERE IN
CALIFORNIA. 2023 PC POLLING
FOUND THAT OVER 95% OF VOTERS
SAY THAT OUR STATE'S REFERENDUM
PROCESS IS IMPACTED BY SPECIAL
INTERESTS, WITH NEARLY 60%
SAYING THAT IT'S GREATLY
IMPACTED. OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM
WAS INTENDED TO BE BASED OFF
MAJORITY SUPPORT AND BUILDING
BROAD COALITIONS, NOT PAYING TO
PLAY MONEYED INTERESTS RELY ON
THE CONFUSION AND DISINFORMATION
TO PASS THEIR AGENDA THAT ARE AT
DIRECT ODDS WITH THE
COMMUNITIES, LIKE WE'VE SEEN
WITH THE ATTEMPT TO OVERTURN OIL
SETBACKS IN THE ONGOING CAMPAIGN
TO DENY THE RIGHT TO A LIVING
WAGE FOR FAST FOOD WORKERS.
DIRECT DEMOCRACY IS POPULAR.
IT'S NECESSARY AND LIKE ALL
ASPECTS OF DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM,
IT'S INCREDIBLY FRAGILE. WE'VE
SEEN ATTACKS AND ABUSES ON THE
INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM
PROCESS ALL OVER THE NATION, BUT
HERE IN CALIFORNIA, WE CAN
PROTECT AND MAKE FAIRER, DIRECT
DEMOCRACY BECAUSE THE REFERENDUM
PROCESS SHOULD REPRESENT ALL,
NOT JUST THE POWERFUL FEW, TO
NOT NEED TO SLEEP AT NEIGHBOR
AGAINST NEIGHBOR. LAST YEAR, THE
LEGISLATURE UNITED AROUND AB 41
AND A SET OF POLICIES THAT CUT
DOWN ON CONFUSING BALLOT
LANGUAGE. SB 1337 IS THE NEXT
STEP IN THAT DIRECTION. THIS
BODY HAS TAKEN HISTORIC POLICIES
TO THE FINISH LINE, SOMETIMES
ASKING MEMBERS TO TAKE
INCREDIBLY HARD VOTES ONLY TO
SEE CORPORATIONS BUY THEIR WAY
ONTO THE BALLOT TO HALT ANY
PROGRESS THAT HAS BEEN TAKEN.
DISPLAYING A REFERENDUM,
FINANCIAL BACKERS AND ENSURING
THAT WHEN VOTERS SEE THAT IS
CRUCIAL TO ENSURING A MAJOR PART
OF THE POLITICAL PROCESS IS NOT
BASED ON DECEPTION, LIKE WE SAW
IN THE ATTEMPTS TO OVERTURN THE
OIL SETBACKS CAMPAIGN AND EVEN
THE PETITIONING THAT WAS
HAPPENING HERE AT ARDEN FAIR
MALL. THESE CORPORATE POLLUTERS
AND MONEY INTERESTS RELY RELY ON
THEIR POWER AND USE EVERY TOOL
AT THEIR DISPOSAL TO DEFEAT HARD
FOUGHT VICTORIES, TO TAKE YEARS.
IF NOT DECADES, OF COALITION
BUILDING TO PASS IN THE
LEGISLATURE. SB 1337 IS A
NECESSARY TOOL TO EVEN THE
PLAYING FIELD. AND FOR THAT I
ASK FOR YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. NEXT WITNESS. YOU HAVE TWO
MINUTES. MADAM CHAIR. MEMBERS
TERRY BRENNAN ON BEHALF OF SEIU
CALIFORNIA, I TOO WOULD LIKE TO
THANK YOU AND THE STAFF FOR,
AMENDMENTS THAT BOTH PERFECT THE
LANGUAGE AND CLARIFY THE INTENT
OF THE BILL. IT WAS A PLEASURE
WORKING WITH YOU ON THIS. FOR
ALL THE REASONS STATED BY THE
AUTHOR AND THE WITNESS. THIS IS
AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF
LEGISLATION IN OUR MINDS. AND I
KNOW THERE'S BEEN SOME
OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL. AND ONE
OF THE KEY FEATURES I KEEP
HEARING IS THE FIVE DAY PERIOD
TO CORRECT THE TOP THREE
FUNDERS. WE DIDN'T INVENT THAT.
THAT'S EXISTING LAW IN EVERY
OTHER POLITICAL VENUE, WHETHER
IT'S, SPEECH, MEDIA, SOCIAL
MEDIA, YOU HAVE FIVE DAYS TO
CORRECT IT AND TO SUGGEST IN
2024, IN THE DIGITAL WORLD, THAT
THIS SOMEHOW AN ENCUMBRANCE IS A
RED HERRING. AND WE'D ASK YOU TO
REJECT ANY, THOUGHTS OTHERWISE.
FOR THAT REASON, WE ENCOURAGE
YOUR SUPPORT OF THE BILL. AND
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS THERE
ARE THERE ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
THE ROOM THAT WANT TO REGISTER
THEIR SUPPORT FOR THE BILL? YOU
MAY STEP UP TO THE MIC AND STATE
YOUR NAME, ORGANIZATION AND
POSITION. PLEASE HI. GOOD
MORNING. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME
IS TRICIA WEBER. I AM ONE OF THE
CO-CHAIRS OF CÁC CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF CLERKS AND
ELECTION OFFICIALS, AND I'M
ACTUALLY A STILL IN BETWEENER,
WE REALLY THANK THE AUTHOR, AND
THE COMMITTEE FOR WORKING WITH
US AND ADDRESSING SOME OF OUR
CONCERNS. AND ACCEPTING THOSE
AMENDMENTS. WERE VERY HAPPY ON
THAT. WE DO STILL HAVE SOME
CONCERNS ABOUT THIS TYPE OF
PETITION BEING DIFFERENT THAN
ANY OTHER TYPE OF PETITION THAT
IS OUT THERE, BUT THAT'S FOR
ANOTHER DAY. SO THANK YOU FOR
TAKING THOSE AMENDS. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. ANY OTHER WITNESSES
IN SUPPORT? MADAM CHAIR, MAY I
REGISTER ON ME TO ON BEHALF OF A
PARTNER? SURE, BLUEGREEN
ALLIANCE WOULD LIKE TO SUPPORT
THE BILL AS WELL. THANK YOU.
OKAY, OKAY. AND, ANYONE IN THE
AUDIENCE WHO IS A OPPOSITION TO
THIS BILL OF YOUR PRIMARY
OPPOSITION, YOU MAY STEP UP AND
YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES TO MAKE
YOUR COMMENTS OR YOU GET TRIPPED
. NEXT, WHICHEVER. YES. YEAH.
AND WE DECIDED WE STILL DON'T
LIKE EACH OTHER. OKAY, I KNOW
WE'RE ALL TRYING TO GET OUT OF
HERE, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS,
BEN GOLOMBEK, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,
IN RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION TO THE
BILL, YOU KNOW, FROM OUR
PERSPECTIVE, YOU KNOW, THIS BILL
WOULD BE A DRAMATIC UPHEAVAL TO
THE DIRECT DEMOCRACY SYSTEM THAT
WE HAVE HAD HERE IN CALIFORNIA
FOR A LONG TIME. AND IT MAKES IT
MUCH HARDER FOR CALIFORNIANS TO
HAVE THE ABILITY TO EXPRESS
THEIR POSITIONS ON POLICY, IN
THE LAST 100 YEARS, WE WENT BACK
AND LOOKED AT IT. THERE HAVE
ONLY BEEN 33 REFERENDA THAT HAVE
QUALIFIED FOR THE BALLOT. IN
NEARLY HALF OF THEM HAVE HAD TO
DO WITH TRIBAL COMPACTS, AT THE
SAME TIME, WE'RE LOOKING AT MORE
THAN 350 BALLOT INITIATIVES THAT
HAVE QUALIFIED AND SO IT IS
SURPRISING AND CURIOUS TO US WHY
THIS BILL IS TARGETED AND
LIMITED TO REFERENDA AND NOT
LOOKING AT BALLOT INITIATIVES AS
WELL, OR TRYING TO SEE IF THERE
NEEDS TO BE REFORM TO THAT
PROCESS, AND PRACTICALLY, WHILE
I HAVE AGAIN, RESPECT MR.
BRENNAN AND HIS RED HERRING
COMMENT, ALTHOUGH WE ARE IN THE
DIGITAL AGE OF 2024, YOU WILL
NEED TO SWAPPING OUT PETITIONS
AS A PHYSICAL MANUAL PROCESS,
NOT SOMETHING THAT CAN BE DONE
DIGITALLY. AND I THINK WE ALL
KNOW THAT COORDINATING AND
GATHERING SIGNATURES FOR A
STATEWIDE MEASURE, REQUIRES,
AGAIN, A LOT OF COORDINATION.
YOU HAVE PEOPLE ALL OVER THE
STATE, FROM THE SOUTHERN BORDER
TO THE NORTHERN BORDER OF THE
STATE, GATHERING SIGNATURES AND
DOING SO IN THE SHORT TIME FRAME
OFFERED, HAVING TO SWAP OUT THE
PETITIONS IS LABOR INTENSIVE,
TIME INTENSIVE, AND WILL MAKE IT
NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO QUALIFY A
REFERENDA GOING FORWARD. SO FOR
THOSE REASONS, WE'RE IN
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION TO THE
BILL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. ANYONE ELSE IN THE ROOM
WHO WANTS TO REGISTER REGISTER
THEIR OPPOSITION TO THE BILL?
PLEASE STEP FORWARD TO THE MIC.
SEEING NONE, I'LL BRING IT BACK
TO THE COMMITTEE. ANY COMMENTS,
QUESTIONS? SEE, WE HAVE A MOTION
BY MEMBER BENNETT, A SECOND BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER WEBER, SENATOR,
YOU MAY CLOSE. I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE. THANK YOU.
MADAM CHAIR. THANK YOU. SO I
WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR FOR
WORKING WITH THE COMMITTEE ON
AMENDMENTS, INCLUDING TO ENSURE
THAT VOTERS SIGNATURES ARE NOT
DISQUALIFIED BASED ON CONDUCT
THAT IS OUT OF THEIR CONTROL.
THIS BILL WILL HELP ENSURE THE
POTENTIAL PETITION SIGNERS
RECEIVE ACCURATE AND UP TO DATE
INFORMATION ABOUT THOSE WHO ARE
FUNDING SIGNATURE GATHERING FOR
A STATE REFERENDUM EFFORT. AND
WITH THAT, I AM RECOMMENDING
SUPPORT WITH THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS. AND IT'S A REFERRAL
TO THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
THE MOTIONS DO PASS, AS AMENDED,
TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS. PELLERIN I,
PELLERIN I, LAKI LAKI NØ BENNETT
. BENNETT I BERMAN. BERMAN, I
CERVANTES A SALLY. NO. A SALLY.
NO. LO A LO I WEBER. WEBER. I 6
TO 2. THAT BILL IS OUT. 6 TO 2.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. MAYBE SORRY.
5 TO 2. FIVE. 5 TO 2. OKAY, SO
WE HAVE, WE HAVE ONE BILL STILL
ON CALL. AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO
ALLOW FOR OUR ABSENT MEMBERS TO
ADD ON TO ONES. IS THAT RIGHT?
SO OUR BILL ON CALL RIGHT NOW IS
ITEM 11, WHICH IS SB 1404.
GLAZIER, WHICH DEALS WITH THE
POLITICAL REFORM ACT AUDITS AND
THE CURRENT VOTE IS 4 TO 0 WITH
THE CHAIR VOTING AYE. OUR
SECRETARY PLEASE CALL THE ABSENT
MEMBERS. CERVANTES LO LO I.
THAT'S OUT FIVE ZERO. THAT BILL
IS OUT 5 TO 0. WE'RE GOING TO
ALLOW ADD ONS FOR MEMBERS WHO
WERE NOT PRESENT DURING THE
VOTES THAT WERE TAKEN. AND LET'S
GIVE OUR SECRETARY A FEW MINUTES
TO GET THAT TOGETHER. AND WE'RE
GOING TO START WITH WE'RE GOING
TO START WITH FILE ITEM NUMBER
ONE. THAT'S SB 1111 BY SENATOR
MIN. BERMAN. BERMAN. AYE
CERVANTES. LO AYE. LO. AYE I'M
MOVING ON TO FILE ITEM NUMBER
TWO. THAT'S SB 299 BY SENATOR
LIMÓN LO LO I FILE ITEM NUMBER
THREE IS SB 863 BY SENATOR
ALLEN. EASILY NO ASOLENE. NO LO
LO I FILE ITEM FOR SB 904 BY
SENATOR DODD. LO LO I FILE ITEM
NUMBER FIVE, SB 1151 BY SENATOR
HURTADO CERVANTES. EASILY EASILY
I FILE ITEM SIX IS SB 1155 BY
SENATOR HURTADO CERVANTES.
EASILY EASILY I LO LO I. FILE
ITEM SEVEN, SB 1156 BY SENATOR
HURTADO CERVANTES. EASILY EASILY
I LO LO I FILE ITEM EIGHT, SB
1181 BY SENATOR GLAZER
CERVANTES. LO LO I. FILE ITEM
NINE, SB 1243 BY SENATOR DODD LO
I LO I. FILE ITEM TEN, SB 1337
BY SENATOR GONZALEZ CERVANTES.
MOVING ON TO FILE ITEM 11, SB
1404 BY SENATOR GLAZER CERVANTES
. FILE ITEM 12 SB 1441 BY
SENATOR Þ. SORRY, THAT ONE IS
CONCLUDED. FILE ITEM 13 SB 1450
BY SENATOR ALAN WEBER. WEBER. I.
FINAL FIFTH ITEM FILE ITEM 15.
SENATE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
ONE BY SENATOR NEWMAN ASAELI.
NO. ASAELI. NO LO LO I. YES.
THANK AND OUR CONSENT CALENDAR.
ANY MORE ADD ONS TO CONSENT
OKAY. OKAY. SO AGAIN, I JUST MR.
CERVANTES IS HERE. DO YOU WANT
TO ADD ON TO THESE VOTES? OKAY.
ALL RIGHT. WE WILL GO THROUGH
THIS ROUND ONE MORE TIME. OKAY.
FILE ITEM ONE, SB 1111 BY
SENATOR MIN. CERVANTES.
CERVANTES AYE. YES. FILE ITEM
NUMBER FIVE. SB 1151, BY SENATOR
HURTADO. CERVANTES CERVANTES.
AYE. FILE ITEM SIX SB 1155 BY
SENATOR HURTADO. CERVANTES.
CERVANTES AYE. FILE ITEM SEVEN
SB 1156. HURTADO CERVANTES.
CERVANTES. AYE FILE ITEM EIGHT
IS SB 1181 BY GLAESER.
CERVANTES. CERVANTES AYE. FILE
ITEM TEN SB 1337 BY SENATOR
GONZALEZ CERVANTES. CERVANTES.
AYE. FILE ITEM 11 SB 1404 BY
SENATOR GLAESER. CERVANTES.
CERVANTES. AYE. AND THAT
CONCLUDES OKAY. I JUST WANT TO
THANK OUR INCREDIBLE CONSULTANTS
ON THIS ELECTIONS COMMITTEE.
ETHAN NICOLE, OUR SECRETARY LORI
DARRELL, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR
HANGING IN WITH THIS HEARING. I
KNOW IT WAS LONG AND ARDUOUS,
BUT YOU GUYS DID A GREAT JOB.
THAT CONCLUDES THE ITEMS ON OUR
COMMITTEE'S AGENDA FOR TODAY.
THIS HEARING IS ADJOURNED.