UM THIS IS THE SENATE COMMITTEE
ON ELECTIONS AND CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENTS IS APRIL 2ND 2024 A
BIT AFTER 930 IN ROOM 2100. WE
ENCOURAGE ALL MEMBERS OF THIS
COMMITTEE TO COME TO ROOM 2100.
SO WE WILL, UM, START WITH. WE
HAVE FIVE BILLS ON OUR AGENDA
TODAY. THE FIRST ONE IS S¼ B
1174. BY SENATOR MIN WE ALSO
HAVE S¼ B 1290 THREE BY SENATOR
OCHOA BOGUE S¼ B 1328 BY SENATOR
BRADFORD S¼ B 14 Ó FOUR BY
SENATOR GLASER AND S¼ B 1476 BY
ME. UM SO WE DON'T YET HAVE A
QUORUM, SO WE WILL ESTABLISH A
QUORUM OF IN A BIT. SO WE WILL
NOW GO AHEAD AND HAND IT OVER.
TO UH SENATOR MIN FOR SB 1174.
WELCOME AND THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR AND THANK YOU
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. I'M GLAD YOU
JOINED US AND MADE THIS, UH MORE
THAN, UH, JUST THE CHURCH THIS
MORNING. UH S¼ B 1174 WOULD
ENSURE THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
CANNOT IMPLEMENT VOTER
IDENTIFICATION LAWS IN LOCAL
ELECTIONS. OF COURSE, WE'VE SEEN
A LOT OF RECENT CLAIMS OF
RAMPANT VOTER FRAUD, UH, THAT
THE 2020 ELECTION WAS STOLEN.
UH, THIS BIG LIE HAS BEEN AN
UNFORTUNATE PART OF A NARRATIVE
DRIVEN BY DONALD TRUMP AND
CERTAIN OF HIS SUPPORTERS TO TRY
TO CAST ASPERSIONS ON THE
INTEGRITY OF ELECTIONS. UH, EVEN
WHEN WE HAVE NOT SEEN ANY
EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT, UH,
WIDESPREAD VOTER I Dð IS AN
ISSUE. UM AND, UH, THE
NONETHELESS WE HAVE SEEN I Dð
LAWS PASSED IN A NUMBER OF
STATES, WHICH HARKEN BACK TO AN
ERA OF JIM CROW TYPE, UH,
BARRIERS TO VOTING. UH, WE KNOW
THAT THE ESSENCE OF DEMOCRACY IS
THE FRANCHISE AND THAT VOTER
PARTICIPATION IS CRITICAL. UH,
WE ALSO KNOW THAT THERE IS A
REALLY CRITICAL BODY OF EVIDENCE
, FAIRLY OVERWHELMING BODY OF
EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT VOTER ID
LAWS OFTEN SERVE TO
DISENFRANCHISE LOWER INCOME
VOTERS. YOUNG VOTERS, LOWER
PROPENSITY VOTERS, UH, AND AS A
PRINCIPLE, I THINK THAT THIS
BILL TRIES TO GET IT. THE
PROBLEM WE'VE SEEN, INCLUDING IN
CITIES I REPRESENT, SUCH AS
HUNTING AND BEACH OF, UH, CITIES
TRYING TO IMPLEMENT THEIR OWN
VOTER ID LAWS ABOVE AND BEYOND
INDEPENDENT OF THOSE OF THE
STATE, UH, CASTING ASPERSIONS,
RAISING QUESTIONS AROUND THE
INTEGRITY OF THE STATE ELECTIONS
PROCEDURES, UH, WITHOUT
PROVIDING ANY EVIDENCE
WHATSOEVER THAT THESE HAVE
PROBLEMS. UH, THESE ALSO
POTENTIALLY HAVE CHILLING
EFFECTS ON FEDERAL, STATE AND
COUNTY ELECTIONS. UH UH,
LOWERING PARTICIPATION. AND JUST
TO BE CLEAR. CALIFORNIA ALREADY
HAS ROBUST, UH, IDENTIFICATION
PROCEDURES TO REGISTER TO VOTE.
CALIFORNIA VOTERS PROVIDE THEIR
DRIVER'S LICENSE NUMBER. UH OR
CALIFORNIA I Dð NUMBER OR THE
LAST FOUR DIGITS OF THEIR SOCIAL
SECURITY NUMBER. UH, THEY
PROVIDE A SIGNATURE, WHICH IS
THEN VERIFIED, UM, BY ELECTION
OFFICIALS, AND WE KNOW RIGHT NOW
WE'RE SEEING, UH, THE
CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 16 THE
PROCESS OF CURING SIGNATURES,
WHICH MAY NOT MATCH SHOWS THAT
THE SYSTEM IS WORKING. UM BUT,
UH, THIS IS, UNFORTUNATELY PART
OF THE LANDSCAPE WE'RE SEEING IN
THIS POST TRUMP ERA. UH S¼ B
1174 WOULD ENSURE THAT VOTERS DO
NOT FACE THE UNNECESSARY BARRIER
OF VOTER. I Dð LAWS IN LOCAL
ELECTIONS BUT ALSO MAKE CLEAR
THE PRINCIPLE THAT ANY VOTER I
Dð LAWS ARE THE PROVINCE OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, NOT OF
INDIVIDUAL JURISDICTIONS. UH,
HERE TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF
THE BILL ARE RUTH DAWSON,
LEGISLATIVE ATTORNEY WITH A èC
LU CALIFORNIA ACTION AND JOEY
FEIGEL FEL? UH, I'M SORRY.
FLEGEL MISH LOVE POLITICAL
ACTION APPRENTICE THAT ASKS ME
IN CALIFORNIA. AND AS THEY COME
FORWARD, THE LEAD WITNESSES WERE
GOING TO ESTABLISH A QUORUM. SO
ASSISTANT. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
NÓ BLAKESPEAR. PRESENT LAKES
BERE PRESENT ONE HERE ONE HERE,
ALAN. ALAN HERE, MENDAR MENJIVAR
HERE. NEWMAN NEWMAN. HERE,
ARGENTINO. YEAH, UMBERG. OK, WE
HAVE A QUORUM. SO UH, NOW WE
WILL RETURN TO SENATOR MIN'S
BILL AND YOUR LEAD WITNESSES.
WELCOME. GOOD MORNING. COME ON.
GREAT UH, GOOD MORNING. TERRIBLE
EXPERIENCE AND MEMBERS. UH, MY
NAME IS RUTH DAWSON, LEGISLATIVE
ATTORNEY WITH A èC LU
CALIFORNIA ACTION AND I'M
PLEASED TO TESTIFY IN STRONG
SUPPORT OF S¼ B 174. BY SENATOR
MIN. THIS BILL WOULD ONE
REAFFIRM THAT VOTING RIGHTS AND
ELECTION INTEGRITY, INCLUDING
VOTER VERIFICATION, ARE MEMBERS
OF STATEWIDE CONCERN. AND TWO
MAKE CLEAR THAT CHARTER CITIES
ARE PROHIBITED FROM ENACTING
VOTER. I Dð REQUIREMENTS FOR
MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS. VOTER I Dð
LAWS PERPETUATE THE HARMFUL MYTH
OF VOTER FRAUD AND DO NOTHING TO
IMPROVE ELECTION INTEGRITY.
ELECTION OFFICIALS, STUDIES.
EXPERTS AND COURTS HAVE
REPEATEDLY CONFIRMED THAT
INSTANCES OF VOTER FRAUD ARE
EXCEEDINGLY RARE. HOWEVER
NUMEROUS STUDIES AND DATA SHOW
THAT VOTER ID REQUIREMENTS DO
IMPOSE SEVERE AND DISPARATE
BURDENS ON VOTERS AND IN
PARTICULAR VOTERS OF COLOR. THE
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE HAS LONG
UNDERSTOOD THE HARMS OF VOTER. I
Dð REQUIREMENTS AND STATE LAW
DOES NOT IMPOSE A VOTER. I Dð
REQUIREMENT AT THE BALLOT BOX.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND
COUNTY ELECTIONS, OFFICIALS
VERIFY VOTER ELIGIBILITY AND
ENSURE ELECTION, INTEGRITY FOR
LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL
ELECTIONS IN A MANNER THAT IS
MINIMALLY BURDEN ON SOME ON
VOTERS AND SUPPORTS A STRONG
DEMOCRACY IN OUR STATE, UM, AS
THE AUTHOR OUTLINED DESPITE
CALIFORNIA'S CAREFULLY BALANCED
SYSTEM LAST YEAR, THE HUNTINGTON
BEACH CITY COUNCIL PLACED A
VOTER I Dð MEASURE ON THE MARCH
2024 BALLOT, WITH THE CITY
ATTORNEY ERRONEOUSLY ARGUING
THAT HUNTINGTON BEACH MAY IMPOSE
A VOTER. I Dð REQUIREMENT
BECAUSE IT IS A CHARTER CITY
WITH HOME RULE AUTHORITY OVER
MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS, HUNTINGTON
BEACH'S POSITION IGNORES CASE
LAW THAT MAKES THE VOTER I Dð
MEASURE INVALID BECAUSE ONE
VOTER VOTING RIGHTS AND ELECTION
INTEGRITY ARE MATTERS OF
STATEWIDE CONCERN AND TWO THE
MEASURE CONFLICTS WITH STATE LAW
AND BURDENS VOTING RIGHTS.
HUNTING THE BEACH'S MEASURE WILL
NÓ DOUBT BE SUCCESSFULLY
CHALLENGED IN COURT, AND IN THE
MEANTIME, S¼ B 1174 WILL STOP
ANY OTHER CITIES FROM ATTEMPTING
TO PASS SIMILAR MEASURES THAT
SPREAD MISINFORMATION ABOUT THE
INTEGRITY OF OUR ELECTIONS. AND
WE URGE YOU TO SUPPORT THIS
IMPORTANT BILL TO PREVENT THE
CHIPPING AWAY OF DEMOCRATIC
INTEGRITY IN OUR STATE. THANK
YOU SO MUCH. GOOD MORNING CHAIR
BLAKESPEAR AND COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. THANKS AGAIN FOR YOUR
TIME THIS MORNING. MY NAME IS
JOEY FLEGEL MISLOVE. I'M HERE ON
BEHALF OF THE OVER 200,000
WORKING PEOPLE WHO MAKE UP THE
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE,
COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES
HERE IN CALIFORNIA. I ASKED ME
MEMBERS WORK AT ALL LEVELS OF
STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT. UH,
WE WORK IN OUR STATE HOSPITALS
AT OUR U èC SYSTEMS. WE
MAINTAIN WATER AND UTILITY
DISTRICTS AND OPERATE AT ALMOST
EVERY FUNCTION OF, UH, CITY AND
COUNTY GOVERNMENTS IN CALIFORNIA
, INCLUDING MANY COUNTIES WHERE
OUR WORKERS OUR MEMBERS. IN OUR
ELECTIONS OFFICE, ENSURING OUR
OUR FAIR AND HONEST ELECTION
SYSTEM EVERY YEAR AND SO ASK ME.
MEMBERS ARE ARE DEEPLY INVESTED
IN OUR STATE'S ELECTORAL
APPARATUS BECAUSE IT'S THEIR JOB
TO CARRY OUT THE PLANS AND
POLICIES THAT ELECTED OFFICIALS
ENACT. UM AND OUR MEMBERS KNOW
THAT THEY'RE BEST ABLE TO SERVE
THEIR COMMUNITIES WHEN THE
ELECTED OFFICIALS THEY WORK FOR
ARE TRULY REPRESENTATIVE OF
THEIR COMMUNITIES. SO OUR
MEMBERS RECOGNIZE THAT RIGHT NOW
CALIFORNIA IS A LEADER IN
DESIGNING ELECTION SYSTEMS THAT
ARE FAIR AND ARE JUST BUT WE
ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT WE ARE NOT
IMMUNE TO SOME OF THESE NATIONAL
TRENDS, UH, THAT THAT, UH, BOTH
RUTH AND THE SENATOR MENTIONED
THAT PULL OUR ELECTORAL PROCESS
TOWARDS SOMETHING THAT IS MORE
ARDUOUS AND ULTIMATELY MORE
EXCLUSIVE OF WORKING PEOPLE. SO
CITIES IMPLEMENTING VOTER I Dð
LAWS, UH, THREATEN TO TAKE A
MAJOR STEP BACKWARDS IN
CALIFORNIA BY ENFORCING POLICIES
THAT MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT TO
VOTE AND SPECIFICALLY HAVE BEEN
SHOWN TO EXCLUDE BLACK, LATINO
AND INDIGENOUS COMMUNITY MEMBERS
FROM OUR ELECTORAL SYSTEM.
MEMBERS OF OUR UNION WHO ARE
LONG TERM CARE WORKERS HAVE ALSO
POINTED TO MANY STUDIES SHOWING
THAT VOTER ID LAWS TEND TO
DISENFRANCHISE PEOPLE WITH
DISABILITIES AND OUR ELDERLY
COMMUNITIES. SO WE KNOW THAT
THESE LAWS ARE A REAL THREAT TO
OUR THRIVING DEMOCRACY AND WOULD
ALLOW OUR ELECTORAL PROCESS TO
MISREPRESENT OR IGNORE, UH,
COMMUNITIES THAT OUR MEMBERS
WORK IN LIVE IN AND ARE A PART
OF THIS STEP BACKWARDS
REPRESENTED BY THESE VOTER, I Dð
LAWS WE KNOW CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED
BY THESE CLAIMS OF VOTER FRAUD,
WHICH HAVE BEEN SHOWN TIME AND
TIME AGAIN TO BE OVERBLOWN AND
ARE ULTIMATELY DOG WHISTLES THAT
THAT WORK TO EXCLUDE TARGETED
POPULATIONS FROM THE VOTING
PROCESS. AND SO THE MEMBERS OF
ASKS ME STRONGLY AND
RESPECTFULLY RECOMMEND AN I VOTE
ON S¼ B 1 174 SO WE CAN CONTINUE
TO PROTECT CALIFORNIA'S FAIR AND
HONEST ELECTION SYSTEM. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, JOYCE. SORRY FOR
BUT THANK YOU TO BOTH OF YOUR
PRIMARY WITNESSES. AND NOW WE
WILL, UM, CALL ANY SUPPORT
WITNESSES WHO ARE HERE YOU MAY
COME TO THE MICROPHONE AND SHARE
YOUR NAME AND ORGANIZATION.
MORNING CHAIR MEMBERS. MY NAME
IS DORA ROSE WITH THE LEAGUE AND
VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA. WE ARE A
VERY STRONG SUPPORT. WE ALSO
HAVE THE PROXY OF, UH, ASIAN
AMERICANS ADVANCING JUSTICE
ASIA'S LAW CAUCUS. THEY ALSO ARE
VERY STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ANY OTHER LEAD
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT. OK UH WE
WILL NOW MOVE ON TO LEAD
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION. DO WE
HAVE ANY OTHER? DO WE HAVE ANY
LEAD WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION?
SEEING NONE. DO WE HAVE ANY
OTHER OPPOSITION WITNESSES WHO
WOULD LIKE TO COME TO THE
MICROPHONE? OK UH, THANK YOU.
ALL FOR YOUR, UM, SUPPORT. AND
WE WILL NOW BRING THE DISCUSSION
BACK TO THE MEMBERS. YES SENATOR
NEWMAN. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
SO SENATOR ME. GLAD TO SUPPORT
THIS BILL. IT HAS TO BE ADDED AS
A CO AUTHOR. AS MISS DAWSON
POINTED OUT, I MEAN, THIS IS
SURE TO BE CHALLENGED AND FAIRLY
SURE TO BE OVERTURNED. BUT, YOU
KNOW, LET'S DO WHAT IS NECESSARY
. NOW YOU KNOW, TWO YEARS AGO, I
DID A BILL THAT EXTENDED
PROTECTIONS TO ELECTION WORKERS
WHO FIND THEMSELVES INCREASINGLY
THREATENED. THERE'S
UNFORTUNATELY A NEXUS HERE. AND
I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE TRYING
TO DO ANYTHING THAT WE CAN DO TO
RESTORE. IS THERE A SENSE AND
YOU KNOW, DIGNITY TO THE
ELECTORAL PROCESS IS A GOOD
THING, BECAUSE, AS YOU POINTED
OUT, THERE ARE NÓ PROBLEMS WITH
VOTER FRAUD IN CALIFORNIA. THERE
ARE PROBLEMS WITH POLITICS. UH,
BUT LET'S TAKE THE POLITICS OUT
OF ELECTIONS. SO I APPRECIATE
THE BILL. GLAD TO SUPPORT IT. I
APPRECIATE THAT, AND WE'LL ADD
YOU AS A CO AUTHOR AS SOON AS WE
CAN, AND WE JUST ADD THAT I'VE
REPEATEDLY ASKED THE CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH MAJORITY, WHICH
IS BEHIND THIS MEASURE TO
PRODUCE EVIDENCE OF VOTER FRAUD.
IN FACT, SENATOR NGUYEN AND I
WERE AT A CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TOGETHER WHERE I THIS REQUEST. I
UM WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY
EVIDENCE FROM THEM THAT THERE'S
ANY INSTANCES OF VOTER FRAUD IN
THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTRAR IS
ACTUALLY WELL REPUTED FOR BEING
MAYBE THE BEST REGISTRAR IN THE
COUNTRY. UH, VERY CLEAN
ELECTIONS. VERY EFFICIENT. I'VE
HEARD NÓ COMPLAINTS OF VOTER
FRAUD AT ALL IN ORANGE COUNTY.
UH, LET ALONE IN HUNTINGTON
BEACH THAT WOULD JUSTIFY THIS AT
THE SAME TIME. I WOULD JUST ADD
THAT, UH, THIS SEEMS LIKE A
DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO TRY TO
UNDERMINE FAITH IN OUR PROCESS.
THIS WAS ACCOMPANIED INITIALLY
BY A COMPANION PROPOSAL TO ALSO
INSTALL UH, VIDEO SURVEILLANCE
OF BALLOT BOXES AND VOTING
CENTERS. UM SO YOU KNOW AGAIN,
THIS DOES SEEM TO BE A DOG
WHISTLE AT THE END OF THE DAY.
THANK YOU. UH YES, SENATOR WYNN.
THANK THANK YOU, MAN. I'VE GOT A
FEW QUESTIONS. I WANTED TO ASK,
UM, FIRST WITH THIS THEY REMOVE
THE PASSAGE THAT WAS PASSED BY
HUNTING BEACH. THERE IS NOTHING
PASSED BY HUNTING THE CHARTER.
YES THE CHARTER. UH, IN PRIMARY.
UH, I THINK THIS WOULD MAKE
CLEAR THAT THAT WHAT THEY'RE
PROPOSING TO DO IS NOT
PERMISSIBLE UNDER CALIFORNIA
STATE LAW. UH, AS YOU KNOW, UH,
I THINK THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND
SECRETARY OF STATE HAVE ALREADY
ISSUED, UH, AN OPINION LETTER TO
THE CITY COUNCIL AND TO THE CITY
ATTORNEY MICHAEL GATES, UH,
PROCLAIMING THEIR BELIEF THAT
THIS THIS WOULD BE ILLEGAL UNDER
CALIFORNIA LAW AND THE CURRENT
CALIFORNIA LAW CALIFORNIA LAW,
SO THEY'VE NOT NOT SUPERSEDING
WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO TODAY.
SO WHAT I'M TRYING TO, SO IS
THERE CURRENT LAW THAT PREEMPTS
HUNTING BEACH VOTERS FROM VOTING
TO PASS VOTE, RIGHT? I MEAN, 50
3% OF THE VOTERS IN HINTON BEACH
VOTED FOR IT, AND SO IT GOES
BACK TO HIS. IS THERE A CURRENT
LAW THAT PROHIBITS THEM FROM
DOING SO? AND IF THE ANSWER IS
YES, THEN DO YOU NEED THIS BILL?
SO IF I CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION,
UM AS THE A èC LU ATTORNEY,
RUTH UH, RUTH. UM SORRY.
FORGETTING YOUR LAST I'M SORRY,
RUTH. UH, I'VE GOT IT RIGHT
HERE, UH, RUTH DAWSON SAID, UM
MY AND WE COULD HAVE HER COME UP
TO CLARIFY, BUT, UH THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL AND A èC LU AND MANY
OTHERS HAVE TAKEN THE POSITION
THAT UNDER CURRENT CASE LAW
WOULD HUNTINGTON BEACH HAS DONE
IS ILLEGAL AND IS NOT VALID. AND
THAT IS WHAT THE SUBJECT OF THE
LITIGATION CURRENTLY, UM I WILL
ALSO SAY THAT MICHAEL GATES AS
PART OF THE CHARTER AMENDMENT,
ISSUED AN OPINION THAT THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE SECRETARY
OF STATE, AND MANY OTHERS HAVE
SAID WAS ERRONEOUS. THAT BEING
SAID, I HAVING REVIEWED THIS I
THINK THERE'S AN AMBIGUITY. IN
THE IN THE LAW. I BELIEVE THAT
YOU KNOW, THERE'S TWO QUESTIONS
HERE IS THE A èC LU ATTORNEY
RUTH DAWSON, UH, POINTED OUT, UM
ONE IS. IS THIS A MATTER OF
STATEWIDE CONCERN? OR IS IT
SOMETHING THAT CHARTER CITIES
CAN, UH LEGISLATE? UH, UNDER A
HOME RULE. SECOND IS THE
QUESTION OF DOES THIS HAVE A
CHILLING EFFECT ON FEDERAL,
STATE AND COUNTY ELECTIONS? NOW
ON THE FIRST QUESTION, I THINK
IT'S A LITTLE AMBIGUOUS. UH, THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL, A èC LU AND
SECRETARY OF STATE HAVE TAKEN
THE POSITION THAT THAT THIS IS
ILLEGAL ON THE SECOND. QUESTION
I THINK THAT IS VERY CLEAR THAT
SHOULD HUNTINGTON BEACH TRY TO
HOLD THEIR ELECTIONS AT THE SAME
TIME AND PLACE AS FEDERAL, STATE
AND COUNTY ELECTIONS. AND TO
IMPOSE THEIR OWN UNIQUE VOTER. I
Dð REQUIREMENTS THAT THAT WOULD
CLEARLY HAVE A CHILLING EFFECT
THAT WOULD BE ACKNOWLEDGED AS
ILLEGAL BY ANY COURT THAT LOOKED
AT IT. THE OPEN QUESTION IS
WHETHER IF THEY DID THEIR OWN
ELECTIONS AT A SEPARATE TIME AND
PLACE AS THE FEDERAL, STATE AND
COUNTY ELECTIONS, WHETHER THAT
WOULD BE CHILLING OR NOT, AND
AGAIN, THAT'S A SUBJECT TO
LITIGATE. BUT I WOULD JUST SAY
THAT YOU CAN PARSE IT LIKE THIS.
IF I TELL A BUNCH OF VOTERS YOU
HAVE TO BRING, YOU KNOW 10 FORMS
OF VOTER I Dð TO THE POLLS TO
VOTE. AH EVEN IF THAT'S ONLY
APPLICABLE TO MUNICIPAL
ELECTIONS. UH, A LOT OF VOTERS
MIGHT, YOU KNOW, JUST ASSUME
RATIONALLY THAT THAT ALSO
APPLIED TO THEIR ABILITY TO VOTE
IN OTHER ELECTIONS. AND SO THAT
COULD BE SEEN AS HAVING A
CHILLING EFFECT. UH, SO AGAIN.
I'M I'M NOT GONNA ARGUE.
ULTIMATELY JUDGES AND
POTENTIALLY, UH, CIRCUIT COURTS
AND POTENTIALLY THE SUPREME
COURT OF CALIFORNIA. UH, MAY
DECIDE ON THIS ISSUE. UH, BUT
WHAT THIS BILL DOES IS MAKE
VERY, VERY CLEAR. THAT THIS IS
NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER CALIFORNIA
LAW, SO TO ANSWER THE QUESTION
WHAT I'M HEARING BECAUSE YOU
WERE QUOTED, UM STATING THAT IT
IS THAT YOU SEE. OH, I JUST LOST
MY SHOOT. UM YOU WERE QUOTA
STATING THAT YOU THINK IT SEEMS
UNLAWFUL. AND SO BASICALLY WHAT
PUTTING. I DIDN'T SAY THAT, I
SAID. I SAID THAT THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, THE SECRETARY OF STATE,
AND MANY GROUPS HAVE TAKEN THE
POSITION THAT THIS IS UNLAWFUL.
UNDER CURRENT LAW, HOWEVER, THAT
BEING SAID IT'S A SUBJECT OF
LITIGATION. THIS BILL WOULD MAKE
CLEAR THAT IT IS UNLAWFUL, BUT I
COULD HAVE, UH, MS DAWSON. LET
ME SHE SHE'S THE EXPERT IN THIS
AREA. LET ME LET ME JUST QUOTE
YOU IN THE NEWSPAPER IN THE
REGISTER. AS I NOTED BACK IN
EARLY AUGUST, HUNTING BEACH
PROPOSED TO INSTITUTE NEW VOTER,
I Dð REQUIREMENTS AND BALLOT.
MONITORING SEEM UNLAWFUL. AND
LIKELY TO LEAD TO VOTE,
INTIMIDATION AND RACIAL
PROFILING. SO YOU MADE A
STATEMENT IN THE REGISTER THAT
YOU BACK THEN FELT THAT THIS
SEEMS TO BE UNLAWFUL. AND NOW
YOU'RE PROPOSING A BILL TO ME.
IT SEEMS LIKE IT WASN'T UNLAWFUL
. NOW YOU'RE MAKING SURE THAT IT
IS GOING TO BE UNLAWFUL AND I'M
PROPOSING THIS BILL AND I'M I'M
TRYING TO CLARIFY. I'M NOT
SAYING THAT AT ALL I'M SAYING
AND THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
QUOTE YOU'RE TAKING FROM THE
ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER THAT IN
FACT THAT IT COULD BE SEEN AS
UNLAWFUL. UH, A LOT OF PEOPLE
VIEW THIS. ON OUR FAULT ALSO
DEPENDS ON HOW IT'S DEPLOYED.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE BALLOT BOX
MONITORING, I THINK WOULD HAVE
BEEN UNLAWFUL UNDER ANY
CIRCUMSTANCE. THAT'S NOT THE
SUBJECT OF THIS PARTICULAR
LEGISLATION. UH, AS FAR AS THE
VOTER I Dð REQUIREMENTS, THEY
ARE CLEARLY UNLAWFUL UNDER MANY
CIRCUMSTANCES, IF, FOR EXAMPLE,
AS I MENTIONED IF THEY WERE HELD
ON ELECTIONS, OR IF YOU IMPOSE
VOTER I Dð REQUIREMENTS ON
ELECTIONS THAT ARE AT THE SAME
TIME AND PLACE AS FEDERAL, STATE
AND COUNTY ELECTIONS THAT WOULD
CLEARLY BE ILLEGAL. NÓ CITY CAN
DO THAT, RIGHT? THE QUESTION.
THE QUESTION. IF I MAY FINISH IS
IF HUNTINGTON BEACH, DID ITS OWN
ELECTIONS AT A SEPARATE TIME AND
PLACE AND TRIED TO IMPOSE IT ON
VOTER I Dð REQUIREMENTS IS THAT
ILLEGAL UNDER CURRENT CALIFORNIA
LAW AND I WHAT I WOULD TELL YOU
IS THAT MANY PEOPLE, INCLUDING
THE HIGHEST LEGAL OFFICER IN
CALIFORNIA BELIEVE THAT IS THE
CASE. HOWEVER THERE IS SOME
AMBIGUITY ABOUT THERE. UH, THIS
HAS NOT BEEN DECIDED AS A
PRECISE MATTER ON THIS NARROW
ISSUE UNDER CASE LAW IS MY
UNDERSTANDING. AND SO I. I DEFER
TO THE EXPERTS. I WOULD SAY THAT
MS DAWSON PROBABLY COULD GIVE
YOU A MORE, UM, YOU KNOW? SOME
ANSWER, THEN I'M GIVING YOU
RIGHT NOW. BUT I WOULD JUST SAY
THAT, UM, WE THIS BILL JUST
CLARIFIES VERY QUICKLY AND
CLEARLY THAT THIS IS ILLEGAL.
THERE'S NÓ IFS, ANDS OR BUTS. SO
IF THIS IS IF WHAT? I'M HEARING
THAT THIS POLICY SHOULD BE
LITIGATED, AND IT SHOULD GO TO
THE COURT, SO WHY THIS BILL? WHY
DON'T YOU JUST LET IT BE
LITIGATED? 53% OF THE CITY OF
HUNTING BEACH VOTED FOR THIS
MEASURE. THEY FEEL THAT IN THEIR
OWN CITY THAT THEY WOULD LIKE
VOTER I Dð AND REGARDLESS OF THE
REASON, WHOEVER THE PROS AND
CONS I'M NOT HERE TO ARGUE, OR,
YOU KNOW TO HAVE THAT DEBATE
HERE. IT'S FOR ME THAT I'M
LOOKING AT 50 3% OF THE VOTERS
WANT LOCAL CONTROL. EVERY DAY.
ALL WE SEE IN WITHIN THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT IS THAT THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA THE STATE LET'S SAY
BODY CONTINUES TO IMPOSE AGAINST
CITIES. AND NOW THAT CITIES LIKE
HUNTING BEACH IS A CHARTER CITY.
THEY CAN'T EVEN GET THE VOTERS
TO VOTE ON SOMETHING AND BE OK
WITH IT. I MEAN, THEY'RE
ACTUALLY THEY DIDN'T IMPLEMENT
THEMSELVES AS A COUNCIL. THEY
WRITE IT TO THE VOTERS, AND
THERE WERE THREE MEASURES THIS
LAST ELECTION. THE PRIMARY NOT
ALL THREE PASS. TWO PASS AND ONE
DIDN'T IT SHOWS YOU THAT THE
VOTERS OF HUNTING BEACH ARE VERY
WELL VERSED. THEY'RE LOOKING AT
THEIR BALLOT INITIATIVES.
THEY'RE READING IT AND THEY MADE
THEIR CHOICES. AND SO I MEAN,
YOU KNOW, THE EVERYBODY THOUGHT
I MEAN, CAUSE I'M I REPRESENT
HUNTING BEACH AND I GET TO
REPRESENT IT AFTER YOU KNOW, UM,
CONTINUOUSLY, UM, YOU GET TO
REPRESENT BECAUSE OF PRE
REDISTRICTING AND SO THE NEW
DISTRICT IS ACTUALLY 100% IN MY
CITY IN MY DISTRICT. THE CITY IS
100% YOU'RE RIGHT. 100% OF THE
CITY IS IN MY DISTRICT. I HAVE
ABOUT HALF UNTIL 2020. I THINK
AT THE END OF THIS ELECTION
CYCLES, UM, BECAUSE IT'S PRETTY,
UM PRE, UM, PRE, UM
REDISTRICTING. SO MY POINT IS
THAT WHAT I'M LOOKING AT? THIS
IS ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO JUST DO
AWAY WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENT
CONTROL. AND NOW WE'RE ALSO
TALKING ABOUT CHARTER SCHOOL. I
MEAN, CHARTER CITY CHARTER CITY.
THEY CHOSE TO BE CHARTER CITY.
THEY CHOSE A DIFFERENT PATH IN
GENERAL LAW CITY. AND THEY ARE
SUPPOSED TO BE GIVEN A LOT OF
MORE DISCRETION ON WHAT THEY GET
TO DO WITH THEIR CITY LOCALLY.
THIS BILL PASSES AND MY
UNDERSTANDING THIS BILL PASSES
IT WILL INVALIDATE IMMEDIATELY.
WHAT THE VOTERS OF HUNTING BEACH
JUST VOTED ON THIS LAST
ELECTION. IS THAT CORRECT? UH,
SO YOU HAD A LOT THERE. I TRY TO
UNPACK IT JUST PART AT A TIME
YOU TALK ABOUT LOCAL CONTROL.
LOOK THERE'S ALWAYS A BALANCE WE
STRIKE BETWEEN LOCAL CONTROL AND
THE BROADER PRINCIPLES THAT WE
AS A STATE LEGISLATURE WANT TO
MAKE SURE OUR ENFORCED ACROSS
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AND
SACROSANCT IN AMERICA IN
CALIFORNIA IS THE RIGHT TO VOTE.
RIGHT. THAT IS PERIOD AND SO 50
3% OF ANY CITY SAID HEY, WE WANT
TO TAKE AWAY THE RIGHTS TO VOTE
OR MAKE IT HARDER FOR CERTAIN
PEOPLE TO VOTE. I WOULD SAY
THAT'S WRONG. UH AND I DON'T
AGAIN AND I'D SAY THAT VOTER I
Dð REQUIREMENTS HEIGHTEN VOTER.
I Dð REQUIREMENTS MAY BE
APPROPRIATE IF THERE WAS A
PROBLEM PRESENTED IN EVIDENCE OF
THAT WE HAVE NOT SEEN ANY AND I
DON'T BELIEVE AS A MATTER OF
PRINCIPLE THAT THAT IS AN ISSUE
THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD
DECIDE. LOCAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD
NOT DECIDE WHO GETS TO VOTE OR
NOT. IN CALIFORNIA. EVERYONE
SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED TO VOTE. WE
ENCOURAGE WIDE PARTICIPATION. WE
HAVE HIGH PARTICIPATION IN THIS
STATE AND AGAIN AS AS WAS
POINTED OUT BY MY WITNESSES. WE
HAVE NOT SEEN ANY EVIDENCE OF
FRAUD. DESPITE ALL THE FALSE BIG
LIE CLAIMS THAT THIS ELECTION
WAS STOLEN THAT THERE WAS A
BUNCH OF VOTER FRAUD THAT TOOK
PLACE. IF WE SEE EVIDENCE, WE AS
A STATE LEGISLATURE OUGHT TO ACT
ON THAT. WE HAVE NOT SEEN
EVIDENCE. BUT THIS IS A MATTER
OF I THINK OF UNIVERSAL
PRINCIPLES THAT THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA SHOULD BE. THE STATE
SHOULD BE THE BODY THAT DECIDES
WHO GETS TO VOTE. WHAT I Dð
REQUIREMENTS WHAT CERTIFICATIONS
ARE NECESSARY. THAT SHOULD NOT
BE A MATTER FOR LOCAL
JURISDICTIONS TO DECIDE. DECIDE
WHETHER OR NOT 50 3% OF PEOPLE
WHO VOTE AND BY THE WAY, A LOW
TURNOUT ELECTION, UH, DECIDE TO
INHIBIT THE FRANCHISE OR MAKE IT
HARDER FOR SOME PEOPLE TO VOTE.
WELL, LET ME YOU. YOU YOU KEEP
ON STATING THAT VOTERS ARE
ASKING PEOPLE TO SHOW THEIR I Dð
MAKES IT HARD TO VOTE. HELP ME
UNDERSTAND THAT? WHY WHY DOES IT
BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, EVERYTHING WE
DO EVERY DAY YOU GO TO THE BANK.
YOU HAVE TO SHOW YOUR I Dð YOU
GO TO Dð M VÆ. YOU HAVE TO SHOW
YOUR I Dð YOU GO TO THE AIRPORT.
YOU HAVE TO SHOW YOUR I Dð YOU
GO TO THE DOCTOR'S OFFICE. YOU
HAVE TO SHOW I Dð YOU GO TO
CONCERT VENUES THEATERS. YOU
SHOW YOUR I Dð YOU GO TO THE BAR
OR THE RESTAURANT AND GET A
DRINK. YOU SHOW YOUR I Dð YOU GO
TO A TATTOO PARLOR. YOU SHOW AN
I Dð YOU GO TO GAS STATION OR
LIQUOR STORE YOU AND DID YOU
KNOW THAT THE SECRETARY OF
STATE'S OFFICE CRUST FROM THIS
BUILDING. YOU HAVE TO SHOW YOUR
I Dð TO GET INTO THAT BUILDING.
YOU EITHER SHOW YOUR STATE I Dð
OR OR A CALIFORNIA I Dð TO GET
INTO THAT BUILDING. SO HOW DOES
IT MAKE IT? SO ARE YOU SAYING
THAT NONE OF THESE FACILITIES
SHOULD HAVE ANY REQUESTS ON I Dð
AT ALL, SO WE SHOULD ASK THE
SECRETARY OF STATE'S OFFICE, NOT
SHOW THEIR I Dð BUT THAT'S MY
THING. IS THAT HOW WHY IS IT?
WHAT MAKES SHOWING A VOTE
SHOWING AN I Dð MAKES IT HARDER
TO VOTE BECAUSE I HAVE NOT HEARD
FROM THE PROPONENTS ON THE
BALLOT MEASURE IN HUNT AND BEACH
STATED THAT OH, YOU KNOW, WE
DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO VOTE. WE
ARE TRYING TO ELIMINATE PEOPLE
TO VOTE. WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE
IT DIFFICULT FOR PEOPLE TO VOTE.
THAT WAS NOT THE STATEMENT THEY
MADE. AND THAT WAS NOT ON THE
BALLOT MEASURE, EITHER. UM YOU
KNOW, AND SO HELP ME UNDERSTAND?
WHY IS IT WHY WOULD IT MAKE IT
HARDER FOR SOMEONE TO VOTE? IF
YOU JUST SHOW YOUR I Dð TO
ANSWER THE QUESTION, I WOULD
JUST SAY, UH, YOU I THINK,
MIXING TWO CONCEPTS HERE. ONE IS
WHO SHOULD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
VERIFICATION PROCESSES AROUND
VOTES. UH AND THE ANSWER IN MY
MIND IS THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
NOT NOT. WE DON'T WANT 100
CITIES PROPOSING THEIR OWN
DIFFERENT VOTER. I Dð AND
REGISTRATION CERTIFICATION
REQUIREMENTS. 12 WE ALSO KNOW
THAT VOTER I Dð REQUIREMENTS, AS
THEY'RE CALLED, HAVE BEEN USED
TO INTIMIDATE VOTERS OF COLOR.
YOUNGER VOTERS, LOW PROPENSITY
VOTERS. WE SAW THIS HAPPEN
RECENTLY IN ARIZONA, AND I'M
SURE THAT MY WITNESSES COULD
SPEAK TO THIS IF IT MADAM. SURE.
MAY I HAVE PERMISSION? IT'S OK.
I'D LOVE TO HAVE THEM SPEAK, BUT
I I'M AWARE OF THE DATA
SUGGESTING THAT THERE WAS A LOT
OF INTIMIDATION WHERE YOU HAD
PRIVATE VIGILANTES SHOWING UP
AND INTIMIDATING PEOPLE OF COLOR
, TRYING TO VOTE AND SAYING, LET
ME SEE YOUR I Dð IT BECAME VERY,
VERY, UM UH I INTIMIDATING FOR
VOTERS TO CERTAIN TYPES OF
VOTERS TO COME OUT AND VOTE
BECAUSE THEY WERE CONCERNED
ABOUT THE HARASSMENT THEY HAD
RECEIVED ONCE THESE LAWS AND
AGAIN REMEMBER THAT THIS INITIAL
PROPOSAL WAS NOT JUST A VOTER, I
Dð REQUIREMENT THAT MIGHT BE AN
I Dð MIGHT BE SOMETHING MORE
THAN THAT, BECAUSE WE DON'T
KNOW. HUNTING AND BEACH GET
DECIDE ULTIMATELY PAIRED WITH
BALLOT BOX MONITORING, WHICH
THINK ABOUT HOW THAT SOUNDS TO
THE AVERAGE PERSON, PARTICULARLY
THE AVERAGE PERSON WHO MIGHT BE
SUBJECT TO A LOT OF POLICE
STOPS. WHO'S USED TO BEING
HARASSED IN PUBLIC LIKE THOSE
ARE THE VOTERS THAT THAT ARE
GONNA BE INTIMIDATED BY THIS?
THAT ALL THE DATA SUGGESTS ARE
LESS LIKELY TO VOTE. IF THESE
TYPES OF THINGS HAPPEN, AND BY
THE WAY, THERE ARE STILL SOME
PEOPLE IN SOCIETY, EVEN TODAY
WHO DON'T HAVE, UH, DRIVER'S
LICENSES OR OTHER TYPES OF PHOTO
? I Dð S¼ AND I DON'T BELIEVE
YOUR COSTCO CARD TYPICALLY WORKS
WHEN TO VOTE UNDER THESE TYPES
OF REQUIREMENTS. SO YOU KNOW YOU
HAVE YOUNGER PEOPLE. YOU HAVE
SOME OLDER PEOPLE. YOU HAVE
PEOPLE THAT MAY BE DISABLED. OR
UH, YOU KNOW THAT THAT DON'T
TYPICAL MAY NOT HAVE THIS. SO
THERE'S A LOT OF DATA OUT THERE,
UH, SHOWING THAT THESE TYPES OF
I Dð REQUIREMENTS ACTUALLY DO
INHIBIT VOTING AT THE SAME TIME,
THAT MIGHT BE A TRADE OFF. WE
MIGHT CONSIDER MAKING AS THE
STATE LEGISLATURE IF THERE WAS
EVIDENCE OF RAMPANT VOTER FRAUD,
BUT THAT IS THE PART THAT IS
MISSING HERE. THIS IS A SOLUTION
IN SEARCH OF A PROBLEM AT NÓ
POINT IN TIME DID ANY OF THE
MAJORITY MEMBERS OF HUNTINGTON
BEACH, THE CITY COUNCIL? OR ANY
OF THE OTHER ADVOCATES. I'M
AWARE OF AROUND THE STATE, UH,
ACTUALLY EVER SHOW EVIDENCE THAT
THIS IS A PROBLEM? IF THIS IS A
PROBLEM, WE SHOULD ACT. BUT I
DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE CITY
COUNCILS THAT ACT. IT SHOULD BE
THE STATE LEGISLATURE. AND THAT
IS WHAT THIS BILL IS ABOUT. BUT
IF I COULD, IF I MIGHT HAVE, UM,
ONE OF MY WITNESSES TESTIFY ON
SOME OF THE EVIDENCE AROUND. I'M
NOT SURE THAT'S NECESSARY RIGHT
NOW, UNLESS SHE WOULD LIKE TO
HEAR FROM YOU AGAIN. BUT LET'S
THERE ARE SOME OTHER PEOPLE WHO
HAVE QUESTIONS, TOO. SO LET'S
MAKE SURE THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR. I DON'T I'M NOT HERE TO
FOR ME. MORE INTERESTED IN WHAT
OUR LEGAL COUNSELS. I'M NOT HERE
INTERESTED IN HEARING FROM
OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL BECAUSE
THEY'RE JUST GOING TO BE ONE OF
THE OTHER FOLKS WHO'S GONNA YOU
KNOW, BE PART OF THE LAWSUIT, SO
I'M I'M YOU KNOW, ALL DUE
RESPECT, I'M NOT HERE TO HEAR
FROM LEGAL OPINIONS OF OTHERS.
UM, FOR OR AGAINST THE MEASURE.
UM I. I GUESS IT IT COMES BACK
TO IS THIS IS WHAT I FIND VERY
TROUBLESOME. IS THAT ONE? YOU
KNOW THE TALKS OF THIS BEING
SEEMS AN UNLAWFUL IT IT IS LAW
UNLAWFUL. AND YET THEN RIGHT
AFTER THE BALLOT IS PASSED BY
THE VOTERS IN HUNTED BEACH NOW
WE HAVE A LAW THAT'S PENDING OR
BILL THAT'S PENDING. TO BE FAIR.
I PROPOSE THIS LEGISLATION LONG
BEFORE IT CAME UP FOR A VOTE.
AND SO I, UM AND THE AND IT GOES
BACK TO ITS LIKE I SAID, I'M NOT
HERE DEBATING ABOUT YOU KNOW?
THE VOTER. I Dð IT'S MORE OF
THAT. THERE'S VOTERS WHO
SUPPORTS THIS. IN HUNTING BEACH,
AND THEY FEEL THAT THAT'S A
CONFIDENCE THEY NEED AND WANT.
AND THIS IS A AND THE COUNCIL
NEVER PROPOSED IN USING YOUR
COSTCO. I Dð OR YOUR SCHOOL. I
Dð IT'S A GOVERNMENT. I Dð THAT
WE ALL USE FOR EVERYTHING ELSE
WE DO EVERY DAY ALL DAY LONG
THAT WE ALL HOLD OUR I Dð UM, IT
AND SO, YOU KNOW, ONE. I BELIEVE
THIS BILL IS UNNECESSARY. UM AND
TWO THAT THIS IS JUST REALLY
PENALIZING ONE CITY WHO IS DOING
WHAT THEY BELIEVE THERE'S
RESIDENTS WANT AND IT SHOW UM,
THAT THAT'S THE CASE AND LAST IS
THAT THIS WILL INVALIDATE AND
TAKE AWAY THE VOTERS. VOICES
THAT JUST WENT THROUGH IN MARCH.
UM, THIS ONE VALIDATE HUNTING
BEACH. VOTER I Dð MEASURE THAT
IT JUST GOT PASSED. AND SO FOR
THAT I'M ASKING US. I ENCOURAGE
MY COLLEAGUES TO JOIN ME IN
STANDING UP FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT
AND LOCAL CONTROL. BECAUSE EVERY
DAY EVERYTHING WE DO UP HERE IS
JUST POUNDING ON LOCAL CITIES,
UM AND NOT ALLOWING THEM TO DO
WHAT THEY DO BEST AND WHAT THEY
KNOW IS BEST FOR THEIR RESIDENTS
. SO WITH THAT, MADAM CHAIR, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR A NÓ VOTE.
I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS, AND
I JUST NOTE THAT THIS WOULD ALSO
AFFECT THE OTHER CITIES THAT ARE
CONSIDERING THE SAME OR SIMILAR
MEASURES AROUND THE STATE. OK,
THANK YOU. UH, LET'S GO TO
SENATOR UMBERG. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR. UM THANK YOU, SENATOR MIN
FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD JUST A
COUPLE OF POINTS IN TERMS OF
THIS, UH, VOTE IN HUNTINGTON
BEACH, BASICALLY A SOLUTION IN
SEARCH OF A PROBLEM. THERE IS
VIRTUALLY NÓ EVIDENCE OF ANY
SORT OF SYSTEMIC VOTER FRAUD.
NUMBER ONE NUMBER TWO IS MY
UNDERSTANDING THAT WHEN YOU
REGISTER TO VOTE, YOU ACTUALLY
HAVE TO VERIFY ONE THAT YOU ARE
A CITIZEN AND TWO THAT YOU LIVE
AT THE PLACE YOU SAY YOU'RE
LIVING IS THAT IS THAT YOUR
UNDERSTANDING? THAT IS CORRECT?
YEAH, ALL RIGHT. AND SO THAT
THERE IS A VERIFICATION PROCESS
JUST AS PART OF THE REGISTRATION
PROCESS. TO MATCH AS WELL.
SIGNATURE MATCHES AS AS WELL, UM
I IN TERMS OF PUBLIC POLICY, IT
SEEMS TO ME TO BE OUR
RESPONSIBILITY TO, UM ENACT
PUBLIC POLICY THAT WE THINK IS
APPROPRIATE FOR THE STATE. I
HAPPEN TO AGREE WITH YOU THAT
THIS PUBLIC POLICY THAT IS
APPROPRIATE FOR THE STATE. WE'RE
NOT PENALIZING HUNTINGTON BEACH
IN ANY WAY THEY THEY SUFFER NÓ
PENALTY. UH, OTHER THAN NOT
BEING ABLE TO, UM ASK FOR VOTER.
I Dð WHICH IS YOU AND I BELIEVE
IS CONTRARY STATE LAW, BUT I
WANT TO THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING
IT BECAUSE CLARIFYING THE LAW
THROUGH LITIGATION IS ONE
EXPENSIVE AND TWO CLOCKS OF
QUARTZ. SO BY DOING THIS, I'M
HOPING THAT WE WILL BUT I THAT
PUBLIC POLICY DECISION, SO THANK
YOU FOR THAT, THEN. LASTLY IN
TERMS OF THE WILL OF THE VOTERS,
AND INDEED, THE WILL OF THE
VOTERS IS SOMETHING THAT WE
SHOULD BE ATTENDING THERE, TOO.
UH, BUT IN OUR OWN COUNTY IN
ORANGE COUNTY A LONG TIME AGO
VERY LONG TIME AGO, UM, THERE
WERE FOLKS DRESSED AS POLICE
OFFICERS POSTED AT POLLING
PLACES WITH BIG SIGNS THAT SAID
NON CITIZENS MAY NOT VOTE. AND
THOSE, UH, POLICE OFFICERS. THEY
WEREN'T ACTUALLY POLICE OFFICERS
. THEY WERE FOLKS DRESSED AS
POLICE OFFICERS ASKING FOLKS FOR
A VOTER. I Dð AT THE TIME.
APPARENTLY, IT WASN'T ILLEGAL TO
DO THAT. IT IS I GOING TO DO
THAT NOW? I THINK WE WOULD ALL
AGREE THAT THAT IS, UH, A
PRACTICE THAT THAT WE SURELY
SHOULD NOT COUNTENANCE. WE
WOULDN'T WANT TO HAVE POLICE
OFFICERS OR PRETEND POLICE
OFFICERS ASKING FOR FOLKS. BUT
AT THE TIME, UH, I HAPPENED TO
BE VERY ATTUNED TO IT BECAUSE I
WAS RUNNING. UH FOR OFFICE IS WE
DID A POLL AND IT TURNS OUT THAT
PEOPLE THOUGHT THAT WAS A REALLY
GOOD IDEA, UH, MUCH TO MY SHOCK
AND CHAGRIN THAT THEY THOUGHT
THAT WAS A GOOD IDEA. BUT
NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT
THAT THE FOLKS THOUGHT THAT WAS
GOOD IDEA THAT SEEMS LIKE
APPARENT TO, UH ONE GOOD PUBLIC
POLICY, AND IT SEEMS ALSO UM IT
IT, IT'S IT IT IT SEEMS SUCH
THAT WHEN WE LOOK BACK TODAY, WE
WOULD THINK THAT THAT THERE IS
NÓ WAY THAT THE PUBLIC WOULD
BELIEVE THAT SO THE PUBLIC MOOD
SHIFTS NOW AND AGAIN ANYWAY. LET
LET ME CONCLUDE BY URGING, I
VOTE AND THANK YOU FOR BRINGING
THIS FORWARD. THANK YOU,
SENATOR. THANK YOU ANY OTHER
COMMENTS FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS?
I'LL JUST SAY, UM THAT I JUST
WANT TO NOTE THAT, UM, DISTRICT
ATTORNEY TODD SPITZER HAS SAID
PUBLICLY MULTIPLE TIMES THAT
HE'S INVESTIGATED EVERY SINGLE
ALLEGATION OF VOTER FRAUD IN
ORANGE COUNTY, AND NONE OF THEM
HAVE HAD ANY MERIT. SO UM IT
IT'S NOT. IT'S NOT AS IF IT
HASN'T BEEN LOOKED AT. SO I
THINK IT'S A IT'S UH, I THINK
YOU BELL IS REALLY IMPORTANT.
AND I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING
IT. UM DO WE HAVE EMOTION? THEY
DO, SENATOR MENJIVAR OK, SHE'S
MOVED THE BILL. OH, SO SENATOR
NEWMAN'S ALREADY MOVED IT. OK
GOOD. THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING
THAT, UM SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND
TAKE THE ROLE. BLAKESPEAR OH,
I'M SORRY. I DIDN'T ALLOW HIM TO
CLOSE. WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE?
OK? SHAKESPEARE SHAKESPEARE A 11
NÓ ALAN. ALAN I MANJAR MENJIVAR
I, NEWMAN NEWMAN. I RICHINO
WHICH YOU KNOW I UMBERG UMBERG.
I OK, SO THE MOTION IS DUE PASS
TO THE COMMITTEE ON LOCAL
GOVERNMENT. AND THE VOTE IS 6 TO
1. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. THANK
YOU MEMBERS. THANK YOU. I THINK
I DON'T SEE. OH, OK, GOOD. OK
NEXT. WE ARE GOING TO TAKE UP
OUR CONSENT ITEM. WE HAVE ONE
ITEM ON CONSENT. S¼ B 1476. DOES
ANY MEMBER WANT TO PULL ANY ITEM
FROM CONSENT? SEEING NÓ ONE
MOVING TO DO THAT. COULD WE
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? CONSENT
ITEM. S¼ P 1476 BLAKESPEAR AY
BLAKESPEAR I 11 I, ALAN. A AND I
MENJIVAR MENJIVAR. I, NEWMAN
NEWMAN. I PITINO PATINO, I
UMBERG UMBERG. I. THE CONSENT
CALENDAR HAS BEEN ADOPTED, AND
WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO BILL
NUMBER S¼ B 1293 FROM OCHOA
BOKE. I SEE HER SITTING READY
YOU MAY COME TO THE MICROPHONE
AND PLEASE PRESENT YOUR BILL.
AND IF YOU HAVE ANY LEAD
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT THEY ARE
WELCOME TO COME FORWARD.
GOOD MORNING, MADAM CHAIR
MEMBERS. BEFORE I BEGIN. I'D
LIKE TO ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE'S
AMENDMENTS AND THANK THE
COMMITTEE STAFF FOR WORKING WITH
MY OFFICE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
SENATE BILL 1290 THREE WOULD
REQUIRE THE PUBLISHED COPY OF
NOTICE OF INTENTION IN A RECALL
ELECTION TO OMIT THE SIGNATURES
IN STREET ADDRESSES OF THE
PROPONENTS. SINCE 1911,
CALIFORNIA'S RECALL HAS GIVEN
VOTERS THE POWER TO REMOVE
ELECTED OFFICIALS BEFORE THEIR
TERM EXPIRES IN ORDER TO TRIGGER
A RECALL. ELECTION RECALL,
PETITIONERS MUST FILE A NOTICE
OF INTENTION WITH THE ELECTIONS
OFFICER AND SERVE A COPY TO THE
PERSON BEING RECALLED. A COPY OF
THE NOTICE INCLUDES NAMES,
ADDRESSES AND SIGNATURES MUST
THEN BE PUBLISHED IN A NEWSPAPER
OF CIRCULAR GENERAL CIRCULATION.
WHILE THIS MAY HAVE MADE SENSE
BEFORE INFORMATION BECAME WIDELY
AND EASILY AVAILABLE VIA THE
INTERNET IN TODAY'S CLIMATE.
RETALIATORY POLITICS. RELEASING
SUCH PERSONAL IDENTIFYING
INFORMATION COULD LEAD TO
INTIMIDATION, HARASSMENT AND IN
EXTREME CASES, VIOLENCE. WHILE
THE BILL WOULD STILL REQUIRE ALL
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION TO BE
SUBMITTED TO THE ELECTIONS,
OFFICIAL AND THE RECALLED
OFFICIAL, THE STREET ADDRESSES
AND SIGNATURES WOULD NOT NEED TO
BE PUBLISHED IN THE NEWSPAPER.
SO IN CLOSING, OR DO YOU WANT ME
TO CLOSE NOW OR WE DON'T HAVE
ANY LEAD. SO THE POWER OF RECALL
IS FUNDAMENTAL PART OF
CALIFORNIA'S POLITICAL SYSTEM
AND HAS BEEN AVAILABLE BY VOTERS
TO EXPRESS DISSATISFACTION WITH
THEIR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES
FOR MORE THAN 100 YEARS. IN OUR
AGE OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY, IT IS
IMPORTANT THAT WE TAKE STEPS TO
SAFEGUARD THE PERSONAL
INFORMATION OF VOTERS WHO CHOOSE
TO ENGAGE IN THE ELECTORAL
PROCESS. I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
AN I VOTE. OK, THANK YOU,
SENATOR. UM LET DO YOU HAVE ANY
OTHER LEAD WITNESSES? WE HAVE
NONE TODAY, OK? ARE THERE ANY,
UM, SUPPORT WITNESSES WHO WOULD
LIKE TO COME TO THE MICROPHONE
TO OFFER SUPPORT. SEEING NONE.
DO WE HAVE ANY OPPOSITION
WITNESSES? SEEING NONE ANY
OPPOSITION? OTHER TESTIMONY
SEEING NONE. WE WILL GO NOW TO
THE MEMBERS. ANY QUESTIONS? UH,
LET ME SAY AS SOMEBODY WHO HAS
BEEN SERVED RECALL PAPERS SEEMS
LIKE A REASONABLE CHANGE TO ME.
UH, GLAD TO MOVE IT. OK, GREAT.
UM SO THAT'S OUR MOTION FROM
SENATOR NEWMAN. THE MOTION IS
DUE PASS AS AMENDED TO THE
COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
ASSISTANT. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
BLAKESPEAR HØI LIKE SPIRIT I ONE
WHEN I ALAN MENJIVAR MENJIVAR AY
, NEWMAN NEWMAN, I. I UMBERG
UMBERG. AY. THANK YOU. OK, THANK
YOU, SENATOR. IT SIX TO THAT
BILL IS 6 TO 0 AND IT IS ON
CALL. SO NEXT WE HAVE. I DO NOT
SEE SENATOR BRADFORD IN THE
ROOM. UM BUT WE WILL. WE WILL
HAVE, UH SENATOR ALLEN
PRESENTING GLASER'S BILL SB 1404
WHEN HE RETURNS, WHICH WILL BE
SHORTLY SO WE WILL HAVE A BRIEF
RECESS NOW.
ALL RIGHT. WE'RE BACK FROM
RECESS AND, UH, NEXT UP. WE HAVE
SB 1404 FROM GLASER, AND IT IS
BEING PRESENTED BY SENATOR ALLEN
. SO WHEN HE IS READY, YOU MAY
PROCEED TO PRESENT THE BILL.
WELL, THANK YOU SO MUCH, MADAM
CHAIR. UM, FOLKS ON THIS
COMMITTEE? UH, SOME, WE'VE
ALWAYS HAD SOME TURNOVER, BUT
YOU'LL REMEMBER THAT OUR FORMER
CHAIR SENATOR GLASER, WHO
UNFORTUNATELY IS NOT HERE,
RIGHT? YEAH, WE'RE GONNA PROTECT
HIS PRIVACY. UH BUT, UM, UH, THE
THEY WE, WE DID A, UM UM WE DID
A DEEP DIVE INTO, UM, ISSUES
RELATING TO AUDITS AND, UM SOME
OF THE CHALLENGES THAT HAVE
TAKEN PLACE AT THE AT THE
FRANCHISE TAX BOARD WITH REGARDS
TO A REAL ROBUST OVERSIGHT OF
LOBBYING DISCLOSURE REPORTS AND
STATEMENTS AND IT WAS A REALLY
FASCINATING AND EYE OPENING, UH,
HEARING AND II. I KNOW A NUMBER
OF YOU REMEMBER THAT HEARING SO
COMING OUT OF THAT WORK? UH THE
FORMER CHAIR, SENATOR GLAZER HAS
PULLED TOGETHER THIS BILL SB
1004, WHICH TRANSFERS THE
RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONDUCTING
AUDITS OF THE LOBBYING
DISCLOSURE REPORTS AND
STATEMENTS FROM THE FRANCHISE
TAX BOARD TO THE FAIR POLITICAL
PRACTICES COMMISSION AND
INCREASES A FEE TO FUND THOSE
AUDITS. AND THIS IS BEING AND
BECAUSE IN THE END OF THE DAY
THERE IS A STRONG SENSE THAT
BOTH IN TERMS OF RESOURCES AND
FOCUS THAT THE FPP èC IS THE
RIGHT PLACE TO DO THIS WORK.
THEY'RE THE ONES THAT ARE TASKED
WITH, UH, THE, UH, KIND OF THE
OVERSIGHT OF OUR KIND OF
ELECTORAL AND DISCLOSURE. UM
SYSTEM AS WE KNOW, THE FRANCHISE
TAX BOARD HAS AN ENTIRELY
DIFFERENT PORTFOLIO. AND I THINK
THAT SHOWED WHEN WE WERE HAVING
OUR DISCUSSION IN OUR HEARING A
FEW MONTHS BACK, AND THAT'S WHAT
MOTIVATES THIS BILL. UH, THE
BILL WAY TO SUPPORT OF SEVERAL
IMPORTANT I'M I'M GOOD
GOVERNMENT GROUPS ACROSS FROM
ACROSS THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM,
INCLUDING CALIFORNIA COMMON
CAUSE THE CALIFORNIA TAXPAYERS
ASSOCIATION AND WITH THAT I
RESPECT FOR Y FOR I VOTE. OK,
THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE ANY LEAD
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT? I THINK
SO, YES. GOOD MORNING. GOOD
MORNING. VINCENT ECONO, SENIOR
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL WITH THE
FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES
COMMISSION. THE COMMISSION IS IN
SUPPORT OF SB 1404. THE BILL
WOULD TRANSFER THE LOBBYING
AUDIT WORKLOAD FROM THE, UH FTB
TO THE FRONT OR EXCUSE ME, THE
FP èC. THE COMMISSION CURRENTLY
HAS AN AUDIT DIVISION, WHICH
CONDUCTS CERTAIN CAMPAIGN AUDITS
AND WHICH ALSO HAS BROAD
DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY UNDER
THE POLITICAL REFORM ACT TO
CONDUCT AUDITS OF ANY REPORTS OR
STATEMENTS REQUIRED BY THE PR,
INCLUDING LOBBYIST REPORTS AND
STATEMENTS. AUDITS ARE A CRUCIAL
TOOL FOR TRANSPARENCY AND
ACCOUNTABILITY. THEY OPERATE TO
MONITOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE PR
AND ARE THE AND MOST CONSISTENT
VEHICLE FOR DISCOVERING LOBBYING
VIOLATIONS. THESE VIOLATIONS CAN
INCLUDE FAILURE TO FILE LOBBYING
REPORTS FAILURE TO ACCURATELY
REPORT EXPENSES OR PAYMENTS OR
OMITTING EXPENSES OR PAYMENTS ON
REPORTS AND IMPERMISSIBLY,
GIVING GIFTS TO OR OR
CONTRIBUTIONS TO OFFICIALS OR
CANDIDATES. EVEN THOUGH ONLY A
SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE REQUIRED
AUDITS WERE COMPLETED OVER THE
LAST SEVERAL YEARS. THOSE THAT
WERE YIELDED SOME FINDINGS
BETWEEN THE YEARS 2020 17. THE
COMMISSION HAD 61 ENFORCEMENT
ACTIONS BASED ON AUDIT REPORTS
CONDUCTED BY FTB. THIS NUMBER
WOULD LIKELY BE HIGHER IF MORE
OF THE AUDIT REPORTS HAD BEEN
COMPLETED OF THOSE THAT WERE
COMPLETED. ROUGHLY ONE IN 10 OF
THE ARTISTS RESULTED IN EITHER A
WARNING LETTER OR OR AN
ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY. FOR
THOSE AUDITS THAT RESULTED IN
ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES. MANY
OF THESE UNCOVERED SERIOUS
VIOLATIONS THAT LIKELY WOULD NOT
HAVE BEEN FOUND ABSENT THE
AUDIT. FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE YEAR,
2000, A LOBBYING FIRM WAS FOUND
TO HAVE FAILED TO TIMELY FILE 11
REPORTS OR ABOUT THREE YEARS
WORTH OF QUARTERLY REPORTS,
RESULTING IN A $14,000 FINE IN
2012, A LOBBYIST WAS FINED MORE
THAN $133,000 FOR MAKING ILLEGAL
CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND
ARRANGING FOR, UH, GIFTS FOR
STATE LEGISLATORS THAT WERE OVER
THE LIMIT. THIS WAS DISCOVERED
DUE TO AN AUDIT. MORE RECENTLY
IN 2016, AN AUDIT UNCOVERED THAT
A LOBBYING FIRM FAILED TO REPORT
A GIFT TO A SENATOR RESULTING IN
A $4000 FINE. THE POLITICAL
REFORM ACT AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY
PASSED BY THE VOTERS AND, AS IT
CURRENTLY READS, INCLUDES IN ITS
CORE PURPOSES, THAT THE
ACTIVITIES OF LOBBYISTS SHOULD
BE REGULATED AND THEIR FINANCES
DISCLOSED IN ORDER TO IMPRO
IMPROPER INFLUENCE WILL NOT BE
DIRECTED AT PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND
THAT ADEQUATE ENFORCEMENT
MECHANISMS SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN
ORDER THAT THIS TITLE WILL BE
VIGOROUSLY ENFORCED. BASED ON
OUR RECORDS. WE SEE THAT AUDITS
SERVE A NECESSARY AND
IRREPLACEABLE ROLE IN THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE PR. A. THE
REDUCTION IN AUDITS COMPLETED
HAS HINDERED THE ABILITY OF THE
COMMISSION TO VIGOROUSLY ENFORCE
THE RULES RELATED TO LOBBYING
BECAUSE VIOLATIONS ARE GOING
UNDISCOVERED, AND WE'VE SEEN A
DECLINE IN LOBBYING ENFORCEMENT
ACTIONS IN RECENT YEARS. THANK
YOU TO SENATOR GLASER FOR HIS
LEADERSHIP ON THIS ISSUE. THANK
YOU TO SENATOR ALLEN FOR YOUR
PRESENTATION AND THANK YOU TO
THIS COMMITTEE FOR YOUR
CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. LET'S SEE. DO WE HAVE
OPPOSITION WITNESSES? OH FIRST.
I'M SORRY. LET ME CALL, UH, FOR
ANYBODY IN THE ROOM WHO'S IN
SUPPORT? SEEING NONE. IF THERE
IS AN OPPOSITION WITNESS, AND
YOU'D LIKE TO COME FORWARD,
PLEASE DO SO. I THINK SO. MISS
TOM HILT. I'M HERE REPRESENTING
THE INSTITUTE OF GOVERNMENTAL
ADVOCATES. IG A IS THE TRADE
ASSOCIATION THAT REPRESENTS
PROFESSIONAL LOBBYISTS IN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA. I WAS
PLEASED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE
WORKSHOP THAT SENATOR ALLEN
DISCUSSED LAST YEAR IN WHICH, UM
, A PROBLEM WAS DISCOVERED WITH
RESPECT TO AUDITS BY THE
FRANCHISE TAX BOARD. BUT THAT
PROBLEM WAS NOT LIMITED TO
LOBBYISTS. IN FACT, I WOULD
SUBMIT THAT THE PROBLEM AT THE
FRANCHISE TAX BOARD WITH RESPECT
TO AUDITS IS MORE COMPELLING AND
MORE PROBLEMATIC WITH TO THE
NUMEROUS THOUSANDS OF CAMPAIGN
COMMITTEES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN
AUDITED OVER THE LAST DECADE AS
WELL UNDER THE POLITICAL REFORM
ACT, THE FRANCHISE TAX BOARD IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR AUDITING ALL
SORTS OF CAMPAIGN COMMITTEES.
ALL SORTS OF PARTICIPANTS IN THE
POLITICAL PROCESS, INCLUDING
LOBBYISTS. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, MOST
OF YOU SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO
AUDIT. FREQUENTLY AND ROUTINELY
UNDER THE POLITICAL REFORM ACT.
AND MY GUESS IS MOST OF YOU HAVE
NOT BEEN SUBJECT TO AN AUDIT IN
THE LAST DECADE. STATEWIDE
BALLOT MEASURE. CAMPAIGNS ARE
SUBJECT TO MANDATORY AUDIT UNDER
THE POLITICAL REFORM ACT, AND
NONE OF THOSE HAVE BEEN DONE IN
THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS.
STATEWIDE CANDIDATES INCLUDING
CANDIDATES FOR GOVERNOR AND ALL
OF THE STATEWIDE OFFICES. ARE
REQUIRED TO BE AUDITED
MANDATORILY. YET IN MANY OF
THOSE HAVE NOT BEEN AUDITED OVER
THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS. SO THIS
IS CLEARLY A PROBLEM AT THE
FRANCHISE TAX BOARD. AND I TELL
YOU WHAT THE FRANCHISE TAX BOARD
TOLD US WAS. IT'S A RESOURCES
AND PERSONNEL PROBLEM. THIS BILL
DOES NOTHING ABOUT THE RESOURCES
OR PERSONNEL PROBLEM AT THE
FRANCHISE TAX PORT. THE
POLITICAL REFORM ACT WAS CREATED
ALMOST EXACTLY 50 YEARS AGO BY
THE VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA AND ITS
SMARTLY AN APPROPRIATELY DECIDED
THAT THE AUDIT FUNCTION SHOULD
BE DONE BY A DIFFERENT AGENCY,
NOT THE AGENCY THAT ENFORCES THE
LAW. AND THAT WAS A GOOD AND
SMART DECISION, AND THERE'S NÓ
REASON TO CHANGE THAT TODAY TO
SOLVE THIS PROBLEM. WHAT HAS
HAPPENED TO THE FRANCHISE TAX
BOARD IS THAT OVER THE LAST
DECADE OR SO, THIS LEGISLATURE
HAS CHANGED THE POLITICAL REFORM
ACT TO INCREASE THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR DISCLOSURE BY ALL TYPES. IN
POLITICS, SO LET ME GIVE YOU
SOME EXAMPLES. UM ABOUT 15 YEARS
AGO, 12 YEARS AGO, WE CHANGED
THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTING
OBLIGATION FOR STATE CANDIDATES,
ALL OF YOU UM, STATEWIDE BALLOT
MEASURE COMMITTEES TO REQUIRE
FREQUENT DISCLOSURE OF CAMPAIGN
RECEIPTS. PRIOR TO WHAT WE USED
TO BE CALLED THE 16 DAY PERIOD
BEFORE AN ELECTION. SO FOR ABOUT
40 YEARS A CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE
WOULD HAVE TO FILE A FEW
CAMPAIGN REPORTS PRIOR TO AN
ELECTION. AND IN THE 16 DAYS
PRIOR TO THE ELECTION, YOU'D
HAVE TO REPORT EVERY DAY ANY
CONTRIBUTION OF $1000 OR MORE.
WE CHANGED THAT TO 90 DAYS
BEFORE THE ELECTION. ABOUT A
DECADE AGO. AND WE REQUIRE
DISCLOSURE, ALMOST ALL THE TIME
FOR CONTRIBUTIONS OF $5000 OR
MORE EVERY 10 DAYS. SO IMAGINE
YOU'RE THE FRANCHISE TAX BOARD
AND YOU'RE AUDITING A
GUBERNATORIAL CAMPAIGN. YOU USED
TO COME IN. PULL THE CAMPAIGN
REPORTS FOR THAT CANDIDATE. YOU
WOULD SEE ABOUT SIX. CAMPAIGN
REPORTS AND YOU'D SEE
CONTRIBUTION REPORTS FOR THE
LAST 16 DAYS PRIOR TO BOTH THE
PRIMARY AND THE GENERAL
ELECTION. MAYBE 100 TOTAL
CAMPAIGN REPORTS. NOW THAT
NUMBER IS THOUSANDS, IF NOT TENS
OF THOUSANDS OF REPORTS. SO IF
YOU'RE THE FRANCHISE TAX BOARD
WHEN YOU ASSIGNED A PERSON TO DO
AN AUDIT OF A STATEWIDE
CANDIDATE THAT AUDIT MIGHT TAKE
A DAY, MAYBE IF IT WAS A
GUBERNATORIAL CAMPAIGN, IT MIGHT
TAKE A COUPLE OF DAYS. NOW IT
TAKES WEEKS. SO THE WORKLOAD AT
FRANCHISE TAX BOARD HAS
EXPLODED. IN THE LOBBYING SPACE.
10 YEARS AGO, WE CHANGED THE
DEFINITION OF WHO A LOBBYIST IS.
FOR DECADES, THE TOTAL NUMBER OF
LOBBYISTS IN CALIFORNIA WAS
ABOUT 1200. THAT MEANT PROBABLY
THREE OR 400, LOBBYING FIRMS AND
LOBBYIST EMPLOYERS. THE
FRANCHISE TAX BOARD IS REQUIRED
TO AUDIT 25% OF THOSE 25% OF TWO
OR 300, NOT A BIG WORKLOAD. WE
CHANGED THE DEFINITION OF A
LOBBYIST TO INCLUDE A BUNCH OF
PEOPLE WHO ARE HAVING ACTIVITY
OVER AT CALPERS IN CAL STARS
CALLED PLACEMENT AGENTS. THAT
TURNED 1200 INTO ABOUT 2600
LOBBYISTS. IN OTHER WORDS, WE
MORE THAN DOUBLED THE WORKLOAD.
OF THE FRANCHISE TAX BOARD WITH
RESPECT TO AUDITING LOBBYISTS.
25% OF 2600 IS A LOT MORE THAN
25% OF 1200. SO IT'S NÓ SURPRISE
IN MY MIND THAT THE FRANCHISE
TAX BOARD HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO
CATCH UP. WITH THE WORKLOAD THAT
THIS LEGISLATURE HAS IMPOSED ON
THEM UNDER THE POLITICAL REFORM
ACT. WHAT THEY NEED IS MORE
RESOURCES AND THEY NEED MORE
STAFF. IGA SUPPORTS THAT IG
SUPPORTS THOROUGH AND TIMELY
AUDIT OF LOBBYING REPORTS. WHAT
WE DON'T SUPPORT IS TRANSFERRING
THIS DUTY TO THE FRANCHISE TO
THE FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES
COMMISSION WHERE IT HAS NEVER
RESIDED. WHERE THERE MUST BE
SEPARATION BETWEEN THE AUDIT
FUNCTION AND THE AND THE
ENFORCEMENT FUNCTION. THAT IS SO
IMPORTANT THAT THE BILL ACTUALLY
REQUIRES THE F PB èC TO DEVELOP
A BASICALLY A FIREWALL BETWEEN
THOSE BETWEEN THIS NEW DIVISION
AND THE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION.
YOU'RE GOING TO NEED TO WRAP IT
UP. WHY BUILD A FIREWALL? LET'S
LEAVE IT AT THE FRANCHISE TAX
BOARD IS THE PURPOSE OF THAT.
AND LASTLY LOBBYISTS SHOULDN'T
HAVE TO PAY FOR THIS FUNCTION.
UM, WHY WE ARE ENGAGING IN FIRST
AMENDMENT ACTIVITY. WE DO NOT
CHARGE FEES TO PEOPLE WHO ARE
ENGAGING IN FIRST AMENDMENT
ACTIVITY. MISTER. THANK YOU. OK
DO WE HAVE, UH, ANYBODY IN THE
AUDIENCE WHO WOULD LIKE TO
TESTIFY IN OPPOSITION? SEEING
NONE. WE WILL COME BACK TO THE
MEMBERS. ANY QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS, DID YOU SENATOR NEWMAN
BRIEFLY? I CAN SEE BY THE LOOK
IN YOUR YOU WANT TO BE BRIEF,
UM, APPRECIATE MR HILL COMMENTS?
UM, I, I WOULD ADD, RIGHT. SO
YOU KNOW THE BEST. DISINFECTANT
AS THEY SAY, IS SUNLIGHT. ONE OF
THE THINGS THAT WE NEED TO FIX
IS CAL ACCESS. UH, AND GIVING
THE PUBLIC ACCESS TO THIS
INFORMATION THAT MORE THAN
ANYTHING MORE THAN AUDITS, I
THINK IS AN EFFECTIVE CHECK ON
ALL OF US. AND SO APPRECIATE
YOUR COMMENTS TODAY, AND I AM,
UH PERSUADED, AND I'M GOING TO
STAY OFF THE BILL. OK, THANK
YOU, SENATOR WYNN. CAN I ASK A
QUESTION? MADAM CHAIR WITNESS,
SO MR HOT. UM SO SINCE THE ISSUE
OF THE FRANCHISE TAX BOARD IS
LARGELY THE NUMBERS OF ARTISTS
THAT MUST BE CONDUCTED DUE TO
THE ADDITIONAL PLACEMENT AGENTS
TO THE LOBBYING, RIGHT LOB AND
COURT SO WHY IS THE CURRENT
PROVISION EXEMPTING PLACEMENTS?
AGE IS NOT ENOUGH. I THINK THAT
ACTUALLY WOULD HAVE A
SIGNIFICANT EFFECT AT FRANCHISE
TAX BOARD IF WE WERE TO REDUCE
THE TOTAL NUMBER OF LOBBYISTS,
LOBBYING FIRMS AND LOBBYISTS,
EMPLOYERS THAT MIGHT BE SUBJECT
TO AUDIT BY THE ELIMINATION OF
PLACEMENT AGENTS. I THINK THAT
ALONE PROBABLY WOULD GO A LONG
WAY TOWARDS SOLVING THIS
PROBLEM. I THINK THERE ARE OTHER
AREAS IN THE ACT WHERE WE COULD
CHANGE THRESHOLDS WITH RESPECT
TO OTHER TYPES OF COMMITTEES AND
THE AND THE LIKE. THAT WOULD
ALSO HELP FRANCHISE TAX SUPPORT
AND IN IG A WOULD STAND WILLING
TO WORK WITH THE AUTHOR TO
DISCUSS OR THIS COMMITTEE TO
IDENTIFY AREAS WHERE YOU KNOW WE
HAVEN'T CHANGED THE THRESHOLD
FOR LOBBYING OR FOR AUDITS FOR
CAMPAIGN COMMITTEES IN DECADES.
I MEAN, SO WHAT? WHAT IS A
PLACEMENT AGENT? YOU KIND OF
HELP ME? I MEAN, FOR THOSE OF US
WHO DON'T DO THIS FOR A LIVING.
DON'T LOOK AT THESE LAWS AND
WHAT? WHAT'S A PLACEMENT AGENT
VERSUS SO ABOUT 10 YEARS AGAIN
IN 2010. I THINK THERE WAS A LOT
OF, UM OF CONTROVERSY REGARDING,
UM PEOPLE WHO ARE IN TRYING TO
INFLUENCE CALPERS, CALLISTER AND
SOME OF THE OTHER PENSION FUNDS
WITH RESPECT TO THE INVESTMENT
INTO THEIR PARTICULAR HEDGE
FUNDS, FOR THE MOST PART, UM AND
THOSE RELATIONSHIPS WERE WERE
THEY WERE COMPENSATED ON A
CONTINGENT FEE BASIS. SO IN
OTHER WORDS, IF YOU COULD GET
CALPERS TO INVEST IN YOUR HEDGE
FUND, YOUR COMPENSATION WILL BE
TIED TO THE AMOUNT THAT CALPERS
INVESTED. UM THIS LEGISLATURE
DECIDED THAT WAS A PRACTICE THAT
IT DID NOT LIKE AND WANTED TO
CURB AND THE METHOD THAT IT
CHOSE TO DO. THAT WAS TO
DETERMINE THAT ALL OF THOSE
PEOPLE WERE LOBBYISTS BECAUSE
UNDER CALIFORNIA LOBBYING LAW,
LOBBYISTS CANNOT BE PAID A
CONTINGENT FEE. AND SO THAT
SEEMED LIKE A SENSIBLE WAY TO DO
THAT, UM, WHAT IT DID, THOUGH,
IS IT IT? IT ADOPTED ALL OF THE
THRESHOLDS FOR LOBBYING, WHICH
ARE QUITE LOW WHEN WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT PEOPLE WHO LOBBY THIS
BUILDING PEOPLE WHO LOBBY STATE
AGENCIES AND THE LIKE, AND SO IT
ENDED UP, ADDING 1214 116 100
PEOPLE TO THE LOBBYING ROLES
THAT HAD NEVER REALLY
PARTICIPATED. OK THANK YOU. CAN
I JUST CLEAR THE STAFF AND
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS? UM, TOOK
PLACEMENT AGENTS OUT OF THE
BILL. SO THEY'RE STILL THEY'RE
STILL AT THE F Tð B. UM, I JUST
WANNA MAKE SURE THE SENATOR
SENATOR WEN'S QUESTION WAS,
THOUGH. IS THAT NOT ENOUGH?
WOULDN'T THAT JUST SO YEAH,
THAT'S THAT'S MY QUESTION,
SENATOR IS THAT IF WE IF THE
BILL ALLOWS THAT, THEN WHY
CONTINUE TO MOVE THE PATHWAY OF
MOVING THE LOBBYING? AUDIT OF
THE LOBBYING AND THE AUDITING.
TO FTB NOW WHEN YOU REDUCE THE
CASE. LOAD TO HAVE P èC TWO.
I'M SORRY. TWO FPP èC WHEN YOU
REDUCE THE WORKLOAD NOW FOR F Tð
B. THAT'S MY THAT'S MY QUESTIONS
IS. IS IT NECESSARY? CAUSE YOU
READY? REDUCE IT? I MEAN, THE
CONCERN AS THE BEGINNING HAS
ALWAYS BEEN IS THERE'S JUST TOO
MUCH WORK. THEY CAN'T AUDIT, SO
LET'S MOVE THEM OVER TO FPP èC.
BUT NOW THAT YOU REDUCE HALF OF
THE NUMBER OF FOLKS THAT ARE
UNDER FTB. WHY DO YOU STILL NEED
TO MOVE THEM OVER AND WHY? AND
WHY IS IT NECESSARY TO FEE
INCREASE AS WELL? OK FOR TWO
THINGS. FIRST OF ALL. WE'RE NOT
MOVING THE PLACEMENT AGENTS OVER
RIGHT THAT THAT WAS THE WE'RE
KEEPING THOSE AT F Tð B. UM THE
FEE IS TO COVER THE WORK. THIS
IS A VERY TYPICAL THING. WHERE
UM YOU KNOW WHERE WHERE WE? WE
HAVE A FEE ASSOCIATED WITH THE
REGULATORY WORK, UH, FOR A
REGULATED INDUSTRY AND THE IDEA
IS THAT WE'RE NOT. WE'RE TRYING
NOT TO ADD ANY ADDITIONAL
BURDENS ONTO THE STATE BUDGET.
AND THIS IS A YOU KNOW, IT'S
TRUE THAT THEY'RE YOU KNOW,
LOBBYISTS HAVE A FIRST AMENDMENT
RIGHT? THAT'S ABSOLUTELY
IMPORTANT AND A BIG PART OF THE
UH OF OUR SYSTEM. BUT WE ALSO
HAVE AAA SYSTEM WHEREBY THEY ARE
. THEY ARE ENGAGING IN REGULATED
WORK THAT'S HIGHLY REGULATED FOR
A REALLY GOOD REASON, BECAUSE WE
KNOW HOW MUCH INFLUENCE THEY
HAVE OVER THE POLITICAL PROCESS.
AND THAT, UM, THAT THERE'S A
THERE'S MERIT TO, YOU KNOW,
ENSURING THAT THAT A REASONABLE
FEE TO HELP THE REGULATING
AGENCY DO THE WORK, UH IS, UH,
APPLIED. UM YOU KNOW, I, I WILL
SAY, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE THEY
LITERALLY HAVE BEEN THE F Dð B
HAS BEEN DOING BASICALLY ZERO
AUDITS. I MEAN, YES, THEY'VE GOT
LIMITED RESOURCES, BUT I MEAN
THE LEVEL OF DISENGAGEMENT FROM
THIS, UH, BOARD ON THIS
PARTICULAR AREA OF WORK HAS BEEN
EXTRAORDINARY, AND THAT INCLUDES
THE PLACEMENT AGENTS, RIGHT? SO
UM I, YOU KNOW, I. I DON'T
DISAGREE. II I AGREE WITH NEARLY
EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN SAID BY
THE OPPOSITION WITNESS, BUT THE
TRUTH IS, THERE JUST ISN'T THIS
WORK ISN'T HAPPENING OVER THE F
Tð B. UM AND I. I CAN ONLY THINK
AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT CAME
UP AT THE HEARING THAT WE ALL
PARTICIPATED IN LAST YEAR. UH,
YOU KNOW, IN THE END OF THE DAY,
THE FOLKS WHO GO WORK FOR F èC
B WANNA WORK ON TAX ISSUES. AND
THE FOLKS WHO WANT TO GO WORK AT
FP èC WANT TO WORK ON THIS SORT
OF POLITICAL REFORM TYPE OF
WORK. AND THAT'S THE RATIONALE
THAT THE THAT THE AUTHOR HAS,
YOU KNOW. YOU KNOW IT MOTIVATES
HIS, UH, HIS DESIRE TO BRING IT
OVER TO FP èC. YOU KNOW, THEY
JUST HAVEN'T BEEN DOING THE WORK
AND YOU KNOW, THESE RESOURCE
CHALLENGES EXIST EVERYWHERE.
THEY EXIST AT FEP èC AS WELL.
AND YOU'RE NOT WRONG. UH BUT BUT
THE FOLKS WHO WHO THE FPP èC
IS, IS JUST SO MUCH MORE FOCUSED
ON THIS KIND OF WORK. UH, AND
THAT'S THE RATIONALE BEHIND THE
BILL. WAS THAT YOUR CLOSE OR OK,
SENATOR NEWMAN. I GUESS I HAVE
TO ASK. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, ARE WE
AWARE OF PROBLEMS CORRUPTION,
NON REPORTING EXCESSIVE LEVERAGE
, UH, THAT HAVE NOT BEEN EXPOSED
AS A RESULT OF THE DEFICIT IN
ORDER, BECAUSE I I'M NOT. THAT
IS NOT MY SENSE. RIGHT. SO IS
THIS JUST BECAUSE THE PR A
REQUIRED YOU KNOW BY STATUTE.
YOU KNOW A FIXED NUMBER OF
AUDITS. YOU KNOW IS THERE A
PROBLEM? I DIDN'T ASK MR HIL
TAG. I MEAN, WHAT'S YOUR SENSE?
UM MY SENSE IS THERE ISN'T RIGHT
BECAUSE MOST OF THIS INFORMATION
IS AT LEAST IN THEORY AGAIN, YOU
KNOW, DESPITE THE PROBLEMS WITH
CAL ACCESS AVAILABLE TO THE
PUBLIC, SO I, I DON'T HAVE A
SENSE THAT THERE ARE AUDITS THAT
NEEDED. YOU KNOW THAT THAT
WEREN'T DONE. AND AS A RESULT,
WE HAD, YOU KNOW, MISBEHAVIOR OR
WORSE BECAUSE OF IT. IF YOU
WOULDN'T MIND. YEAH, I SEE NÓ
EVIDENCE OF A YOU KNOW WHY EVEN
NOT NOT TO SAY WIDESPREAD BUT
BUT ANY SORT OF NON REPORTING BY
LOBBYISTS. THE LOBBYING FORMS
ARE NOT COMPLICATED, RIGHT? UM
AND IN THE IN THE SPHERE OF
WHAT'S LET'S REQUIRED OF PUBLIC
DISCLOSURE. LOBBYING FORMS ARE
THE EASIEST OF ALL OF THE FORMS
TO FILL OUT THE PAPERWORK. THE
BACKUP THAT'S REQUIRED TO
MAINTAIN A FILE IS NOT
EXHAUSTIVE LOBBYING AUDITS
TYPICALLY TAKE YOU KNOW WHERE I
WAS TALKING ABOUT CAMPAIGNS
BEING DAYS AND WEEKS. LOBBYING
AUDIT CAN BE DONE IN OUR OFFICE
BY FRANCHISE TAX BOARD IN AN
HOUR HOUR AND A HALF. IT'S NOT A
BIG DEAL. UM AND SO ARE ARE
THERE EXAMPLES WHERE WHERE
AUDITS HAVE RESULTED IN FINDING
ABSOLUTELY. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE
AUDITS. UM BUT THE SOLUTION TO
THIS IS TO GET FRANCHISE TAX
BOARD BACK IN THE BUSINESS OF
DOING THIS BY GIVING THEM THE
RESOURCES TO DO IT. AND I WOULD
ARGUE THAT AS AS BETWEEN YOU
KNOW, GIVING AN AUDIT TO A AN
INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE
COMMITTEE THAT MAY HAVE
INFLUENCED ONE OF YOUR RACES AND
SPENT MILLIONS OF DOLLARS WHICH
IS NOT GETTING AUDITED, EITHER
VERSUS AUDITING A LOBBYIST
EMPLOYER WHO PAID THEIR LOBBYIST
A COUPLE 1000 A MONTH. FOR
COUPLES. YEARS IS NOT EQUIVALENT
AND THAT WE'RE REALLY FOCUSING
ON THE WRONG THE WRONG AREA, BUT
THE SOLUTION SHOULDN'T BE TO
TAKE THIS. JOB AWAY FROM
FRANCHISE TAX BOARD BOARDS THAT
EXISTED FOR 50 YEARS AND BRING
IT OVER TO THE F PB èC WHERE
THEY DON'T HAVE STAFF FOR THIS,
WHERE THEY OBVIOUSLY NEED MONEY
TO STAFF UP FOR THIS, AND
THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO BUILD A
WHOLE DIVISION THAT IS GONNA BE
WALLED OFF FROM THE ENFORCEMENT
DIVISION. WHEN WE HAVE AN AGENCY
THAT HAS DONE FOR 50 YEARS AND
DONE A GREAT JOB FOR 50 YEARS,
WHO IS SIMPLY RUN OUT OF
RESOURCES TO DO THIS, AND LAST
YEAR IG A SUPPORTED MORE MONEY
FOR F Tð B TO DO THIS. THIS
LEGISLATION CHOSE NOT TO DO THAT
. WE ENCOURAGE THE LEGISLATURE
TO SOLVE THAT PROBLEM. I GUESS I
WOULD ASK. I MEAN, IT'S A REAL
QUESTION. DO WE NEED MORE AUDITS
AND WHAT'S THE DOWNSIDE OF NOT
HAVING MORE AUDITS? Ó OK,
OBVIOUSLY SO WE I CAN ANSWER IT
TWO DIFFERENT WAYS. I MEAN, ONE
IS TO SAY THAT WHEN FOLKS KNOW
THAT THERE'S NÓ AUDITS, UM IT IT
IT, IT CREATES A KIND OF A
POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS SITUATION.
WHERE WHERE, WHERE, WHERE FOLKS
MAY FEEL, UH, A GREATER
WILLINGNESS TO BE FAST AND LOOSE
. UM YOU KNOW, WE DON'T BECAUSE
WE'RE NOT HAVING THE AUDITS. WE
DON'T KNOW WHETHER THERE ARE
MORE PROBLEMS, BUT THE LAW SAYS
THAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE
DOING ABOUT THREE 100 AUDITS A
YEAR AND THEY DO ABOUT THREE. SO
WE COULD CHANGE THE LAW. I MEAN,
MAY MAYBE THAT'S MAYBE THAT'S OR
WE COULD STAFF THE POSITIONS WE
COULD STOP THE WE HAVEN'T RIGHT.
UM THEY HAVEN'T PRIORITIZED IT.
THEY'VE GOT A LOT OF OTHER WORK.
I I'M NOT, YOU KNOW, NOT TRYING
TO KNOCK THEM ON ONCE AGAIN, NOT
MY BILL. BUT I WAS HERE AT THAT
HEARING, AND I REMEMBER IT
CLEARLY YOU WERE YOU WERE DOING
SO WELL FOR A WHILE THEY BUT BUT
I DO I REMEMBER THE HEARING,
RIGHT AND I. I ASSUME SOME OF
YOU WERE THERE. UM I KNOW THE
COMMITTEE'S CHANGED A LITTLE
BIT, BUT, UM, BUT YOU KNOW, IT
WAS IT WAS PRETTY. THERE'S A
THERE'S A MASSIVE, UH,
DISCONNECT BETWEEN THE LAW AND
THE PRACTICE, AND SO BUT BUT BUT
AGAIN, THE LAW BY DESIGN WAS TO
REMOVE THE AUDIT FUNCTION FROM
THE POLITICAL SPHERE, RIGHT AND
I THINK THERE IS SOME MERIT
THERE. AND SO FIRST ORDER OF
BUSINESS PROBABLY IS TO STAFF
THOSE POSITIONS, FUND THEM AND
THEN THEN SEE WHAT HAPPENS
THERE. AND IF THERE'S IF THERE'S
A DEFICIENCY AFTER THAT, MAYBE
REVISIT IT. I GUESS IT'S NOT
YOUR BILL. RIGHT? VALID THAT'S A
VALID APPROACH. II. I WOULD JUST
PAUSE. WE OUGHT TO DO ONE OF
THESE THINGS. UH, THIS IS ONE
APPROACH. UM, I, I SUPPORT THE
FORMER CHAIR. UM BUT BUT THAT
BUT IF WE DON'T DO THAT, WE NEED
TO DO SOMETHING SIMILAR TO WHAT
YOU JUST SUGGESTED. WE COULD DO
THAT THROUGH THE BUDGET, BUT I
APPRECIATE THAT IN IN THIS FLESH
YEAR OF OURS. I'LL JUST WEIGH IN
THAT I. I SUPPORT THIS BILL. I
WASN'T ON THE COMMITTEE. UH,
LAST YEAR WHEN YOU HAD THESE
HEARINGS, BUT IT DOES I. I
BELIEVE THAT A AUDITS DO DRIVE
THE BEHAVIOR THAT WE WANT. I
THINK WE WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW THE
LAW. WE WANT THEM TO FOLLOW THE
LAW. WE WANT THEM TO DISCLOSE
THE INFORMATION AND A LOT OF
TIMES. THINGS ARE VERY
COMPLICATED. I MEAN, WE KNOW
THAT AS ELECTED OFFICIALS, UM
THAT IT IT TAKES A COMMITMENT TO
BE FOLLOWING THE REGULATIONS
THAT WE HAVE, AND LOBBYISTS HAVE
TREMENDOUS ACCESS. DECISION
MAKERS, AND THERE'S A LOT OF
MONEY IN GENERAL IN POLITICS AND
THE AUDIT SHOULD BE TAKING PLACE
. I MEAN, THE FACT THAT WE'RE
SUPPOSED TO BE DOING 300 OF THEM
, UH AND THERE ARE THREE HUN
THREE A YEAR TO ME INDICATES
THAT IT IS A PROBLEM AND
RECOGNIZING THAT THE FRANCHISE
TAX BOARD, ALTHOUGH THEY WERE
TASKED WITH THIS IS NOT DOING IT
, AND THE FPP èC DOES HAVE THE
INTEREST EXPERTISE AND ABILITY
TO DO IT, RAISING THE MONEY FROM
THE LOBBYING COMMUNITY TO DO THE
AUDIT TO ME, MAKES SENSE AND IS
SOMETHING WE HAVEN'T RAISED.
FEES IN YEARS AND YEARS AND
YEARS. UM AND SO, UH, TO ME,
THIS SEEMS LIKE A COMMON SENSE.
BILL THAT'S THAT IS ADDRESSING A
REAL PROBLEM. EVEN IF THE THREE
AUDITS WE ARE DOING DON'T
HAVEN'T UNCOVERED A LOT. I THINK
IF WE'RE NOT DOING THE AUDITS,
WE JUST DON'T KNOW IF THERE ARE
MORE PROBLEMS AND WE ALSO THE
POINT IS TO PREVENT PROBLEMS. SO
WHEN YOU HAVE AUDITS, I DO THINK
IT DRIVES BEHAVIOR CHANGE. UM SO
I. I DO SUPPORT THIS BILL. AND
UM I APPRECIATE THE, UH, CONTEXT
THAT YOU SHARED AND IT'S USEFUL
TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THAT. UH, BUT
BUT I AM GONNA BE SUPPORTING IT.
SO IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD
LIKE TO, UM MAKE ANY FINAL
COMMENTS AND THEN I'LL TURN IT
BACK TO THE CHAIR OR SORRY TO
THE FOR THE AUTHORS SUBSTITUTE
TODAY COULD I WOULD. I GUESS I
WOULD. UM YOUR POINT IS WELL
TAKEN ABOUT THE LACK OF
RESOURCES. I UNDERSTAND YOUR
OPPOSITION TO THE FEE, WHICH
STILL MAKES A LITTLE SENSE.
WOULD YOU SUPPORT A FEE? YOU
KNOW, SO IS SO AS TO GET SOME
MORE RESOURCES OVER THE F Tð B.
IF THINGS STAY AT THE STATUS QUO
, SO AS TO ALLOW THEM TO DO MORE
OF THIS WORK. SO WE LOBBYISTS
PRESENTLY PAY A FEE. UM NOW THAT
IS SPLIT BETWEEN THE GENERAL
FUND AND THE CAL ACCESS PROGRAM,
UM, LOBBYING. THAT ACTUALLY, IGA
WAS THE ONE THAT SUGGESTED A FEE
TO HELP CAL ACCESS GET GOING.
UM, UNFORTUNATELY, THAT HAS NOT
HAPPENED. UM, BUT $25 OF OUR $50
FEE ALREADY GOES TO THE GENERAL
FUND. IT'S JUST NOT DEDICATED TO
FRANCHISE TAX BOARD. UM SO I
THINK THERE IS A SOURCE OF
REVENUE. I THINK ALSO ALL OF THE
COMMITTEES THAT YOU ALL ARE
CAMPAIGN. YOUR CAMPAIGN
COMMITTEES ALSO PAY A FEE. UM
ALSO DESIGNED TO HELP FUND CAL
ACCESS. UM I THINK THERE ARE
SOURCES OF REVENUE THAT COULD BE
DEDICATED TO FRANCHISE TAX BOARD
WITHIN THE EXISTING SYSTEM THAT
WOULD NOT REQUIRE NECESSARILY AN
INCREASE IN ANYBODY'S FEES. UM
BUT WE WOULD WE WOULD WE WOULD.
THIS IS A TOTALLY DIFFERENT
THING, BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE
A LOT. THESE FEES ARE NOT
FUNDING 100% GOING TO CAL ACCESS
IN OTHER WORDS, LIKE THE
LOBBYING FEE IS 50% CALIS 50% OF
THE GENERAL FUND. SO I THINK
THERE ARE THERE ARE SOURCES OF
REVENUE. WE COULD HELP. MAYBE
YOU FIND FOR THAT PURPOSE TO
HELP FRANCHISE TAX BOARD. UM AND
WE'D BE OPEN TO LOOKING AT THAT.
THERE ARE CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTIONS ABOUT FEES FOR FIRST
AMENDMENT ACTIVITY. THERE ARE
COUPLE OF STATE SUPREME COURTS,
NOT CALIFORNIA, BUT OTHER STATES
THAT HAVE BEEN VALIDATED FEES.
BECAUSE ITS FIRST AMENDMENT
ACTIVITY SO I THINK $500 IS A
PROBLEM. BUT THAT'S JUST WHEN
LAWYERS OPINION THE CURRENT FEE
IS $50. UM SO UH, OK. UM SO
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE SENATOR
ALLEN? YEAH, I LISTEN. I
APPRECIATE THE ROBUST
CONVERSATION. UH, AGAIN, UM, I.
I KNOW THAT. UH UH. CENTER
GLACIERS. I'M I'M SURE HE'S YOU
WATCHING THIS CLOSELY AND IS
HAPPY TO ENGAGE WITH EVERYBODY
ON ON THIS. WE KNOW HE'S A
THOUGHTFUL, UM UH, THOUGHTFUL
CHAIR AND THOUGHT, THOUGHTFUL
AUTHOR AND, UM YOU'RE SOMEONE
WHO REALLY DID A DEEP DIVE INTO
THIS, UH, LAST YEAR, SO I'M GLAD
I WILL SAY I'M GLAD. I MEAN,
REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENS WITH
THIS BILL, I'M IT'S A GOOD
CONVERSATION FOR US TO HAVE. I
THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR MORE OF
THE MEMBERS TO REALLY BE MADE
AWARE OF HOW LITTLE OF THIS
LEGALLY MANDATED WORK IS
ACTUALLY HAPPENING. AND WHETHER
IT'S A MATTER OF, YOU KNOW,
STEPPING UP AND GIVING THEM
GREATER RESOURCES. UH OR
SWITCHING THIS WORK OVER TO THE
FPP èC HAVING CONVERSATIONS
ABOUT ALL OF US CHIPPING IN TO
MAKE SURE THIS WORKS ACTUALLY
HAPPENING, I. I THINK IT'S A
REALLY IMPORTANT CONVERSATION
FOR US TO HAVE, AND I DO
APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR FOR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD AND, UM
I'M CERTAINLY SUPPORTIVE OF THIS
BILL, AND, UH BUT BUT DO
APPRECIATE THE ROBUST DISCUSSION
WE'VE HAD. AND JUST TO CONFIRM,
UH, YOU'RE ACCEPTING THE
AMENDMENTS? YES YES. YEAH, HE
ACCEPTED THE AMENDMENTS AND THAT
WILL, OF COURSE. REDUCE THE, UM
THE BURDEN ON THE FP èC AS THE
PLACEMENT AGENTS WILL REMAIN
UNDER THE FF Tð B UNDER THE
AMENDMENTS AMONG SOME OTHER
THINGS, OK, DO WE HAVE A MOTION?
OK, SENATOR MENJIVAR IS MOVING
THE BILL AS AMENDED. THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS. UM,
ASSISTANT PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
SHAKESPEARE. HØI. THANKS FOR I
ONE. ALAN ALAN, I MENJIVAR. MEN,
JAAR, I NEWMAN. ARGENTINO. PINO,
I UMBERG UMBERG. I. OK, UH, THE
VOTE IS 4 TO 0 AND IT OH, OK.
THE SORRY THE VOTE WAS 5 TO 0,
AND IT'S OUT. SO NOW WE ARE
GOING TO SENATOR BRADFORD. THIS
IS S¼ B 1328. WE ARE EXCITED TO
SEE YOU HERE. THANK YOU FOR
COMING FROM YOUR CHAIRMANSHIP
OVER HERE. UM, I'LL LET YOU
PRESENT YOUR BILL. WOW EXCITED
TO SEE ME. THANK YOU. S¼ B 13 3
28 UPDATES AND MAKES CLEAR
EXISTING LAW PROCEDURES AND
REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO THE
ELECTION TECHNOLOGY CERTIFIED
FOR USE IN CALIFORNIA.
CALIFORNIA HAS ONE OF THE MOST
STRINGENT VOTING SYSTEM, TESTING
CERTIFICATION AND USE
REQUIREMENTS IN THE COUNTRY.
HOWEVER IT HASN'T UM EXISTING
LAW AS IT RELATES TO STORAGE,
MAINTENANCE AND DESTRUCTION OF
ELECTION DATA HAS NOT KEPT UP
WITH MANY OF THE ADVANCEMENTS OF
TECHNOLOGY AND DOES IT NOT OFFER
CLEAR GUIDANCE ON THE
PRESERVATION OF THIS DATA? S¼ B
1328 IS EXPANDING UPON AN
ALREADY THE ALREADY EXISTING LAW
TO CLARIFY PROCEDURES AND
PRACTICES THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN
PLACE. ADDITIONALLY THIS BILL
CLARIFIES EXISTING LAW RELATED
TO THE CRIME OF INTERFERING OR
ATTEMPTING TO INTERFERE WITH
VOTING TO CONFORM WITH CURRENT
TECHNOLOGY. UH, TODAY MY LEAD
WITNESS FROM SECRETARY OF
STATE'S OFFICE IS NAKESHA
ROBINSON SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF
THIS, UH BILL. THANK YOU. AND I
RESPECT LAST FOR I THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING COMMITTEE AND MADAM
CHAIR. UM AS STATED, I AM
NIKISHA ROBINSON, DEPUTY
SECRETARY OF STATE OVER THE HELP
AMERICA VOTE ACT AND THE OFFICE
OF VOTING SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY
ASSESSMENT. UH THE ISSUE AT HAND
HERE IS, UH, WE'RE TRYING TO
CLARIFY THREE THINGS, PRIMARILY
ONE HAVING STANDARDIZED
RETENTION REQUIREMENTS AROUND
VOTING TECHNOLOGY ARTIFACTS
AFTER EACH ELECTION,
RESPECTIVELY, SIX MONTHS OR 22
MONTHS, DEPENDING UPON IF IT'S A
LOCAL ELECTION OR AN ELECTION
WITH A STATEWIDE CONTESTS OR
FEDERAL CONTEST. THE SECOND
THING THAT WE'RE TRYING TO
CAPTURE IS EXCUSE ME. UM
CODIFYING SOME OF THE CONDITIONS
THAT WE TRADITIONALLY IMPLEMENT
DURING THE CONDITIONS OF
CERTIFICATION FOR THE RESPECTIVE
VOTING TECHNOLOGIES. AND THEN
LASTLY, UM, UPDATING AND
CLARIFYING THIS, UH, THE CENTER
MENTIONED SOME OF THE, UH
CONDITIONS THAT NOT THE
CONDITIONS. SOME OF THE, UH
SORRY. I LOST MY TRAIN OF
THOUGHT. EXCUSE ME. UM REGARDING
BALLOT PRINTERS, UM, ADDING SOME
ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE TO BE, UH
TO, UH, CODIFY SOME OF THE
CONDITIONS THAT WE IMPOSE ON
BALLOT PRINTERS SPECIFICALLY
REGARDING REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. AH DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER
LEAD WITNESSES? YOU'D LIKE TO
TESTIFY? ARE THERE IS THERE
ANYONE IN THE ROOM WHO WOULD
LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND ADD
THEIR SUPPORT? GOOD MORNING,
LAURA SA MARCATO ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
CLERK, SELECTION OFFICIALS AND
SUPPORT THANK YOU. OK, THANK
YOU. UH AND DO WE HAVE ANY LEAD
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION WHO
WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD? AT
THIS TIME, OK, SEEING NONE IN
THE ROOM? UH, WE, UH, CALL ANY
OTHER OPPOSITION WITNESSES TO
COME TO THE MICROPHONE. NÓ WE
WILL NOW BRING THE DISCUSSION
BACK TO THE MEMBERS. DO ANY
MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS? OK WELL, WE WILL TURN
IT BACK TO SENATOR BRADFORD TO
CLOSE BEFORE WE TAKE UP THAT
MOTION. GO AHEAD, SENATOR
BRADFORD. THANK YOU. COMMITTEE
MEMBERS AND CHAIR. THIS IS JUST
STRAIGHTFORWARD MEASURE TO JUST
UPDATE THE SYSTEM AS IT RELATES
TO DATA, MAKING SURE IT'S NOT
COMPROMISED IN ANY WAY AND I
RESPECT THE YEAR I VOTE. OK,
THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION FROM
SENATOR NEWMAN. AND THE MOTION
IS DUE PASS TO THE COMMITTEE ON
PUBLIC SAFETY ASSISTANT. PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL. BLAKESPEAR HIYA,
I 11 I, ALAN. ALAN, I MENJIVAR.
AND JAVA. A NEWMAN NEWMAN, I
ARGENTINO. TARANTINO. I UMBERG.
UMBERG EYE. OK, THE BILL 7 TO 0,
AND IT'S OUT. CONGRATULATIONS.
OK, WE NEED TO LIFT THE CALL.
THE ASSISTANT WILL CALL, UH,
LIFTING CALL ON ITEM. FILE ITEM
NUMBER TWO S¼ B 1293 MOTION IS
DUE PASS AS AMENDED TO JUDICIARY
. CURRENT VOTE IS 6 TO 0 CHAIR
VOTED I VICE CHAIR VOTED I,
ALAN. OK, THAT BILL IS 7 TO 0
AND IT IS OUT. IS THERE ANY
OTHER CALL TO LIFT? NÓ OK, UH,
THANK YOU TO ALL THE INDIVIDUALS
WHO PARTICIPATED TODAY. YES. IF
YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO TESTIFY
TODAY, PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR
COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS IN
WRITING TO THE SENATE ELECTIONS
AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
COMMITTEE. COMMON AND
SUGGESTIONS ARE IMPORTANT TO US,
AND WE WANT TO INCLUDE YOUR
TESTIMONY IN THE OFFICIAL
HEARING RECORD. THE SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS IS NOW
ADJOURNED. UM.