SO WE'RE GOING TO.
GONNA STAB WISH A QUORUM HERE
FOR SENATE COMMITTEE ON
ELECTIONS CUSTER'S MOMENTS AND
THEN CENTER READ REVIEWED AND
TOLD ME WHEN I TAKE OUR CONSENT
ITEM UP ALWAYS DOVE CENTER LABOR
HERE. OF SO JUST BEAR WITH US
FOR TWO SECONDS SO MADAM
SECRETARY WOULD YOU CALL THE
ROLL STERN HERE STERN HERE
ANDERSON.
ALAN HERE ALLEN HERE HERTZBERG.
LABOR LABOR HERE.
GOOD SO WE HAVE A FILE INTO A C.
A TWELVE AS A CONSENT ITEM.
.
SO IF THERE ARE NO OBJECTIONS
FROM MEMBERS I'D ENTERTAIN A
MOTION TO MOVE OUT SO MOVED FROM
SENATOR LABOR. OF THE MOTION IS
TO BE IT.
I'D BE ADOPTING REFERRED TO
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE
WITH THAT.
SECTOR WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL
THE STERN. I TURNED I ANDERSON
ALAN.
ELLEN I HEARD SPRING LABOR.
LABOR OKAY VERY GOOD WILL LEAVE
THEM AS OUR OWN CALL AND.
CENTER BRADFORD FLOOR'S YOURS
THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN
MEMBERS ON FIRST LET ME THANK
THE MEMBERS WHO I'VE MET WITH
INDIVIDUALLY TO DISCUSS. THIS
ISSUE AND SPECIALLY COMMITTEE
STAFF TO EARN FOR ALL YOUR HARD
WORK ON MOVING THIS ISSUE
FORWARD AND.
THE CHALLENGES SOME THINK THIS
ISSUE PRESENTS ARE.
A CURRENT FORM SP TWELVE FIFTY
SLUMP SIMPLY REINFORCES AND
FURTHER CLARIFY SED INTENT OF
EXISTING ELECTION COLD LAW%
SECTION TWENTY TWENTY SIX.
PERTAINING TO DOMICILE OF THE
LEGISLATURE.
LET ME BE CLEAR THIS BILL
LEGISLATION WAS CODIFIED IN
NINETEEN EIGHTY THREE. BY THEN
SPEAKER WILLIE BROWN DO AB
SEVENTEEN NINETY EIGHT ADDING
SECTION TWENTY TWENTY SIX TO THE
LECTERN COLD. BECAUSE OF THE
UNIQUE JOB. WE AS LEGISLATORS
HAVE TRAVELING AND WORKING IN AN
OUTSIDE OUR DISTRICT SPENDING
THE MAJORITY OF THE YEAR IN THE
STATE CAPITAL THE LAW WAS
UPDATED IN NINETEEN NINETY FOUR
STOPS IN THE FOLLOWING. THE
DOMICILE OF A MEMBER OF THE
LEGISLATURE OR REPRESENTATIVE
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
SHALL BE COCLUSIVELY. PRESUMED
TO BE THE ADDRESS INDICATED ON
THE PARENTS ARE PERSONS
CURRENTLY FILE AFFIDAVIT FOR
RIGHT REGISTRATION.
DESPITE THIS CONCLUSIVE
PRESUMPTION. COURTS HAVE
MISINTERPRETED OR SIMPLY IGNORED
THE PLAIN LANGUAGE AND
LEGISLATIVE INTENT OF THE LAW.
AND I THINK WE WOULD ALL AGREE
IF THERE'S EVER BEEN ANYONE WHO
HAVE SERVED IN THIS LEGISLATIVE
BODY WHO COULD. CLEARLY
ARTICULATE WHAT THE INTENTION OF
THE LAW WAS WAS WILLIE BROWN.
AS I HAVE ARGUED SINCE DAY ONE
THE GOAL OF THIS BILL IS TO
CLEARLY AND DEFINITIVELY
REINFORCE EXISTING LAW. THEN TEN
OF SECTION TWENTY TWENTY SIX WAS
IN ACTED TO PREVENT INTRUSIVE
OPEN ENDED FACT FINDING MISSIONS
REGARDING THE RESIDENTS OR THE
RESIDENTS OF ELECTED OFFICIALS
BY OVER ZEALOUS. PROSECUTORS AND
POLITICAL ADVERSE ADVERSARIES
ARE WHAT MANY MIGHT ALSO SAY A
SELECTIVE PROSECUTION SIMPLY
BASED ON RACE. HOWEVER WHILE MY
GOAL IS TO BUILD UPON THIS
INTENT I RECOGNIZED SOME OF THE
CONCERNS THE CURRENT LIKE
LANGUAGE CREATES. TO THAT IN I'M
COMMITTED TO CONTINUE TO WORK
WITH THE CHAIR AND THIS
COMMITTEE ON AMENDMENTS THAT
WILL STRIKE THE RIGHT BALANCE
BETWEEN ACCOUNTABILITY AND
CLARITY FOR THE JUDICIAL BRANCH
AND ALSO ENSURING THAT
LEGISLATORS. CONTINUE TO RESIDE.
IN A VERIFIABLE WAY WITHIN THE
DISTRICT THEY REPRESENT.
THE BOTTOM LINE CURRENT LAW CAN
BE AND HAS BEEN INTERPRETED
DIFFERENTLY BY LEGISLATORS
COURTS. AND PUBLIC OPINION AND
THE LACK OF CERTAINTY MUST BE
ADDRESSED SO LEGISLATORS CAN'T
CONTINUE TO EFFECTIVELY WORK IN
THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE
RESIDENTS AND THEIR DISTRICT.
AND TO THAT END EVEN THE SAC BEE
AND OTHER EDITORIAL BOARDS HAVE
CLEARLY STATED THE NEED FOR
CLARITY AND THIS LEGISLATION. TO
BE CLEAR SP TWELVE FIFTY DOES
NOT EXPAND RESIDENCY
REQUIREMENTS FOR CANDIDATES NOR
DOES IT ENCOURAGE CANDIDATES TO
RUN FOR OFFICE IF THEY LIVE
OUTSIDE THEIR DISTRICT. AS A
MEMBER WHO HAS LIVED. ON THE
SAME STREET IN THE DISTRICT THAT
I REPRESENT FOUR FORTY FIVE
FORTY NINE YEARS OF MY LIFE.
I AM PERSONALLY INSULTED BY THE
INDIVIDUALS WHO WOULD MAKE
CLAIMS THAT THIS BILL IS TO
SKIRT RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS I
AM A HUNDRED PERCENT INVESTED IN
THE CONTENT A CONSTITUTION. AND
FEEL STRONGLY IN THE
CONSTITUENCY I SHOULD SAY AND
FEEL STRONGLY ON ALL THE MEMBERS
SHOULD HAVE DIRECT AND LONG
STANDING TIES TO THE COMMUNITIES
IN WHICH YOU'RE ELECTED TO
RESEARCH TO THAT END I
RESPECTFULLY ASK PRIVATE.
THANK YOU SENATOR I DO WE HAVE
ANY.
ANYONE IN SUPPORT.
ANY WITNESSES IN SUPPORT.
ERIC HARRIS WITH THE CALIFORNIA
DOUBLE ACP AND SUPPORT AND WILL
BE SENDING A LETTER AND SPORTS
VERY GOOD THANK YOU SIR. ANY
OTHERS IN SPORT.
ANY WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION.
OR TWEENER.
YOU KNOW ME MAYBE I SHOULD START
BY SAYING BEFORE THE. THE
OPPOSITION OR BETWEEN HERS AND
UP HERE WE WE SPENT A.
A GOOD AMOUNT OF TIME THIS
WEEKEND WORKING.
THIS THROUGH AND I I SINCERELY
APPRECIATE CENTER BRADFORD'S.
.
PATIENCE AND CREATIVITY IN
TRYING TO FIND A SOLUTION THAT'S.
HOPEFULLY GOING TO.
REMOVED.
THE OPPOSITION.
AND I THE THE MEMBERS THE
COMMITTEE HERE SHOULD HAVE A
MOCK UP OF.
THE THE DRAFT AMENDMENTS WE PUT
TOGETHER THAT I THINK STILL
ACCOMPLISH SENATOR BRADFORD'S
INTENT TO PROVIDE SOME CLARITY
HERE. IN THIS MARKING IS CREATED
BY A COURT OPINION.
BUT WITHOUT UNDERCUTTING ANY OF
THE SORT OF PUBLIC INTEGRITY
ISSUES THAT I KNOW WERE OF.
IMPORTANCE THE OPPOSITION SO. I
THINK WE HAVE IN THE CENTER
COMMITTED TO TO GET MISTER WE
TIMING WISE WE DIDN'T HAVE A
CHANCE TO ACTUALLY AMEND THE
BILL IN COMMITTEE HERE TODAY.
BUT.
AND THE CENTER CAN CLARIFY BUT
I THINK WE'RE GOING TO BE TAKING
THESE AMENDMENTS BEFORE THE
FLOOR SO THAT WE'RE NOT VOTING
ON THIS.
YOU KNOW MOVING IS OUT OF OUR
HOUSE WITHOUT THESE AMENDMENTS
TO PLACE WITH THAT AGE WILL
ALLOW YOU TO PROCEED GIVE YOU A
CONTEXT FOR THE. CONVERSATION.
BUT TO GET TO THE CAR BY THE
CENTERS IS TAKING THOSE
AMENDMENTS THAT WE SAW THOSE
THAT WERE CIRCULATED THIS
MORNING.
YES IS THAT WE NEED CLARITY HERE
NOT TAKEN THE DAY BUT WE'RE
CONTINUING TO WORK ON A WORK IN
PROGRESS YES THE GLOVE WITH THAT
YEAH.
WHAT CAN WE DO TO GET SOME
CLARITY I I THINK I'VE BEEN VERY
CLEAR WHERE I STAND ON THIS BILL
RIGHT NOW SO I AM WORKING WITH
EACH YEAR IN THIS COMMITTEE? AND
WE'RE WORKING ON AMENDMENTS THAT
WEREN'T READY TO BE ADMITTED
INTO THE BILL TODAY.
HE.
SO I GUESS YOU FOR YOUR
COMMENTS YOU SHOULD I GUESS
COMMENT ON THE BILL IN IN PRINT
AS IT IS IN PRINT AND AS IT'S
BEEN ANALYZED.
BUT.
.
I THINK WE'VE GOT A PRETTY GOOD
FRAMEWORK HERE.
THAT ALLOWS FOR THE VERIFY
VERIFIABILITY THAT.
.
THE CENTER WAS TALKING ABOUT SO.
.
I DON'T ANTICIPATE.
MUCH CHANGING BEYOND THIS DRAFT
HERE BUT YOU GUYS CAN COMMENT ON
THE BILL AND PRINT AND THEN WE
CAN DECIDE AS AS THE BILL OF
BALLS IF YOU WANT TO.
CHANGE YOUR POSITION BASED ON
WHAT THE AMENDMENTS ARE THEY
COME THROUGH.
THEN YOU'RE WELCOME TO DO SO
BUT I THINK.
MAYBE JUST STICK TO YOUR
COMMENTS ON THE BILL AS IT IS IN
PRINT RIGHT NOW AND THEN.
.
IF YOU HAVE COMMENTS ON THE THE
AMENDMENTS THAT WE CIRCULATE WE
WE DO WE TAKE THOSE INTO ACCOUNT
TOO SINCE THIS IS THE MAIN
POLICY HEARING WILL BE HAVING
FOUR TO ONE EIGHT WHEN YOU TRY
TO. PARK YOUR COMMENTS INTO
THOSE TWO TWO BUCKETS.
SO.
BEFORE I BEGIN EITHER OF A SHORT
STATEMENT OR A LONGER STAY IN
ITS MIND. UNDERSTANDING RIGHT
THERE'S NOT A COMMITMENT TO
ADOPTING THOSE MINUTES TO
COMMITMENT CONTINUED DISCUSSION
ON.
THROUGH THE TERM JUST TRYING TO
UNDERSTAND WHAT THE.
YEAH OUT OF THE CHAIR AND ARE
VERY CLEAR WHERE WE ARE ON THIS
BILL.
SO.
.
YEAH SO WE'RE WE'RE COMMITTED TO
LANDING THIS ISSUE TODAY THIS IS
THE FRAMEWORK WE'RE GOING TO USE
GOING FORWARD.
IS THIS GONNA BE VERBATIM WHAT'S
IN THE AMENDMENTS.
I I WILL LEAVE THAT TO.
.
FURTHER CONVERSATION WITH
SENATOR BRADFORD BUT. I WOULD
TREAT THIS AS THE THE STRUCTURE
OF WHAT MEMBERS YOU'RE AGREEING
TO TODAY SAID THE CONCEPT I
THINK CAN WE COMMIT TO THE
CONCEPT WITHOUT A DOUBT MISTER
CHAIRMAN I THINK WE'VE GOT A
LONG ENOUGH. TO START DIALOGUE
ON THIS IN A WORD STAND WHERE
YOU STAND IN A COMMITTEE OF THE
WHOLE.
OKAY. I I'M NOT HERE TO WASTE
THIS COMMITTEE TIME RUNNING OUT
OF STAMINA.
SO WITH THAT.
.
COMMENTS. GRATEFUL THANK YOU
CHAIR STERNUM MEMBERS NICKELS
ITEM WITH CALIFORNIA COMMON
CAUSE.
FORCING WE'RE HERE TODAY TO AN
OPPOSITION TO SB TWELVE FIFTY AT
LEAST IN THE FORM THAT'S
CURRENTLY PRESENTED. WHICH WOULD
RENDER UNENFORCEABLE KNUSSEN
PRACTICAL FACT ELIMINATE
IMPORTANT DEMOCRATIC REQUIREMENT
THE MEMBERS LEGISLATURE RESIDE
IN THE DISTRICT THAT THEY'RE
ELECTED TO REPRESENT.
BECAUSE THE DETAILS ARE
IMPORTANT HERE AT LIKE GO OVER
CURRENT LAW THE CHANGE THAT SP
TWELVE FIFTY ACCOMPLICES WERE
POST THIS FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE IN
THE LAW.
NOW CURRENCY LAW RECOGNIZES THE
PEOPLE MAY HAVE MULTIPLE
RESIDENCES HOWEVER FOR VOTING
PURPOSES A PERSON MAY ONLY HAVE
ONE DOMICILE. WHICH IS WHERE
PERSONS HABITATION IS FIXED
WHERE THEY INTEND TO REMAIN
WHERE THEY INTEND TO RETURN WHEN
ABSENT.
MOST PEOPLE ONLY HAVE ONE
RESIDENCE TO DETERMINE DOMICILE
STRAIGHT FORWARD THAT ONE
RESIDENT IS THEIR DOMICILE.
LEGISLATORS ADMITTEDLY THOUGH OR
UNUSUAL BECAUSE BY NECESSITY
THROUGH WORKING LEGISLATURE MOST
LEGISLATORS HAVE TWO RESIDENCES
ONE SEGMENT ON ONE OF THEIR HOME
DISTRICT.
AND BECAUSE THE LENGTH OF
CALIFORNIA'S LIVES OF SESSION
IT'S CONCEIVABLE THAT SOME
MEMBERS SPEND MORE TIME IN
SACRAMENTO. THAN THEY DO IN
THEIR DISTRICT. TO DRESSES SO
ELECTIONS CODE SECTION TWENTY
TWENTY SIX PROVIDES THE
LEGISLATURE MAY CHOOSE IN THE
AFFIDAVIT OF REGISTRATION WHICH
OTHER ACTUAL RESIDENCES IS THEIR
DOMICILE. IN COURT STREET THAT
CHOICE IS BEING CONCLUSIVELY
TRUE MEANING NOT SUBJECT TO
BEING DISPROVEN WITH CONTRARY
EVIDENCE. HOWEVER WHILE
LEGISLATORS DO HAVE A SPECIAL
PROVOCATIVE TO CHOOSE ANY OTHER
RESIDENCES AS THEIR DOMICILE.
ONE THING THEY CANNOT DO IS
CHOOSE THEIR DOMICILE A PLACE
THEY DO NOT ACTUALLY RESIDE IN.
SO FOR EXAMPLE A LEGISLATOR
COULD SPLIT THEIR TIME BETWEEN
THE HOUSE AND THE DISTRICT OF
EDUCATION HOUSE. IN A HOME IN
SACRAMENTO AND STILL CHOOSE
THEIR HOUSE IN THE DISTRICT AS
THEIR DOMICILE AND THAT WOULD BE
CONCLUSIVE.
THE ONE THING THEY CANNOT DO
THOUGH IS CHOOSE A RESIDENCE
THAT THEY DON'T ACTUALLY RESIDE
IN AND HAVE THAT BE. THE
RESIDENTS FOR PURPOSES OF
REGISTRATION.
AS YOU TWELVE FIFTY WOULD UNDO
THIS ROLE THOUGH IN ABOUT A
DECADE OF CONSISTENT LAW BY
REQUIRING COURTS EXCEPT AS
CONCLUSIVE WHATEVER RESIDENTS
LEGISLATOR CLAIMS IN THEIR
AFFIDAVIT REGISTRATION EVEN IF
THEY DO NOT LIVE THERE.
OF COURSE A AW WHICH IS IN
CABLE BEING FORCES IS REALLY NOT
MUCH OF A LOTS MORE OF A
SUGGESTION. SUNDRESSBE TWELVE
FIFTY FOR EXAMPLE LEGISLATURE
COULD PRESUMABLY PICK A RANDOM
ADDRESS IN THE DISTRICT OF A
PHONE BOOTH AD REGISTER THEIR
EVEN THOUGH THEY'VE NEVER SEEN
THE PLACE ALONE SET FOOT THERE.
AND THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE
ACCEPTED BY THE COURT AS A
CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTION. THIS
WOULD CREATE A DOUBLE STANDARD
WHICH PLACES LEGISLATORS
UNIQUELY ABOVE THE LAW ANOTHER
LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS NOR EVEN
ORDINARY CITIZENS WHEN THEY
REGISTER TO VOTE. ARE FREE TO
OPENLY LIVE OUT THE REST OF
RESIDENTS WITHOUT CONSEQUENCE ON
THEIR AFFIDAVIT REGISTRATION
FACT THEY CAN BE CRIMINALLY
PROSECUTED FOR DOING SO. IT ALSO
VIOLATES IF NOT THE LETTER THAN
CERTAINLY THE SPIRIT OF THE
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION WHICH
REQUIRE CANDIDATES TO LIVE IN
THE DISTRICT THEY RUN IN FOR
OVER A CENTURY.
MORE IMPORTANT THAN ALL THE SO
THIS CHANGE WOULD WEAKEN THE
CORE DEMOCRATIC VALUE THE
REPRESENTATIVE SHOULD ACTUALLY
BE REPRESENTATIVE OF THEIR
CONSTITUENTS. LEGISLATORS LIVE
IN WHICH MEANS THAT THEY
REPRESENT THEY REMAIN CLOSE TO
THE NEEDS AND INTERESTS THEIR
CONSTITUENTS. UNDERSTAND THE
ROAD CONDITIONS SCHOOLS ACCESS
TO DOCTORS QUALITY OF AIR
ALTHOUGH BECAUSE THEY LIVE THERE
AND THEY CAN SPEAK IN
LEGISLATORS ISSUES. MORE
EFFECTIVELY IN SACRAMENTO AS A
RESULT. THE COMMON SENSE
PRINCIPLES THAT WE BELIEVE
CALIFORNIANS BROADLY SUPPORT.
WE'VE HAD MULTIPLE OPPORTUNITIES
TO DISCUSS BILL DIRECTLY WITH
THE CENTER RADFORD AND I DO
WANNA SAY DO APPRECIATE THE FACT
WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO HAVE THAT
COMMUNICATION. AND I RECOGNIZE
HE'S COMING WITH FROM A GOOD
PLACE OF WITH THIS PROPOSED
LEGISLATION. THAT'S AGREE THAT
SECTION TWENTY TWENTY SIX HIM
YOU'RE IN MORE CLEARLY. WE
OBVIOUSLY DON'T OPPOSE
CLARIFICATION SO LONG AS IT IS
CONSISTENT WITH EXISTING CASE
LAW.
BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THAT THE
DISTRICT RESIDENCY FURTHERS JUST
VERY IMPORTANT DEMOCRATIC VALUES
WE MUST OPPOSE THIS BILL AND ANY
LEGISLATION OR AMENDMENT IN
FUTURE THAT WOULD UNDERMINE.
THIS REQUIREMENT AND PRACTICE
THANK.
ROMANS YES SOME HAVE A SURVEY OF
CALIFORNIA. ECHO THE COMMENTS
FROM COMING BECAUSE WE JUST ADD
THEM.
WE WE DID SEE THOSE AMENDMENTS
ARE CIRCULATED THIS MORNING WE
APPRECIATE. THAT THE AUTHOR AND
THE CHAIRMAN WORKING. ON
AND SOME ON AT THE MOMENT BILL
THAT WOULD CLARIFY THE LANGUAGE
INSIDE OF. THEM.
THE WAY THE CURRENT THAT WOULD
CHANGE IT AND IF THOSE ELEMENTS
ARE TAKEN WE WOULD REMOVE OUR
OPPOSITION.
CAN I JUST GET SOME
CLARIFICATION COMMON CAUSE TO
ARE YOU OPEN TO CHANGE YOUR
POSITION IF IF THE CURRENT.
DRAFT AMENDMENTS WERE ACCEPTED
IF THE. DRAFT LANGUAGE THAT WAS
CIRCULATED IS ACCEPTED WE REMOVE
OUR OBSESSION.
ALL RIGHT. MEMBERS ANY COMMENTS
QUESTIONS.
WELL I GUESS SO APPRECIATE
EVERYBODY'S COMMENTS TONIGHT YES
CERTAINLY APPRECIATE
CONVERSATIONS THAT I'VE HAD WITH.
WITH BOTH THE SENATOR AND.
AND WITH FOLKS IN COMMON
BECAUSE. MY QUESTION FOR YOU
NECKLACES YOU KNOW WHEN YOU TALK
ABOUT RESIDING IN I MEAN YOU
KNOW LIKE SO MANY THINGS HERE.
THE CONCEPT THAT WE CAN ALL
AGREE TO IN PRINCIPLE AND OF
GETTING MORE COMPLICATED IN
PRACTICE RIGHT SO.
IT AS THERE IS PERFECTLY
POSSIBLE.
AS CRAZY AS THIS IS FOR FOR
PEOPLE TO LEGALLY RESIDE IN
THREE DIFFERENT PLACES. I'M IN
THE CASE OF ALL MEMBERS
LEGISLATURE WE WE BY DEFINITION
RESIDE TO DIFFERENT PLACES AT
THE VERY LEAST IT MUST YOU
REPRESENT THIS AREA BECAUSE.
YOU KNOW ALL OF US AROUND THIS
TABLE REPRESENT PARTS OF
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. AND YET WE
HAVE TO BE HERE FOR WORK AND SO
WE'VE GOT TWO RESIDENCES ARE WE
COME BACK AND FORTH.
SO THE THE THE KINDA CRITICAL
QUESTION BECOMES WHAT IS RESIDE
IN ME.
AND.
.
AND AND AND AND AND THEN AND
THEN AND THEN WITH THAT IN MIND.
.
YOU KNOW. HOW DO WE EAT WHAT WE
KNOW HOW HOW DO YOU CRAFT OF A
POLICY THAT THAT THAT THAT IT'S
TRULY REFLECTIVE OF THAT
AMBIGUITY AND I I THINK THAT'S?
AT THE HEART OF HIS CHALLENGER
TODAY I SUPPOSE YOU'RE IF YOU'RE
FEELING IT SEEMS THAT THAT
DOESN'T THE DROP AMENDS. DO THAT
I I I HAVE THAT SENSE AS WELL
AND I'M SEEING FOR THE FIRST
TIME TO YOU KNOW JUST NOW
READING OVER. BUT.
I DO THINK WHAT CENTER BRADFORD
IS TRYING TO TO TO DRESSES IS
THIS DIFFICULT.
AMBIGUITY THAT EXISTS FOR A LOT
OF PEOPLE INCLUDING YOU KNOW
MEMBERS WHO MAY HAVE A A KID YOU
KNOW US TO GO TO SCHOOL AND AND
YOU KNOW.
THEY'RE LIVING TWO PLACES AT
ONCE AND AND YOU KNOW IF IF THEY
HAPPEN TO BRING THEIR FAMILY TO
HER SACRAMENTO. IS THAT GOING TO
YOU KNOW WILL WILL CREATE COULD
CAN CAN INTERPRETATIONS OF
CURRENT LAW IF.
IF.
IF IF.
OVER LEAVE PROSECUTED BY ZEALOUS.
YOU KNOW.
LOCAL DISORDER TOURNEY YOU KNOW
OUR OUR MEMBERS VULNERABLE UNDER
CURRENT LAW OR LEASING A CAR
INTERPRETATIONS OF LAW.
TO.
TO BEING YOU KNOW.
JAMMED UP IF THEY WANT TO MOVE
THEIR FAMILIES SACRAMENTO AND I
THINK THAT'S THAT'S PART OF WHAT
SENATORS TRYING TO TO ADDRESS
HERE AND I I I CERTAINLY DO
APPRECIATE YOU.
THEY'LL BE WILLING TO TO REMOVE
OPPOSITION WITH WITH THE
ACCEPTANCE OF THIS LANGUAGE I
UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BIT OF
AMBIGUITY IN TERMS OF. WHAT
EXACTLY SENATORS AGREED TO? IT'S
NOT.
IT.
NO I'M I'M.
WAS IT SEEMS LIKE IT SEEMS LIKE
WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO IS TO.
CONTINUE WORKING WITH THE CHAIR.
OF. THAT YOU THAT YOU AGREE WITH
THE TH THE THE YOU THAT YOU'RE
YOU'RE YOU'RE OKAY THIS AT LOOK
I'M JUST TRYING TO AVOID A SCENE
OR NOT FIVE MINUTES. BUT MY
SENSE IS THAT YOU.
YOU YOU YOU DON'T DISAGREE WITH
THAT KIND OF THE GENERAL
TRAJECTORY OF WHERE THE CHAIRS
GOING WITH THESE IMMENSE. BUT
THAT THERE MAY BE A LITTLE BIT
AWARDS MATH THING TO DO.
.
IS THAT.
OKAY OKAY.
RIGHT SO.
WITH WITH THAT IN MIND AND WITH
THE YOU KNOW.
I I I I UNDERSTAND WHERE TO I
GUESS WE'RE RUNNING UP THE
DEADLINES I SUPPOSE. I'M.
YOU KNOW I DO.
YOU KNOW I DO THINK THAT THE I
THINK WE'RE GETTING CLOSE IT
SOUNDS LIKE WE ARE.
I I YOU KNOW I APPRECIATE THE
FACT THAT.
THAT YOU THE CHAIRS AND WORKING
SO HARD TO TRY TO.
YOU RECONCILE THESE DIFFERENCES
THAT EXIST AND I THINK THERE I
THINK BOTH SIDES ARE PRESENTING.
LEGITIMATE ARGUMENTS AND I I
APPRECIATE THE HARD WORK THAT
THE CHAIR AND THE STAFF OF BEEN
DOING AND I I I MY MY TENDENCY
IT AS I'VE SAID EVERYONE. OF
BOTH IN PRIVATE PRIVATE AND
PUBLIC IS TO DEFER TO THE CHAIRS
AND A GOOD OFFICES AS HE TRIES
TO. WORK OUT THIS NEGOTIATION.
BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE GETTING
REALLY CLOSE.
YEAH OTHERS THANK YOU MISTER
CHAIRMAN THANKS FOR THE EFFORT
THANK YOU MISTER BRADFORD.
AGAIN CONVERSATIONS LOOK WHAT WE
TRY TO DO HERE.
WE GOT AN ODD SITUATIONS BECAUSE
PEOPLE LIVE IN MULTIPLE PLACES
WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID IS A
GOTCHA GAME RIGHT.
WHERE WHERE IT AND I THOUGHT
WHAT HE SAID WAS PRETTY SMART OR
HOW TO ACTUALLY PUT IT IN THE
LAW BUT YOU CAN YOU CAN CHOOSE
WHERE YOU WANT TO RESIDE BUT YOU
CAN'T HAVE A PLACE THAT YOU
DON'T RESIDE? RIGHT AS THE PHONE
BOOK THEORY THERE IS A DICK BUT
YOU SAID WAS CORRECT THERE ISN'T
A ELEGANCE TO. A REPRESENTATIVE
GOVERNMENT THAT YOU DO LIVE IN
THE COMMUNITIES THAT YOU
REPRESENT BUT IF YOU HOW MUCH
YOU STAY THERE AND WHAT YOU'VE
DONE WITH RESPECT THESE
AMENDMENTS WHICH I THINK ARE
PRETTY GOOD WAS LOOK AT FACTORS
THAT ARE REALISTIC ABOUT PEOPLE
THAT HAVE MORE THAN ONE
RESIDENCE BECAUSE. YOUR WORK IS
IN A DIFFERENT PLACE IF YOU HAVE
A CHILD AND YOU'RE HERE MONDAY
THROUGH THURSDAY AND THEY'VE GOT
TO GO TO SCHOOL HERE CAN ADD A
CELL OVERZEALOUS DISTRICT
ATTORNEY SAY THAT YOU DON'T LIVE
IN THE DISTRICT BECAUSE YOUR
CHILD. IS IS IN THE CITY THAT
YOU WERE THERE FOUR DAYS A WEEK
AND YOU WANT TO TAKE CARE OF
YOUR KIDS. WE WE SAY IN THIS
AMENDMENTS WAS GENERALLY GOOD
BUT THAT'S NOT SHOULDN'T BE A
FACTOR THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU'RE
TRYING TO GET TO WHAT YOU'RE
TRYING TO GET TO HERE. IS TO
MAKE IS TO IT IS IS TO MAKE SURE.
THAT THERE'S SOME SOME TEETH IN
THIS BUT THAT IS NOT THE GOTCHA
GAME WE SEE IN THIS OVER THE
YEARS I'VE BEEN SAYING THIS FOR
MANY YEARS ARE. IN MANY IN MANY
INSTANCES.
AND I I THINK WHAT YOU DID USE
GOOD SO LOOK I I' SUBORDINATE
TO THE BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE
THAT THIS IS REALLY STICKS I
CERTAINLY THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE
AND FAIR DOES THIS STUFF JUST
CAME DOWN BOTH TO THE. TO THE
SENDER BRADFORD AND FROM THE
CHAIR AND I JUST SAW THE ISSUE
MINUTES BEFORE THIS MEETING. ARE
ON THAT IF YOU GOT TO MAKE SOME
WORDS MISS HERE AND THERE ALL OF
I GO DO IT HAVE AT IT THANK YOU
FOR BEING CHAIR OF THIS
COMMITTEE WORKING SO HARD. BUT.
ALL OF OUR HERO THAT'S INSHALLAH
A DIFFERENT LANGUAGE BUT I'M. SO
SO ARE. BUT ANY OF IT I MEAN I
THINK THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT
BOAST AT THE YOU GET IT BECAUSE
IT REMOVES BOTH OF YOUR
OPPOSITION GETS TO THE ISSUE OF
THE GOTCHA GAME BUT. STILL TO
THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER THAT YOU
MAKING SURE THAT THERE'S THAT
RESPECT FOR THE SYSTEM AND I
THINK THAT WORKS. AND IT WORKS
SO I JUST I'M DOING IT BUT I
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT. YOU MAKE
AMENDMENTS BUT STICK TO WHAT YOU
GOT HERE AND.
AND I'M WITH YET BUT IF YOU
DON'T LET'S LET US NOW IN THERE
SO WE CAN MAKE A DETERMINATION
AS YOU MOVE FORWARD.
KEEP.
TERRY ANDERSON IS RUSSIA.
SENATOR IDEA.
I THINK A LOT HAS BEEN SAID
TODAY.
YOU KNOW ARE SPEAKING FROM MY
OWN LIFE AND I COME UP SUNDAY
NIGHTS AND GO HOME THURSDAYS I
SPENT FOUR NIGHTS A WEEK HERE.
SOMETIMES.
BECAUSE I'M ON PUBLIC SAFETY
I'LL TOUR PRISON OR I'LL GO
SOMEPLACE ELSE IN THE STATE MAY
NOT EVEN MAKE IT TO MY HOME.
NOW.
.
I'M LUCKY BECAUSE I'M MARRIED TO
A BEAUTIFUL WOMAN WHO LOVES ME
DEARLY AND SHE STAYS IN THEIR
HOUSE EVEN WHEN I'M ON THE ROAD.
BUT IF I WAS A SINGLE PERSON.
THE CASE COULD BE EASILY MADE.
THAT I PICKED A NUMBER IN THE
PHONE BOOK.
A MAN DRESSED IN THE PHONE BOOK.
AND THE FACT THE MATTER IS
UNLIKE ANY OTHER OCCUPATION IN
CALIFORNIA.
YOUR NEXT OPPONENT.
IS GOING TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY
IN YOUR DISTRICT KNOWS EXACTLY
WHERE YOU LIVE AND YOU BETTER BE
ABLE TO DEFEND IT WORDS CAN BE
FRONT PAGE NEWS. SO I'M NOT AS
CONCERNED ABOUT THIS.
WHETHER YOU ACCEPT THIS
LANGUAGE OR YOU KEEP UP WITH THE
CURRENT LANGUAGE OR YOU DO
EXCEPT I THINK IT'S ALL ON THE
RIGHT PATH. AND.
THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION IS
FAR WORSE THAN ANY D. EIGHT SO
WE SHOULD TAKE THE D. ACE OUT OF
IT.
THEY SHOULD NOT WEAPONIZED THIS
SO THAT SOMEBODY CAN USE IT
BECAUSE THEY WANT TO MAKE HAY.
ON A GUY WHO'S DOING HIS JOB TO
THE BEST OF HIS ABILITY NOW IN
IN MANY STOP SHOWING UP.
TWO YOUR DISTRICT AND PEOPLE ARE
CONFUSED WHAT YOUR NAME IS.
YOU'RE NOT GONNA GET REELECTED.
SO I THINK THAT.
ULTIMATELY.
THE BALLOT BOX IS AS STRONG AS
ARBITER OF WHETHER YOU'RE DOING
YOUR JOB EFFECTIVELY IN PEOPLE
KNOW THAT YOU'RE FIGHTING FOR
THEM IN SACRAMENTO. SO I DON'T
CARE WHETHER YOU TAKE THE
AMENDMENT OR NOT BUT IF YOU DO
TAKE THE AMENDMENT.
I LIKE TO BE ADDED AS A CO
AUTHOR. BECAUSE I THINK YOU KNOW
WHAT I WAS THE CENTER ONE OF THE
CENTERS THAT WROTE THE
RESOLUTION TO EXPEL ONE OF OUR
COLLEAGUES. AND I DIDN'T DO
UNTIL HE WAS FOUND GUILTY.
AND I DIDN'T FEEL GOOD ABOUT IT
BUT YOU COULD HAVE SOMEBODY
SERVING ON THE FLOOR WHO HAVE
BEEN FOUND GUILTY OF SOME
FELONIES.
BUT WHAT HE WAS ACCUSED OF AND
HE WAS A AWESOME SENATOR HE DID
A FANTASTIC JOB. I SERVED AS
VICE CHAIR I DID BILLS WITH THEM
AND HE REALLY WAS KNOWLEDGEABLE
WE ALL. WE ALL LOST.
WHEN HE HAD TO STEP DOWN.
I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER SENATOR BE
PUT IN THAT POSITION. BECAUSE
PEOPLE ARE CONFUSED AND.
.
ONE D. ACHE WITH FIFTY EIGHT
COUNTY DA WE HAVE AN AG WHO'S
WHO'S GONNA CANNSTATT STONE I
DON'T KNOW.
BUT IN HIS DISTRICT.
EVERYONE KNEW THAT HE WORKED
HARD FOR THEM.
AND IT WAS WITHOUT QUESTION.
THAT HE WAS WORKING SO WHETHER
HE SHOWED UP.
AT HIS HOUSE OR WHETHER HE WAS
ON THE ROAD WORKING. FOR THEM.
I LEAVE IT TO THE VOTERS TO MAKE
THAT DECISION BECAUSE I KNOW A
LOT OF MONEY IS GOING TO BE
SPENT MAKING SURE THE VOTERS
KNOW EVERY.
INTRICATE. DETAIL ABOUT THAT
PERSONS LIFE
SO I WITHOUT A LIKE MOVED.
OKAY THAT'S A MOTION FROM
SENATOR ANDERSON.
.
WITH THE COMMITMENT.
IN BOTH CONCEPT TRAJECTORY AND
WE JUST DESCRIBE WHAT THAT
TRAJECTORY IS.
NOT SOLELY RELYING ON A
POLITICAL ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS
OR A SORT OF SELF.
PURELY SELF ENFORCEMENT
MECHANISM BUT THERE'S STILL.
LIABILITY FOR LYING.
THAT THERE STILL SHOULD BE SOME
CONSEQUENCE FOR THAT AND SOME
WAY TO REALLY TO TO DO
VERIFICATION BUT NOT IN A WAY
THAT SORT OF HAS AN OPEN ENDED.
ABILITY TO EXERCISE LIMITLESS
PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION TO DO
SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT TO SORT OF
OPEN OURSELVES UP TO THE SORT OF
POLITICAL GAMESMANSHIP. I THINK
THIS STRIKES A BALANCE SO WITH
THE COMMITMENT TO IRONING OUT
THIS CONCEPT.
COMMITTING TO THAT TRAJECTORY
THAT I JUST DESCRIBED.
I'M I'M FINE MOVING THE BILL
FOR TODAY AND I WILL CERTAINLY
STAND TOUCH WITH THE REST
COMMITTEES IS MOST WARD. AND I I
WOULD ALSO WE WILL KEEP ACLU IN
COMMON CAUSE INVOLVED IN THIS
PROCESS TO ON TO MAKE SURE THAT.
THAT YOU GUYS ARE INFORMED OF
WHAT AT ANY EVOLUTIONS IN THIS
LANGUAGE YOU'RE SAYING BEFORE
YOU TODAY SO WITH THAT I'D LIKE
TO CLOSE THANK YOU MISTER
CHAIRMAN YOU HAVE MY WORD THAT
IF THIS BILL DOES NOT MOVE IN
THE DIRECTION THAT YOU'RE. HAPPY
WITH YOU HAVE ALL THE RIGHT TO.
YOU KNOW CALL IT BACK TO
COMMITTEE I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH
THAT BUT. IN THE AIR A FAKE NEWS
THE OPPOSITION IS CLEARLY.
MISINTERPRETED WHAT TWENTY
TWENTY SIX IS DONE JUST AS MANY
COURTS HAVE MISINTERPRETED
TWENTY TWENTY SIX AGAIN. THIS IS
LEGISLATION HAS BEEN IN PLACE
FOR THIRTY FIVE YEARS AND THE
ARGUMENTS THAT THEY SAY THIS
BILL WOULD CREATE EXISTS TODAY.
WITH HOW THIS BILL.
THE OPTICS ARE CHALLENGES OF
DETERMINING RESIDENCY WILL STILL
EXIST OR DOM WITHOUT WILL STILL
EXIST WHETHER ART TO THIS BILL
OR NOT SO THIS DOES NOT CHANGE
ANYTHING. AND THAT'S THE POINT I
REALLY WANT TO MAKE HERE WE WANT
TO RESTATE WHAT ONE OF THE MOST
AFFECTIVE LEGISLATORS WHO'VE
EVER SERVE IN THIS BUILDING
CLEARLY ARTICULATED. THIRTY FIVE
YEARS AGO AN AUTHORING.
THE SECTION THAT CREATED TWENTY
TWENTY SIX AND I DON'T THINK
IT'S UP TO THE COURT. AND
INTERPRET. LEGISLATIVE INTENT WE
HAVE TO MAKE IS BRIEF FROM LEAD
COUNSEL WHO CLEARLY STATE THAT
THE COURT ERRED IN THEIR
INTERPRETATIONS OF WHAT THE
INTENTIONS OF THIS WALLACE. SO I
AM NOT HERE TO SKIRT.
RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS ARE
DOMICILE REQUIREMENTS AT ALL
AGAIN I LIVE ON THE SAME STREET.
FOR FORTY NINE YEARS YOU CAN
FOLLOW ME HOME BUT I SPEND MORE
TIME HERE IN SACRAMENTO AND I AM
ONE OF THOSE SINGLE GUYS WHO
MIGHT NOT COME HOME OVER THE
WEEKEND. IT WAS EVEN SOME
REFERENCE OF DO YOU COOK A MEAL
I AM A TURN ON THE STOVE IN MY
HOUSE IN TWENTY YEARS SO WOULD
THAT MEAN I DON'T LIVE IN MY
HOUSE. SO THE POINT IS I THINK
THIS IS COMMON SENSE MEASURES TO
ADDRESS WHAT WE ALL AGREE IS
MURKY.
LET THE LANGUAGE AND JUST
RESTATE WHAT THE INTENT WAS
THIRTY FIVE YEARS AGO AND I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE
AND I THINK THE CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE FOR YOUR WORK.
I JUST WANNA SAY FROM THE WANTS
OF COOKING CLASSES IT MIGHT.
HELP YOU FIND SOMEONE. OKAY HER
KIDS. IN THE COOKIE DIET ALRIGHT
SO.
MOTION FROM SENATOR ANDERSON.
DO PASS.
SECTOR PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
STERN FIVE STERN I'M ANDERSON
AREN'T ANDERSON I ALLEN. ALLEN I
HURTS FOR. HERTZ BERG I LEAVE UP.
I THINK YOU CAN REMEMBER.
OKAY THAT.
I WANT. TO.
WHEN WE WHEN WE OPEN THE ROOM
LIFT THE CAUSE OR PUT THE
MEASURE ON CALL.
THE VOTE NOW IS FOUR ZERO SHE
START SHE WANTS SYSTEM JUST
CLOSE THE ROMAN SHE SAYS SHE'S
OKAY OKAY SO WE'RE GONNA CLOSE
THE ROLE SORRY WE'RE GONNA CLOSE
THE ROLE ON ITEM ONE.
THAT MEASURE PASSES WITH A
COMMITMENT TO A MAN BEFORE THE
FLOOR. TO THE SATISFACTION OF
THE CHAIR AN ITEM TO.
ACA TWELVE WILL LIFT THE CALL
ON THAT SECTOR PLEASE CALL REAL.
AS A CONSENT ITEM THIS AC TWELVE
CONSENT.
ANDERSON.
I UNDERSTAND I HEARD SPURRED HER
TO BURBANK.
ALRIGHT WE WILL.
THAT IS FIVE ZERO THAT THAT'S.
REFERRED TO SENATE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE AND
WITH THAT WE ARE DONE WITH OUR
AGENDA TODAY THIS MEETING IS
ADJOURNED