OVER. THIS IS
THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON
ELECTIONS AND CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENTS. IT'S MARCH 1920 24
AND, UH, FIRST THING WE'RE GOING
TO DO IS ESTABLISH A QUORUM.
BLAKESPEAR PRESENT SHAKESPEARE
PRESENT. 11 HERE. ALAN MENJIVAR.
NEWMAN. POCHETTINO. PUCCINO
HERE. UMBERG UMBERG HERE. OK, WE
HAVE A QUORUM. UM WE HAVE TWO
BILLS ON OUR AGENDA TODAY. SB
986 BY SENATOR SEYARTO AND SB
1027 BY SENATOR MENJIVAR AND I'M
HAPPY TO SEE THAT SENATOR
SEYARTO IS HERE. SO, UH, WE WILL
HAND IT OVER TO YOU. CAUSE I CAN
BE TWO PLACES AT ONCE, RIGHT?
EXACTLY. ALL RIGHT. YEAH. THANK
YOU. UH, THANK YOU. HONORABLE
CHAIR. I'M HERE TO PRESENT S¼ B.
UH, 968 IN SHORT, S¼ B 99 86 9
68 99 86. SORRY. WOULD REQUIRE A
VOTER'S BALLOT LABEL TO INCLUDE
AN ESTIMATE OF THE AMOUNT OF
INTEREST DUE ON THE BOND. AND TO
BE CLEAR CALIFORNIA USED TO DO
THIS, AND VOTERS APPRECIATED THE
CLEAR EXPLANATION OF THE COST
ASSOCIATED WITH A BOND. RECENTLY
HOWEVER, THIS PRACTICE HAS BEEN
ARBITRARILY CHANGED AT THE
DISCRETION OF THOSE RESPONSIBLE
FOR WRITING THE FISCAL IMPACT
STATEMENT ON A VOTER'S BALLOT
LABEL. THE NEW PRACTICE HAS BEEN
TO ADMIT ANY MENTION OF INTEREST
ON THE BALLOT LABEL AND INSTEAD
ONLY INCLUDE THE ANNUAL PAYMENT
AMOUNT. UH, THIS ANNUAL PAYMENT
AMOUNT OBSCURES THE ACTUAL COST
OF BORROWING MONEY. AND WHEN
ANYONE IS DECIDING WHETHER TO
TAKE OUT A LOAN THEIR DECISION
IS INFORMED BY TWO THINGS THE
COST OF THE ITEM THAT THEY WANT
TO BUY. AND THE COST OF THE LOAN
ITSELF. IF YOU KNOW THESE TWO
THINGS, YOU CAN DECIDE WHETHER
IT IS WORTH PAYING THE COST OF A
LOAN TO HAVE SOMETHING NOW OR IF
IT IS BETTER TO KEEP SAVING UP
MONEY TO HAVE IT LATER. THE WAY
THE BALLOT LABEL IS CURRENTLY
DRAFTED, MAKES IT SO THAT YOU DO
NOT KNOW THE COST OF THE LOAN
ITSELF. INSTEAD YOU HAVE TO COMB
THROUGH THE VOTER INFORMATION
GUIDE AND DO YOUR OWN
CALCULATIONS IN OUR CURRENT BOND
. I BELIEVE THE VOTER
INFORMATION GUIDE LANGUAGE WAS
75 PAGES LONG OF LEGAL SPEAK. IT
SHOULDN'T BE THAT WAY. WE SHOULD
BE. WE SHOULD MAKE THIS BASIC
INFORMATION AS ACCESSIBLE AS
POSSIBLE TO VOTERS. AND YOU MAY
HEAR SOME OPPOSITION GROUPS
TODAY CLAIM THAT THE FORMAT
PRESCRIBED BY THIS BILL IS
CONFUSING. THAT'S SIMPLY NOT
TRUE. EVIDENTLY IT WAS NOT
DEEMED CONFUSING WHEN, FOR
EXAMPLE, WE USE THE SAME FORMAT
FOR PROP 51 IN 2016. WHAT'S
CONFUSING TO ME IS THAT THE
STATE WANTS TO ASK VOTERS TO
BORROW MONEY ONLY TWO YEARS
AFTER A $98 BILLION SURPLUS. AND
THEN DECLINES TO CLEARLY TELL
VOTERS THE COST OF THE PROJECT
THEY WANT TO FUND OR THE COST OF
THE LOAN ITSELF. OUR VOTERS
DESERVE MORE TRANSPARENCY, AND
THIS BILL GIVES THAT TO THEM. I
UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S SOME
INTERESTS OUT THERE THAT ARE
CONCERNED ABOUT THIS IMPACTING
THEIR ABILITY TO GET FUNDING. MY
RESPONSE TO THIS IS THAT IF YOU
NEED BOND MONEY, YOU CAN HAVE IT
. YOU JUST NEED TO PERSUADE THE
VOTERS AND ALL THIS BILL DOES IS
MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAVE AN
HONEST AND TRANSPARENT WAY OF
KNOWING HOW MUCH IT'S GOING TO
COST THEM. I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR I VOTE. THANK YOU,
SENATOR SEYARTO. WE WILL NOW
MOVE ON TO LEAD WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT, AND I DID NOT BRING ANY
LEAD WITNESSES. DO WE HAVE ANY
OTHER SUPPORT WITNESSES WHO ARE
HERE IN ROOM 2100. OK I DON'T
SEE ANY SO WE WILL NOW MOVE ON
TO LEAD WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION.
YES.
MORNING MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS
REBECCA COLIN ON BEHALF OF THE
COALITION FOR ADEQUATE SCHOOL
HOUSING, WHICH REPRESENTS SCHOOL
DISTRICTS ON STATE AND LOCAL
FACILITY FUNDING ISSUES. LOCAL
BONDS ARE CRITICAL TO MEETING
SCHOOL INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND
PROVIDING THE EDUCATIONAL
SERVICES AND OPPORTUNITIES TO
WHICH OUR CHILDREN ARE ENTITLED.
75 WORDS IS SIMPLY NOT A LOT OF
SPACE TO COMMUNICATE COMPLICATED
CONCEPTS ABOUT A PROPOSED BOND
MEASURE. A NEW LAW IN 2017
REQUIRED LOCAL BONDS TO PROVIDE
SPECIFIC FISCAL INFORMATION ON
THE BALLOT LABEL, WHICH WE
ALREADY PROVIDE. THAT INCLUDES
THE RATE OF A PROPOSED TAX. HOW
LONG WE EXPECT TO COLLECT THAT
TAX AND THE AMOUNT THAT WE
EXPECT TO RECEIVE ANNUALLY ALL
WITHIN THOSE 75 WORDS. THIS
INFORMATION HAS PROVEN CONFUSING
TO VOTERS AND HAS MADE IT MORE
DIFFICULT TO PLACE A BOND ON THE
BALLOT AND TO PASS A BOND. WE
KNOW THAT WHEN VOTERS ARE
CONFUSED, THEY DEFAULT TO A NÓ
VOTE. WE SEE A DROP OF ABOUT 5
TO 15% SUPPORT FOR ALL LOCAL
BOND MEASURES SPECIFICALLY DUE
TO THIS CONFUSION. SB 986 WOULD
ADD AN ADDITIONAL 27 WORD FISCAL
STATEMENT TO THE TO THE EXISTING
WORDS, UH, TO THE BALLOT LABEL
TO IDENTIFY ANNUAL PRINCIPAL AND
INTEREST PAYMENTS. THIS
INFORMATION IS ALREADY PROVIDED
IN THE VOTER INFORMATION GUIDE,
WHICH ALLOWS SPACE TO EXPLAIN
COMPLICATED FISCAL DETAILS.
UNDER S¼ B 986 APPROXIMATELY TWO
THIRDS OF THE WORDS ON THE
BALLOT LABEL WOULD NOW BE
DEDICATED TO FISCAL IMPACT
RATHER THAN EXPLAINING TO VOTERS
HOW THAT MEASURE WOULD IMPROVE
AND BENEFIT THEIR COMMUNITY. IF
SCHOOLS ARE NOT ABLE TO PASS
LOCAL BONDS, THEY WON'T BE ABLE
TO LEVERAGE STATE FUNDS IN THE
SCHOOL FACILITY PROGRAM, MAKING
THAT WHOLE EVEN BIGGER. FOR
STATE BONDS, SO THOSE COMMENTS
WERE ABOUT LOCAL BONDS FOR STATE
BONDS. SB 986 WOULD GREATLY
LIMIT THE DISCRETION OF THE A G
AND THE L A Ó TO DETERMINE THE
MOST RELEVANT FISCAL INFORMATION
FOR EACH UNIQUE BOND MEASURE. S¼
B 986 WOULD MAKE IT HARDER TO
RAISE LOCAL AND STATE FUNDS FOR
THE VITAL INFRASTRUCTURE
PROJECTS THAT SUPPORT PRIORITIES
LIKE EDUCATION, HOUSING,
TRANSPORTATION, HEALTH, DISASTER
RECOVERY, WATER QUALITY AND MORE
. FOR THESE REASONS, WE URGE
YOUR NÓ VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. UH, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER
OPPOSITION WITNESSES HERE AND AT
2100? YES. YOU MAY COME UP TO
THE MICROPHONE. HELLO MY NAME IS
SEAMUS GARTY. I'M UH, WITH
LIGHTHOUSE PUBLIC AFFAIRS ON
BEHALF OF OUR CLIENT SPUR. WE
ARE URGE A NÓ VOTE ON THIS AS
WELL. THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE
SUPPORT OUR OPPOSITION IN THE
ROOM? OK SO WE WILL NOW BRING
THE DISCUSSION BACK TO THE
MEMBERS. IS THERE ANYBODY WHO
HAS A QUESTION OR COMMENT THEY'D
LIKE TO MAKE SENATOR WYNN. YES
UM SO I APPRECIATE THE, UM BILL
AND I. I JUST LOOK AT IT AS IF
ANY OF US WERE TO GO BUY A CAR.
A HOUSE. UM, WE WOULD LIKE TO
SEE HOW MUCH IT COSTS. WHAT THAT
PRINCE THAT WHAT WOULD BE
MONTHLY AND WHAT THAT PRINCIPLE
AT THE END WOULD BE. I THINK
EVERY ONE OF US, UM IN OUR OWN
HOUSEHOLD, WE DO THAT. AND SO I
THINK ALLOWING THE VOTERS THIS
INFORMATION IS NOT. I MEAN,
VOTERS ARE VERY INTELLIGENT.
IT'S NOT VERY CONFUSING OR
DIFFICULT, AND I DON'T THINK
THAT, UM THE LOCAL BONDS
REDUCTION OF 5% 15% HAS TO DO
WITH JUST BECAUSE YOU ADDED, YOU
KNOW THE IMPACT PHYSICAL IMPACT.
I THINK THERE'S A LOT MORE EVERY
JURISDICTION MOST OF THE SCHOOL
BONDS IN MY DISTRICT. AND SALES
TAX. WILL HAS. I HAS SEVERAL
YEARS NOW. I DON'T REMEMBER ONE
THAT HASN'T PASSED. I HAD A CITY
THAT'S PASS IT THREE TIMES IN
THE LAST EIGHT YEARS. UM THEY'RE
NOW THE HIGHEST SALES TAX IN
ORANGE COUNTY. SO I DON'T THINK
IT HAS TO DO WITH JUST BECAUSE
YOU ADD A PHYSICAL IMPACT
INFORMATION IN IT. UM THAT
FORCES VOTERS TO VOTE NÓ. AND
THAT'S CONFUSING. SO UM, I
APPRECIATE THIS INFORMATION. I
THINK VOTERS SHOULD HAVE IT AND
THEY CAN DO WHAT THEY WANNA DO.
WHAT THEY CAN READ IT OR THEY
DON'T. UM, BUT I THINK IT'S TO
ALLOW THOSE WHO WOULD WANT TO
READ OR WOULD KNOW ABOUT IT AT
THAT OPPORTUNITY. SO WITH THAT,
I WILL MOVE. UM, THE ITEM. WHEN
THE TIME COMES, MADAM CHAIR, OK,
THANK YOU. ANY OTHER MEMBER OF
COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS, OK,
SEEING NONE. WE WILL GO TO
SENATOR SEYARTO. WOULD YOU LIKE
TO CLOSE? SURE, I WOULD. SO
EVERY COUPLE OF COMMENTS
REGARDING THE NECESSITY TO START
REINCORPORATING THINGS LIKE THIS
THAT ACTUALLY BUILD TRUST WITH
OUR, UM, THE VOTING PUBLIC OUT
THERE. UH, BECAUSE THE PROBLEM
WITH BONDS LATELY IS NOT UH,
THAT, UH, THEY IS THE PROBLEM
WITH TRUST. THAT HAS BEEN BEEN
ERODED OVER THE LAST 20 YEARS
BECAUSE WE'VE HAD BOND AFTER
BOND WITH CERTAIN PROMISES TIED
TO THOSE BONDS, THE PEOPLE ARE
HAPPY TO PASS. AND THEN SOMEHOW,
UH, WE FALL SHORT ON DELIVERING
ON THOSE PROMISES. UM AND AS
VOTERS PERCEIVE. THAT WE ARE
TRYING TO HIDE INFORMATION OR
KIND OF MAKE IT TOUGH FOR THEM
TO GET SO THAT THEY CANNOT MAKE
AN INFORMED DECISION ON
SOMETHING. UM THAT'S WHEN THEY
START VOTING NÓ. AND THAT'S WHAT
HAS HAPPENED. WE HAVE A BOND
MEASURE RIGHT NOW. THAT IS
SOMETHING THAT EVERYBODY WANTS
TO GET BEHIND AS FAR AS HELPING
MENTAL HEALTH. IT IS STRUGGLING
MIGHTILY. AND IT'S STRUGGLING
BECAUSE PEOPLE DON'T BELIEVE
THAT BOND IS GOING TO DELIVER
WHAT WE SAY, AND THERE'S A GOOD
REASON FOR THAT. BUT WHAT THEY
DON'T KNOW IS HOW MUCH THE 6.7.
BILLION DOLLARS QUICKLY TURNS
INTO $13 BILLION OF COST. WHEN
THAT BOND IS DONE, AND WHAT THEY
WOULD RATHER SEE US DO. MOST
PEOPLE WHEN I LOOK AT THAT, WHEN
I'M EVALUATING WHETHER I SHOULD
SUPPORT A BOND OR NOT, WHAT MOST
PEOPLE WILL DO IS SAY WE SHOULD
JUST PAY FOR THAT UP FRONT. WE
SHOULD PAY FOR THAT WITH SOME OF
THE $98 BILLION SURPLUS WE HAD,
WHICH IS A SUGGESTION THAT WAS
MADE TWO YEARS AGO. BUT WE
PASSED ON THAT. SO NOW WE'RE
COMING TO THEM WITH ONE BOND,
BECAUSE WE HAVE $86 BILLION MORE
OF BONDS COMING UP IN NOVEMBER
THAT WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT
BETWEEN NOW AND THEN WHAT'S
GOING ON AND WHAT'S NOT AND THE
MORE BONDS YOU PILE ON TO THE
PUBLIC, AND THE MORE INFORMATION
YOU KEEP HIDDEN FROM THEM, THE
LESS THEY'RE GONNA TRUST THAT
THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SEEING. IT'S
NOT BECAUSE THEY'RE CONFUSED BY
KNOWING HOW MUCH A BOND IS GOING
TO COST RIGHT UP ON THE FRONT
PAGE, WHERE THEY CAN SEE IT
BECAUSE FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE,
THAT'S HOW WE EVALUATE WHETHER
WE'RE GONNA SUPPORT SOMETHING OR
NOT, AND IF I HAVE TO GO DIGGING
THROUGH 75 PAGES OF LEGAL FINE
PRINT. UH, TO DECIDE WHETHER I'M
GOING TO SUPPORT A MEASURE OR
NOT, I AM LIKELY NOT TO. EVEN
THOUGH I AM PROBABLY MORE
INFORMED THAN A LOT OF VOTERS
ARE BECAUSE WE'RE EXPOSED TO IT
EVERY DAY. SO UM, WITH THAT, UH,
THE 75. 75 WORD. UM DESCRIPTION
OF THE MEASURE. UH, CAN EASILY
ACCOMMODATE FIVE WORDS THAT SAY
WHAT THIS BOND COSTS. WHAT THE
INTEREST IS AND WHAT IT'LL COST
AT THE END AND HOW MANY YEARS
IT'S GOING TO BE FOR THAT'S
INFORMATION THAT PEOPLE
APPRECIATE. AND THAT'S THE
INFORMATION THAT WHEN THEY GET
IT, THEY TRUST IT. AND THEY HAVE
MORE OF A TENDENCY TO PASS THESE
BONDS, AS OPPOSED TO WHEN THEY
START SEEING THAT. OH, WAIT A
MINUTE. HERE'S THE HIDDEN STUFF.
THEY WOULDN'T TELL US THIS.
THAT'S WHY I ASKED. THAT'S WHY I
WROTE THIS THIS BILL, AND THAT'S
THE INTENT OF THIS BILL IS TO
REGAIN THAT TRUST SO THAT WE DO
PASS BONDS WHEN THEY MAKE SENSE,
AND THEY DON'T HAVE TO STRUGGLE.
LIKE OUR MENTAL HEALTH BOND IS
DOING RIGHT NOW. SO WITH THAT, I
ASKED FOR AN I VOTE AND, UH,
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR, UH,
ALLOWING ME TO. UH UH, PRESENT
MY BILL TODAY. THANK YOU,
SENATOR SEYARTO. THE MEASURE HAS
BEEN MOVED BY SENATOR WYNN. THE
MOTION IS DUE PASS TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS AND
ASSISTANT. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
BLAKESPEAR NOT VOTING. ONE WHEN
I ALAN MENJIVAR. NEWMAN. TINO
HUMBERG.
IT IS 1 TO 0 ON CALL. OK WELL,
THAT DOESN'T SOUND VERY
PROMISING. SO ANYWAY, THANK YOU
VERY MUCH FOR HEARING THE BILL.
THANK YOU. UH, NEXT WE HAVE
SENATOR MENJIVAR S¼ BILL. SB
1027. WELCOME, SENATOR MANJAR.
HM?
GOOD MORNING, FELLOW COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. I'M HERE TO TALK TO YOU
ABOUT S¼ B 1027 A BILL THAT IN
FACT, THIS COMMITTEE IS VERY
FAMILIAR WITH AND IN FACT, ONE
OF THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS,
SENATOR AMBERG IS ALSO VERY
FAMILIAR WITH, UM IT'S LOOKING
TO ENSURE WHAT HAPPENED TO ME
ABOUT. FOUR TIMES DOESN'T HAPPEN
TO OTHER ELECTED OFFICIAL
OFFICIALS OR CANDIDATES. UM BUT
BEFORE I GO INTO IT WHEN I THINK
THE COMMITTEE FOR WORKING WITH
MY TEAM ON THIS, I WILL BE
TAKING TAKING THE AMENDMENTS. SO
SB 1027 WILL ALLOW CANDIDATES
AND CANDIDATES TO OMIT THE BANK
STATEMENTS. THE BANK ACCOUNT
NUMBERS FROM THE STATEMENT OF
ORGANIZATION BETTER KNOWN AS
FORM 410. UH, FORM. 410 IS A
DISCLOSURE FORM THAT PROVIDES
THE PUBLIC WITH INFORMATION
ABOUT THE PURPOSE OF A POLITICAL
COMMITTEE AND IDENTIFIES THE
COMMITTEE'S TREASURER AND
PRINCIPAL OFFICERS. WHEN A
COMMITTEE FILES A FORM 410 1 OF
THE REQUIRED FIELDS IS THE
COMMITTEE'S BANK ACCOUNT NUMBER
WHEN THE LOCAL FILING OFFICER OR
THIS, UH S¼ S¼ MAKES THE FORM
FOR AT 10 AVAILABLE ON THE
INTERNET, THEY DO, IN FACT,
REDACT THE BANK ACCOUNT. HOWEVER
WHEN THE UH MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC
REQUEST A COPY OF THAT THE HARD
COPY DOES NOT HAVE THAT
INFORMATION REDACTED AND THE
BANK ACCOUNT IS THEN MADE
AVAILABLE TO WHOEVER REQUESTS
THAT INFORMATION. THIS LEAVES A
LOT OF CANDIDATES AND ELECT
OFFICIALS VULNERABLE TO IDENTITY
THEFT, THE THREATS OF IDENTITY
THEFT WE ALL KNOW AND CHECK
FRAUD HAVE GROWN EXPONENTIALLY
AND BECOME MORE SOPHISTICATED
OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS. FOR
EXAMPLE, SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY
REPORTS FOR CHECK FRAUD
DEPOSITORY INSTITUTIONS MORE
THAN TRIPLED ACROSS THE NATION
BETWEEN 2018 AND 2022. THAT IS
UP 201 IN A PERCENT BETWEEN
THOSE YEARS. I MENTIONED TO YOU
IN PRESENTING THIS WELL, BECAUSE
THIS PERSONALLY HAS HAPPENED TO
ME IN THE PAST TWO YEARS, UM,
CLOSE TO FOUR TIMES. I BELIEVE
IT'S FOUR ALREADY. UM AND I
WANNA MAKE SURE THAT AGAIN THAT
DOESN'T CONTINUE TO HAPPEN. SO
MADAM CHAIR WITH YOUR
PERMISSION, I'D LIKE TO NOW TURN
TO MY LEAD WITNESS. LINDSAY
NAKANO, WHO'S A SENIOR
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL FOR FP èC.
GOOD MORNING, MADAM CHAIR
MEMBERS LINDSAY NANNA FROM THE
FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES
COMMISSION, AS SENATOR MENGI
DESCRIBED IN HER REMARKS.
STATEMENTS OF ORGANIZATION FILED
BY CAMPAIGN COMMITTEES MUST
INCLUDE CERTAIN BANK ACCOUNT
INFORMATION, INCLUDING COMMITTEE
, BANK ACCOUNT NUMBERS AND THE
NAMES OF PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO
OBTAIN BANK ACCOUNT RECORDS.
CANDIDATES ELECTED OFFICERS AND
COMMITTEE AND BANK
REPRESENTATIVES HAVE EXPRESSED
STRONG CONCERNS THAT PUBLIC
ACCESS TO COMMITTEE BANK ACCOUNT
INFORMATION ON THESE STATEMENTS
INCREASES THE RISK OF FRAUD. IN
PUBLIC COMMENT LETTERS SUBMITTED
TO THE FPPC AT A COMMISSION
MEETING LAST YEAR RELATING TO
THESE STATEMENTS, BANK
REPRESENTATIVES STATED THAT THE
RISK OF FRAUD ATTACKS ON
COMMITTEE BANK ACCOUNTS AS WELL
AS OTHER KINDS OF ACCOUNTS IS AT
AN ALL TIME HIGH. TO ADDRESS
THIS CONCERN. SB 1027 WOULD
REQUIRE THE SECRETARY OF STATE
TO REDACT THE COMMITTEE, BANK
ACCOUNT NUMBER AND THE NAMES OF
PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO OBTAIN
BANK ACCOUNT RECORDS FROM ALL
COPIES OF STATEMENTS OF
ORGANIZATION PROVIDED TO THE
PUBLIC. THE BILL WOULD ALSO
PERMIT COMMITTEES TO OMIT THIS
INFORMATION FROM COPIES OF THE
STATEMENTS FILED WITH THE LOCAL
FILING, OFFICER. THANK YOU TO
SENATOR MENJIVAR FOR YOUR
LEADERSHIP. YOUR COLLABORATION
ON THIS, BILL? UH, THANK YOU TO
THE COMMITTEE FOR YOUR
CONSIDERATION TODAY. THAT IS THE
ONLY WITNESS I HAVE. THANK YOU.
IF THERE ARE OTHERS IN OTHER
SUPPORT WITNESSES HERE IN ROOM
2100 OR COMMENTS ME TOO. FEEL
FREE TO STEP FORWARD, OK, LEAD
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION. ANY
OTHER WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION.
OK, WE WILL NOW BRING THE
DISCUSSION BACK TO MEMBERS. YES.
OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER
COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS QUESTIONS
I HAD? YES NÓ NÓ GO AHEAD. I
JUST WANT TO SAY DANG I. IT'S
AMAZING THAT WE HAVEN'T DONE
THIS A LONG TIME AGO. UM AND I.
I CLEARLY AM NOT KEEPING ENOUGH
MONEY IN MY ACCOUNT, SO I
HAVEN'T BEEN HACKED YET. YOU'VE
BEEN FOUR TIMES. UH, BUT, YOU
KNOW, G GLAD TO SUPPORT THE
BILL. I MEAN, THESE ARE THE KIND
OF THINGS THAT THEY'RE SO SELF
EVIDENT. UH, IT'S WILD THAT IT
TAKES LEGISLATION TO DO THIS,
BUT, UM YOU KNOW, CONDOLENCES
FOR YOUR LOSS. UH, BUT ALSO
HAPPY TO SUPPORT IT. THANK YOU,
SENATOR. I DO AGREE WITH SENATOR
NEWMAN. IT DOES SEEM SO SELF
EVIDENT. COULD YOU JUST IF YOU
DON'T MIND SHARING, HAVE YOU
REALLY HAD FRAUD FOUR TIMES ON
YOUR BANK ACCOUNT, NOT LYING ON
THE STAND AND THAT AND THAT AND
YOU, AND THAT WAS RELATED TO THE
FORM WHAT YOU KNOW, IN TALKING
WITH MY TREASURE? UM UH, SHE
DOES BELIEVE SO, BECAUSE IT'S
OUT IN THE PUBLIC. UM SO MY
DENNING HAS BEEN STOLEN. PEOPLE
HAVE GONE TO MY BANK. UM CHECKS
HAVE BEEN STOLEN. SO WE'RE
ATTRIBUTING THAT TO THE FACT
THAT MY BANK ACCOUNT NUMBERS ARE
MADE PUBLIC. YEAH. WOW OK, WELL,
THE MOTION OR UM, THE BILL HAS
BEEN MOVED BY SENATOR UMBERG AND
JUST TO NOTE THAT THE AMENDMENTS
HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED. OK? OKAY? I
DON'T GET IT. OH I GET IT. I GET
IT JUST LIKE THAT. MY IDENTITY
WAS STOLEN RIGHT NOW. YEAH. I
JUST WANT TO CONFIRM THAT THE
AMENDMENTS HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED.
YES, MADAM CHAIR. OK, THANK YOU.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION ON SB 1027
BY SENATOR UMBERG AND THE MOTION
IS DUE PASS AS AMENDED TO THE
COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
ASSISTANT. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
BLAKESPEAR HØI LOOKS FOR A 11. I
ALAN. ALAN I MENDAR MEN. I
NEWMAN NEWMAN, I. I UMBERG
UMBERG. I OK? IT IS 7 TO 0 AND
IT IS NOW OUT. THANK YOU
MEMBERS. THANK YOU. SO THANK YOU
TO THE INDIVIDUALS WHO
PARTICIPATED TODAY. OH, RIGHT,
OKAY. YES. WOULD YOU LIKE TO
MAKE A COMMENT? I WANTED TO ALSO
FOR, UM SENATOR CIERTOS S¼ B 986
IF WE CAN ALSO ADD IN A
RECONSIDERATION. OKAY. THANK
YOU. SO, UH, WE NEED TO CALL THE
MEMBERS WHO WERE NOT HERE. SO
LET'S GO AHEAD AND DO THAT. LIFT
THE CALL THE CALL THE CALL.
BLAKESPEAR UH, NOT VOTING ONE.
SO THE SO, WHAT WE'RE DOING
RIGHT NOW IS S¼ B 986? YES JUST
SO THAT EVERYBODY WHO'S SITTING
HERE KNOWS WHICH BILL WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT. IT'S THE ART TO
S¼ B 986, AND WE'RE LIFTING THE
CALL. MOTION IS DUE PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. ALLEN. MENJIVAR.
NEWMAN. PUCCINO UMBERG. OKAY,
IT'S 1 TO 0 AND THE BILL HAS
FAILED. YES, AND WE WILL GRANT
RECONSIDERATION. OK UH, THANK
YOU TO ALL THE INDIVIDUALS WHO
PARTICIPATED TODAY. IF YOU ARE
NOT ABLE TO TESTIFY TODAY,
PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR COMMENTS OR
SUGGESTIONS IN WRITING TO THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS
AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
AND VISIT OUR WEBSITE. YOUR
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS ARE
IMPORTANT TO US, AND WE WANT TO
INCLUDE YOUR TESTIMONY IN THE
OFFICIAL HEARING RECORDS. THANK
YOU, AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR
PARTICIPATION, THE SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS IS
ADJOURNED.