Assembly Elections Committee, Wednesday, April 15, 2026
Derzeit keine Kapitel verfügbar
Legende
Markierungen im Transkript
- Text Aktuell abgespielter Satz
- Text Suchergebnis
- Text Redebeitrag, auf den der geöffnete Link verweist
Klicken Sie auf einen Satz, um das Video ab dieser Stelle abzuspielen. Markieren Sie Text, um ihn mit Redner, Zeitstempel und Link zu zitieren.
Weitere Optionen
Assembly Elections Committee California State Assembly
Ihren Sitzungen folgenRedner 3
Shifting to an on demand model will also assist lobbyists in fulfilling their training duty, which is part of the lobbyist certification requirements and which will also add convenience for lobbyists and help facilitate compliance. Thank you to the committee, staff, and the member for authoring this bill.
Redner 1
Is there anybody else in the room who would like to, jump on as a me too in support of this measure? Seeing none, anybody here in opposition to this measure? Come on up.
Redner 5
This is a quick oppose unless amended. We don't have a letter in it. We will send in a letter, but we suggest that the training be available to the public and have the lobbyists pay the fees that they're gonna have to pay. But that way, that training would be understandable for everybody to understand what's happening, to know what the regulations are for lobbyists. Thank you.
Redner 1
Very good. Anybody else in the room with an opposed position? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the dais. Any members have questions, comments? So member Stephanie.
Thank you, chair.
Redner 10
I just wanna thank the author for bringing this forward. I definitely agree that leveraging the expertise of the FPPC, for this training is a practical step, that can improve access and consistency and ease the workload burden of the ethics committee staff. And as cochair of the legislative ethics committee, I just wanted to make sure that we preserve the legislature's responsibilities for our own policies, particularly when it comes to harassment prevention and workplace standards. And I know that committee staff recommended in their analysis a simple amendment to ensure that the legislative ethics committees retain final approval over the portions of the training that relate to the legislature's policies against harassment. And thankfully to the author, I know that you've committed to making that change, so I will be supporting that, your bill today and, going forward.
Redner 2
Thank you. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote when the time becomes available.
Redner 1
Thank you so much. And and certainly given that the Fair Political Process Commission has the primary responsibility for the administration and enforcement of the Political Reform Act, it makes sense that we have them do the training. And I appreciate your willingness to take our amendments and and, to ensure that the legislature has the final authority over training related to its policies against harassment. So I will be recommending a support position. Thank you.
Thank you. Okay. We have another author in the room, and that would be for item 11, a b twenty five seventy three by Sharp Collins. And you may begin when you're
Redner 8
Good morning, madam chair and members. I am pleased to present AB twenty five seventy three, a measure that strengthens and clarifies California's confidential voter registration program for candidates and elected officials. Last year, I authored a bill a b thirteen ninety two to expand California's confidential voter registration program to include eligible elected officials and candidates at the federal, state, and local levels. That legislation recognized a growing reality. Individuals who step forward to serve in public office are facing in the increasing risk to their personal safety and the safety
Redner 1
of conversations outside the room? Hello? Could we take conversations outside, please, so we could hear the author? Sorry. Excuse me.
You may proceed.
Redner 8
Alrighty. And and the safety of their families due to their private information being made publicly available. This includes sensitive identifying information such as their home address and phone number. As counties begin implementing a b thirteen ninety two, they encounter practical and administrative questions. Without clear statewide standards, there has been variation in how eligibility is determined, the processing, and and the length of the confidentiality, as well as how it is maintained when when an official or candidate moves between counties.
These inconsistencies can create barriers to to the participation and uneven protection dependent on the jurisdiction. Assembly bill twenty five seventy three is a targeted technical measure that builds on a b thirteen ninety two by resolving those implementation challenges and ensuring the program works as intended across all counties. This bill clarifies the eligibility by confirming that both elected and appointed officials at the federal, state, and local levels may qualify for confidential voter status. It, it allows immediate family members residing in the same household of elected officials to be included in the confidentiality protections, recognizing that threats to public officials often extend to their families. It is also, establishes a clear process for transferring confidential status when a official or candidate relocates to a new county, ensuring continually that that they're gonna be protected.
Redner 17
In addition, assembly bill twenty five seventy three sets consistent timelines for how long confidential status remains in effect for candidates as well as elected officials after they leave office. It also clarifies how participation in the programs interact with with voting procedures by maintaining access to secure alternatives such as vote by mail and ballot drop off while preserving the integrity of the process. The bill continues to include exemptions that allow journalists to verify the information maintaining appropriate transparency. AB twenty five seventy three is not a sweeping policy change. It is a practical necessary refinement that ensures that protections enacted in AB thirteen ninety two are are implemented consistently, efficiently, and equitably across California counties.
Redner 8
Here to testify in support today is Tim Cromartie, deputy of the legislative affairs for secretary of state doctor Shirley Weber.
Redner 18
Morning, madam chair and members. Tim Cromartie on behalf of secretary of state, Julian Weber. This bill is an important follow-up measure to last year's a b thirteen ninety two. It contains multiple critical cleanup provisions tailored to assist the counties with implementation, and clarifies the rules about who is protected under this bill with confidential voter status and under what circumstances. Among the changes that I'd like to highlight are a clarification that all who are covered by, this bill must affirmatively opt in a critical change that follows existing law.
Redner 9
In addition, there is a provision for automatic continuation of confidential voter status for candidates who win their election and suddenly find that they have a new status as elected officials. Under such circumstances, coverage would continue until and unless the elected official opts out. Finally, family members of candidates are no longer included within the scope of the bill due to significant workload issues cited by counties. With these changes, we expect there will be much smoother implementation at both the state and local level. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you so much. Is there anyone else in the room that would like to add on in support of this bill? Just come on up to the mic. State your name, organization, and position, please.
Redner 7
Good morning. Laura Simmercot on behalf of the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials in support of amended position. However, with the latest round of amendments, we're moving to support this Friday. I wanna thank the author's office and the sponsors for working with us. Thank you.
Redner 1
Anybody in the room who is opposed to this measure? Anyone just wanna come to the mic and say you're opposed?
Redner 1
the dais. Members, do you have any questions, comments? Assembly member Gallagher?
Redner 11
So I just wanted to clarify one thing for so family members are covered or not covered under the
Redner 9
The only change has been that family members of candidates are no longer covered within the scope of the bill. And, obviously, the candidates are not yet in a position where they have political power. They're not in the spotlight nearly as much. And due to the, severe workload issues cited by the counties, they requested that family members of candidates be excluded. They can, however, obviously be covered if a candidate wins their election and makes that request.
But the bill clarifies among other things that that family member must affirmatively sign a statement, that they want the coverage, to protect the counties.
Redner 11
Okay. The other thing I'm you know, I think the core of this bill, you know, makes a lot of sense and is supportable, and we supported the legislation. What was the last last session of, you know, providing that sort of safety of confidentiality of residents and and things like that. Right? Yeah.
But one concern I do have is, especially when it maybe comes to candidates, is sort of these new there's new, like, kinda shadow candidates that, you know, kinda come in or running or running, you know, they sort of run, under you know, saying they're of a certain party, you know, but we've had this actually happen here recently in Ohio. You know, a person ran in a Republican primary, like, saying they're Republican when they were actually not. Right? So if we have issues like that with candidates, does the confidentiality, like, prevent, you know, people being able to under information about someone who may not be doing this in the most, like, integratable way? Does that make sense?
Redner 9
I believe so. I think the the bill is not really tailored to cover situations like that. It it provides that there will be coverage for viable candidates, and there's a there's a threshold, for what candidates are viable enough to apply for protection. But it doesn't really deal with folks who wanna essentially fly their candidacy under a false flag.
Redner 11
What all is confidential under the current law and under this bill? Just residents, or are there other things that are kept confidential when you do that?
Redner 11
So and then, like so for example, let's say someone files a ballot statement or a ballot, title worksheet, you know, claiming to be, you know, of a certain occupation. And then you need to go try and do your due diligence to find out, like, hey. Are they actually, you know, who they say they are, and do they actually work in that industry? You know, a lot of people like to have a certain ballot title. It's can be helpful politically.
Redner 8
But say that's say that's a lie and you're and you as, you know, another candidate or another organization are trying to find out verify that, would the confidentiality provisions of this, like, kinda block the ability to call that person or to to do and sometimes you only have a few days to challenge, say, like, a ballot title, right, or challenge, you know, something that could be a suspicious type of representation. Right? Do the would the confidentiality provisions kind of block your ability to do that?
Redner 8
It doesn't block it. No. It doesn't block it. Especially if you are a current elected, you are required to show your certificate anyway, so that has to be given to verify.
Redner 1
And and they also have to provide their if it's for a a political a partisan office, they have to approve their party registration over the last ten years as well. That that those records are with the county. Correct. Yeah.
Redner 11
Right. Well, right I mean, right now, under current law, you could register right before filing of any party, and then you would be able to claim. So it doesn't matter what you previously were. It's what you last registered. Right?
And and I think we're starting to see some of this type of activity, and that's the only thing I'm kinda and it's more in regard to candidates, not necessarily elected officials. Like you said, we already know who we are. Yeah. Right? And that's all that's much more highlighted.
But with candidates who maybe are trying to have made more nefarious purposes, I worry a little bit about the confidentiality protections being, like, sort of a buttress to, like, you know, to uncover Mhmm. What might be, you know, misrepresentations. Does that make sense? So that's the only concern I do have is just when it comes to that, and maybe we could work on some language on that. I do wanna support the bill today, but, it's something that comes to mind for me.
Redner 1
Any other comments or questions? We still don't have a quorum. It's okay. But, you may go ahead and close.
Redner 8
Well, in closing, Assembly Bill twenty five seventy three builds upon, once again, Assembly Bill thirteen ninety two by closing the implementation gaps and ensuring that the confidential voter protections are applied consistently across counties. So with that, I do respectfully ask for an I vote when the time comes.
Redner 1
Thank you so much, and I appreciate you working with the county elections officials to get this right.
Redner 1
Alright. We can now move on to our next bill. And just another shout out to our missing members. We'd love to have one more so we could establish a quorum. And we will go ahead and move on to sorriest bill, which is item 16.
AB 2,753 and you may begin when you're ready.
Redner 14
Good morning, chair and members. AB twenty seven fifty three is about strengthening trust in our democracy by ensuring that these, those who seek public office meet the highest standards of integrity, specifically prohibiting registered sex offenders from running for or holding local or state office. One of the most fundamental values in our democracy is trust, trust that our elected officials have the best interest of their communities at heart, trust that they reflect the values of the people they represent, and trust that they will serve and protect their communities, not prey upon them. Current law already recognizes that certain crimes violate the public trust and rightfully prohibit those individuals from appearing on the ballot or holding office. However, earlier this year in the city of Fresno, we learned those protections are not as strong as we believed.
In February, a registered sex offender convicted of possessing child sexual abuse material announced his intent to run for Fresno City Council. He held that announcement across the street from a local elementary school. Our community was shocked, outraged, and deeply concerned that someone with that record could league could legally seek public office. While he ultimately did not succeed in acquiring the signatures necessary to qualify for the ballot, however, this situation exposed a clear gap in our election laws, one that the public expects us to fix. AB twenty seven fifty three closes that gap.
It will ensure that individuals who have committed serious offenses that violate the safety and trust of our committees cannot run for or hold public office. The bill is about accountability. It's about protecting the integrity of the institutions. And most importantly, it's about restoring and strengthening the public trust in our democracy. With me here today in support of a b twenty seven fifty three is Nelson Esparza, president of the Fresno City Council.
Redner 1
And if I can interrupt one moment, we'd like to establish a quorum and then take up the consent agenda. So, madam secretary, please establish a quorum. Pelerin? Here.
Redner 15
Gallagher, Bennett? Here. Bennett? Here. Berman?
Elhawari? Aye. Elhawari? Here. Johnson?
Here. Johnson here. Solace? Stephanie? Here.
Stephanie, here. We have a quorum.
Redner 1
We'll take the consent calendar up later. We'll go ahead and proceed with the witness in favor. Thanks.
Redner 12
Just in time. Fantastic. Good morning, chair Pelerin and members of the assembly and elections committee. My name is Nelson Esparza. I serve as the president of the Fresno City Council and was a cosponsor of our council resolution number twenty twenty six dash four one in support of a b two seven five three.
This issue is deeply personal to me because the individual, at the center of this matter named by, assembly member Soria, announced, their candidacy to succeed me when I was when I term out next January. And I'm here today to speak, directly to what we experienced in Fresno and to express my strong support for Assemblywoman Soria's bill. At its core, the legislation asks a simple question. Should a registered sex offender be allowed to run for public office? And in Fresno, unfortunately, we did not have to consider this a as a hypothetical.
Redner 23
We had someone who was, convicted of, possessing child sexual abuse material, announce, their run for office, within my my district. And what followed was weeks of disruption and distraction that pulled the city's focus away from the work that matters the most. Fresno became consumed by the reality that a registered sex offender was actively running for office within the city. The candidacy generated significant media attention. It escalated to this individual holding a press conference in front of an elementary school and drew national and international coverage from Washington DC all the way to The UK.
Redner 12
My office received dozens of calls and messages from our residents about how this could be allowed, and our answer time and time again was that state law does not prohibit it. And a b two seven five three closes this loophole. Running for office is a very intentional act. It requires direct and repeated interaction with the public, whether that's knocking on doors, attending neighborhood meetings, or engaging with families directly within their homes. Similarly, as as elected officials, we understand the nature of this job.
We're present in schools and community centers, neighborhoods. We're in
Redner 12
Yeah. So AB two seven five three is a responsible action to add being a registered sex offender as a disqualified for public office. And in Fresno, we saw in a very short time frame how our residents reacted at the mere prospect of a sex offender running for office, and I do not wish that upon any other community in our great state. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you so much. Is there anyone else in the room who would like to register their support for this measure? Seeing none. Anyone in the room who is opposed to this measure or wanna just go to the mic and express opposition?
Redner 1
the dais. Any questions or comments? Assembly member Bennett, then we'll go to Gotham.
Redner 16
Thank you, madam chair. The the analysis, refers to the issue of, where do we draw the line in terms of identifying this penalty for these offenders? And there are two bills here, so I talked to a a member, Addis, earlier this morning about this philosophical concern also. So no matter no matter what heinous crime and and these are heinous crimes. No matter what heinous crime you have, I can slice another one that's very close, but it's not covered under this definition and equally heinous.
And then I can slice another one from that. And it and so and different people have different patience about where we where we slice that line. All of those are ones that would be difficult for assembly members to imply that they're okay with that crime because they're not okay with taking with withdrawing a line somewhere with taking away this this. And it also goes into the philosophical issue of we have punishment, and we should meet meet out very strong tough punishment for these kinds of crimes. But where does it where does it end?
Shouldn't that be decided by the judge in that situation? The other thing that I'm really concerned with is, you know, senator Weiner, you know, worked on legislation because LGBTQ plus people were getting far more likely to be charged with, you know, heinous sex offenses and and and all. The the they they were being the implication was that they they were being applied inappropriately and and and excessively in those situations. And so I'd like to hear how you try to make sure that we address both of those issues, and I'm gonna ask the ex assembly member after you about that also. Right?
Redner 14
Thank you so much for those questions. I think, one, you know, the council president kind of talked about our personal experience in Fresno, and it was very real. And it did take from the distraction. So it wasn't just thinking, it wasn't a hypothesis. We lived it.
For those few months, it was very distracting. There was a lot of outrage in our community, and so we're responding to that. And I do believe that, the legislature in the past has set, you know, I guess, has determined, through law what what we're gonna tolerate and what we're not. And we heard it loud and clear from our community that this is something that we didn't wanna tolerate, and we know the implications of the fact that someone is, you know, registered sex offender. I, in my personally, I don't think they should be running for office or hold elected office because at the end of the day, we're doing a disservice to the people that you're serving.
At the end of the day, those individuals are not even supposed to be near children. How are you gonna, you know, sit in a dais? God forbid, they you know, he would have qualified to to run and then win. It it would have been a disservice to to the community. And so I feel very strongly about that.
I think that it is important that we delineate that we're not we're gonna hold people accountable, not just in terms of the punishment, but in terms of ensuring that we uphold public trust when it comes to holding elected office or running for elected office. I think what we're seeing across, the news waves right now with, you know, the horrific stories that we're hearing about, people taking, violating people's, you know, vulnerabilities, I think, is a big issue. And, obviously, that is not addressed in the bill, but I think that it is important to have this conversation. To your second point about the LGBTQ community, this bill isn't trying to target one specific community. I I applaud the efforts by senator Scott Wiener to try to rectify some of those injustices, which I wholeheartedly support.
And if there are specific languages to ensure that that, you know, those protections and those, you know, changes that have been made, we're happy to take a look at additional language. But the intent of this bill essentially is to ensure that no person that has, you know, a record of being a sex offender, ends up, serving, in elected office.
Redner 12
So, remember, if I if I may, to kinda address the the first point part of your your question, you you you make a great point. Know, where where do you draw the line? And I leave, that question largely to the the work of legislature. But, what I do feel certain of is that, when someone commits such a serious offense and violates another person, much less a child, that that decision should carry a lasting consequences, that there really can never fully be public trust, and we ought to consider it, not just an elections issue, but also a public safety issue with respect to, our public.
Redner 16
I I don't disagree with you, that it should carry, and that's what that's what the sex offender registry registration is about. So I don't disagree with you, and I would offer to you that it's at some risk that I even raise these issues. I could have an opponent take this testimony right now and say, hey. He's he supports sex offenders, right, and and all of that. But because I'm on this committee and we have to thoroughly vet these issues, that's my responsibility to raise these these questions.
I won't be opposing this bill, but I do think it's important that we raise these two issues because as patiently as you spoke about how these people should not be we can have equally patient of people coming here and taking the next slice over from this. So it's not somebody who had to be registered as a sex offender, but they did something else that was equally bad. Or it's LGBTQ plus people that, when they were 18, got labeled as a sex offender thing. And like you said, they're now 60 years old, and they were harshly and inappropriately, you know, labeled with this. So it's something that I think we have to be extremely sensitive to, and it's also something that we have to be sensitive to the political difficulty of having the kind of conversations that we should have so that we are able to rationally decide where we slice that line and then have a good rationale for why it's this side of the line versus that side of the line.
And I think that's very difficult, fiendishly difficult for for us to be able to do. So I wanted to raise both of those things. Thank you for your response. I'm glad that I was able to at least get those on the radar screen, but I will be supporting the bill moving forward and hope that you you can find something better than I can right now as this goes forward to help us sort of be able to not not be not have this become excessive in terms of gradually just moving this and and having this to apply to all kinds of things. And in the middle of the night, I'll leave you with this.
I I I woke up thinking of three or four different wow. This is that's really bad too. I mean, if somebody came and said, this means somebody shouldn't be able to, you know, to run for office, that could equally make us very strong case for that also. So thank you very much.
Redner 11
Yeah. I mean, my thought here is isn't transparency the best defense? Isn't sunlight, like, the best disinfectant when it comes to this situation? I mean, I've seen many political campaigns over the years. If somebody has a criminal record, it gets exposed, right, in the campaign and people know about it.
And I think that ultimately is, you know, the people get to know that, and then they get to vote on whether or not they think that person is, you know, qualified to be in office. And it seemed I'm certainly been on the outside looking in from your guys' situation, but it I think everybody thought this was outrageous that the guy was running. Right? And and he got nowhere. Right?
And is definitely not gonna be elected by your community. So, I mean, doesn't that really do the job of, you know, transparency? Let people know, like, if you have a criminal record, that or if you're on the sex offender list, you know, let the people know that. You know, that's what campaigns are about. And, ultimately, I'm pretty confident people aren't gonna vote for a sexual predator to get to be their representative.
Although, here recently, even though you don't have a criminal record, doesn't mean you couldn't be a predator or engage in predatory tactics. Right? So even in the even in this bill wouldn't stop, you know, what we've recently seen. Actually, what would stop it, you know, when it comes to people like Swalwell, is transparency, you know, and making sure and and people coming forward and obviously telling their stories and getting that out there and it finally being exposed, you know, what someone's doing. Right?
So to me, I just I I wonder if if that's really the better way to approach this ensuring transparency. The the other issue and and, actually, mister Bennett kinda brought it up. We have a law now that says you don't have to go on the sex offender list, if there's ten years difference. So a 24 year old, you know, could have groomed a 15 year old, right, and been found guilty of that. And they're they do not have to go on the sex offender list.
Right? I think people should know that, you know, but right now under this bill, they're not gonna be on that sex offender list. Right? And, so, I mean, again, I just isn't transparency in getting that out there and don't campaigns necessarily get these kinds of things out there to the public and so that they can decide who they want to represent them.
Redner 14
In in our case, absolutely, I think that that was the case. Does that mean that in every situation, folks are gonna go look to the sex registry and all that, you know, to to get that information. I don't know if if, you know, that will be necessarily the case. I think we're speaking to the situation that we saw, thankfully, as you mentioned. I think even after us introducing the bill, we didn't know for sure.
We had introduced the bill before, the gentleman didn't qualify. But at the end of the day for us, you know, the community in my district, spoke loud and clear about what they wanted us to what they wanted us to do, and I think that this is the response. And so, you know, we're responding to what they wanna see. Also, I think what this bill does once we put it, you know, if it does get signed into law, if someone is in office, then, you know, they couldn't be serving if they are, if they end up, being charged with, you know, a sex offense crime.
Redner 11
I mean, are are there other do you know, are there other crimes where we do this? Like, if you've committed a certain crime, you cannot run for office? There there
Redner 12
are a a number as a Yeah. You're very specific. Crimes very specific to violation of the public trust, abuse of power, finance certain financial crimes. I would argue that this, you know, this kind of offense is a a deep violation of the of the public trust. You know, with respect to your your comments about transparency, I I think, as a member, that everything held constant.
You know, this issue generally will take care of itself. But, you know, we're in Fresno. We're the fifth largest city in the state. There's a certain level of sophistication of of politics in the campaigns that you that you had mentioned. There are many, many other communities around Please.
You know, smaller towns and cities where you don't have that level of sophistication, and folks do fly under the radar. And you see different types of corruption kind of occur in those types of settings. But so in Fresno, it worked itself out. I fear that in other communities, it it it very well may not.
Redner 17
Thank you so much for bringing this bill forward, and I think, you know, part part of my comments are echoing some of what my colleagues have already said, and I appreciate the perspective around transparency, and even thinking about, you know, like, how many ways can we slice this. April is second chance month, and a big part of the work that I've been doing here in the state legislature is around restorative justice. And I think that it is important that we not shy away from really hard conversations, that we also ensure that folks know if someone is a sex offender on the transparency part, and that as we think about the history of the sex offender registry, who was allowed to be on it, who was mostly put on it, why they were put on it, and what it means for us to really be thoughtful about, ensuring that as we move forward, there's a clear sense of how we really understand second chances for folks as we think you know, I think assembly member Bennett talked about. If you're 60 years old now and you committed something when you were younger, what at what point do we say you have you are you are you have redeemed yourself to society, and we wanna be able to acknowledge that redemption and acknowledge that, you know, there's an opportunity for you to have gone through a process of, of being able to ensure that that that's not gonna happen again for anyone that goes through the prison system, anyone that goes through the the, criminal justice system that we have here.
I think if we just keep on adding more, even when we think about jobs this isn't this is this is a job, but in a different way. Right? Like, if we think about jobs, we just make it harder for folks who have gone through an entire system, who have paid their debt to society, to then be able to give back in some way. I partially share that because we had someone last year, or a couple years ago running for the state assembly who had spent many years in prison. And it was important to be able to bring in that perspective, that experience.
Many of the folks who supported me while I was running for office had spent decades in prison. And it's not specifically sex offenses, but I think as we think about what it means to really understand redemption, I don't know this guy. I don't know what he did. I don't know how severe it was. But I think as we look at what the registry includes, I think being really thoughtful about how we don't target an entire group who has gone through a process of really understanding that level of redemption that we, I think, as a body, need to be really thoughtful about so that we don't continue what we've seen in terms of not only mass incarceration but throwing people away in our society.
Thank you. And
Redner 16
Thank you. I I just want to point out that at least in my research on this, this is the first time we're doing this for sex offense things. The identification of other violations are almost always about public corruption where you use the public trust already. You're in office. You were convicted of bribery.
Yes. That's there's a clear connection to being in office and that there's a less clear, you know, connection here. You you you said, but they're they're both violations of the public trust. There are all kinds of things that are the a violation of the public trust. You know, I think of of of the driver that just I am so furious with who had, four drunk driving convictions, drove again drunk and and plowed in and killed a whole bunch of kids.
You know, that's that's a violation of public trust. I I I'd I'd be hard pressed to have a bunch of elected officials say, yeah. That that person should be allowed to run for office. But that's you know, so I I could I could come with that one, which is many slices away from where we are with this. And so that's just begins us down the road of of a different road, and I realized it was very contentious and very frustrating for voters in in Fresno and that that they want that.
But I I think peep we could fill the room with a bunch of other crimes that also people would say that they have that concern. So, again, just trying to express that as as we start down this new this new path, we have two of these bills in front of us today. Thank you very much. Any
Redner 14
Thank you so much, chairwoman. I I do wanna say I appreciate all the comments by the committee members. I appreciate the dialogue. I think that that's what this process is about, having those conversations and figuring out if, you know, moving this forward and having to make additional, you know, modifications to ensure that we try to address any potential unintended consequences. And so we will continue on this process if we're able to get this the committee's support, and we'll be thoughtful about, you know, how this bill will end up getting implemented and other potential, succeeding, proposals.
But, again, thank you for, listening, and thank you also for, the questions and comments. I respectfully ask for an I vote.
Redner 1
Thank you. I I appreciate the thoughtful discussion here today. I do believe elected offices are privileged positions, and those who commit these certain heinous crimes should face consequences. Under this bill, a person could be disqualified for life from public office even in situations where they are no longer required to register as a sex offender. So given that fact, it's not entirely clear to me how this bill will be enforced in a situation where that's not immediately known that a candidate was previously required to register as a sex offender.
So I encourage the author to continue to work on those provisions of the bill so we can implement it effectively. But for now, I will be recommending a support position. So we have a quorum. We've established that. Do I have a motion?
Moved by a so member Stephanie, seconded by Bennett. Madam secretary, please call the roll.
Redner 15
This is a b 2753. The motion is due pass. Pelerin? Aye. Pelerin?
Aye. Gallagher? Bennett? Aye. Bennett, I.
Berman? Elhawari? Elhawari not voting? Johnson? Aye.
Johnson? Aye. Salache? Stephanie? Aye.
Stephanie? Aye.
Redner 1
We'll go ahead and keep that on call for the absent members. Thank you. Thank you. We will now move on to our next item. I believe that is solemnly member Jackson, your item number two.
Thanks for your patience. AB sixteen sixty four. Should I do consent? Let's while you're coming up, we're gonna go ahead and do the consent calendar. There are seven bills on consent calendar today.
The committee secretary will read the items on consent.
Redner 15
first one is file item number one a b sixteen ten By ransom, the motion is due pass as amended to appropriations with recommendation to consent. File item three, a b seventeen sixty four, Sanchez. Motion is due pass as amended to appropriations with recommendation to consent. File item number six, a b twenty two fifty five, Pelerin. Motion is due pass to appropriations with recommendation to consent.
File item nine, a b twenty four twenty one by Valencia. The motion is due pass as amended to appropriations with recommendation to consent. File item number 14, a b twenty six fifty five by Valencia. Motion is due pass to consent. File item 17, a v twenty seven eighty five by the elections committee, due passed as amended to appropriations with recommendation to consent.
And finally, file item number 18, a v twenty seven eighty six by the elections committee, due passed to appropriations with the recommendation to consent.
Redner 1
Does any member wish to remove an item from consent? Seeing none, do I have a motion? Moved by Asylum Member Johnson, seconded by Stephanie. Madam secretary, please call the roll.
Redner 15
Pelerin? Aye. Pelerin, I. Gallagher? Bennett?
Bennett, I. Berman? Elhawari? Aye. Elhawari?
Aye. Johnson? Aye. Johnson? Aye.
Salache? Stephanie? Aye. Stephanie, I.
Redner 1
Consent calendar is up, but we'll keep the roll open for absent members. We'll now move on to item two, a b sixteen sixty four by Assembly Member Jackson. You may begin when you're ready.
Redner 7
Thank you very much, madam chair and committee members. I want to start by thanking the committee and their staff for assisting us with this bill. I will be accepting the technical amendments, that moves the sunset date of this bill to 01/01/2030. I'm presenting a b sixteen sixty four, which would require a local agency, political subdivision, or elections official to provide written notice to the secretary of state and the attorney general no later than one business day after becoming aware of any warrant, subpoena, or active law enforcement investigation pertaining to any election record or voting systems under their custody or control. Recent events right here in California have made clear that existing law does not give state officials adequate notice or legal standing to respond quickly when election materials are seized or subpoenaed.
Redner 18
This bill addresses that gap. Here with me to testify is Tiffany Brokaw, with the attorney general's office and deputy attorney general Malcolm Rudigame to, here to answer any technical questions.
Redner 1
Thank you so much. And you each have two minute or you have two minutes and you're technical. Right? Okay. Thanks.
Redner 24
Thank you. Good morning, tier and members. Tiffany Brokaw, deputy attorney general within the office of legislative affairs here on behalf of attorney general Rob Vonta, who's a proud cosponsor of a b sixteen sixty four, and we'd like to thank assembly member Jackson for leading on this important issue. A b sixteen sixty four is designed to improve the tools available to the attorney general to promptly mitigate any damage associated with improper search and seizure of election materials. The threat of interference in California's electoral system is increasing.
Redner 19
Heightening this threat, local and federal law enforcement have sought to search and seize election materials nationwide. AB sixteen sixty four addresses this threat by requiring notice to the secretary of state and the attorney general no later than one court day after becoming aware of any warrant, subpoena, or active law enforcement investigation pertaining to any election records or voting systems under their custody or control. This ensures that the state can act quickly to mitigate any damage associated with those law enforcement efforts, protect critical election materials, and uphold the rule of law. AB sixteen sixty four also establishes a new channel for the attorney general to intervene in any related litigation or otherwise seek any appropriate relief from the courts. It is imperative we continue efforts to maintain election integrity and voter confidence.
And for these reasons, we'd like to request an I vote. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you so much. Is there anybody else in the room that would like to come to the mic and express your support for this measure? Seeing none, we'll move on to, primary witnesses in opposition. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Anyone who just wants to come to the mic and let us know your post?
Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the dice. Any questions from members or comments? You left us all speechless, I guess. And I it's item number two, a b sixteen sixty four. I believe you're a coauthor on it.
Redner 20
Doctor Jackson, my thing says it's vehicles' direct driver monitoring systems. So I don't know.
Redner 20
I have no idea what I'm looking at. It's that kind of moment. But I know our joint author bill, and it's a fantastic bill. And I would like a thank you for authoring it. I'm amazed there isn't more conversation about it.
Is it it's a I've
Redner 20
My confusion was legitimate, it turns out. It often is not, but this time it was. Now I wanna thank doctor Jackson for for authoring this this, you know, really important bill to make sure that there's safeguards around our democracy, and that when people who can, you know, do things for political purposes, and and and purposes that create less transparency around our elections, which creates more skepticism amongst the public that we do things to remedy that, things that who would have ever dreamed that the sheriff of a county, a year after the election six months after the election, would would confiscate the ballots and have his own personal counting operation. It's crazy. But that's where we are, and we need to make sure that we put guardrails in place to guard against that.
So, I appreciate getting to join you and join authoring this bill that does not have to do with direct driver monitoring systems.
Redner 1
Thank you, assemblymember Berman. And you have inspired other comments and questions. So assemblymember Bennett?
Redner 16
I I just wanted to point out that sheriff then quietly dropped the whole thing with no findings, and dropped the investigation after violating sort of the security of all of those ballots, by doing that. So, I would like to, request to be a coauthor, on this bill also. And when you do the, robo driving bill, I'd like to be a coauthor,
Redner 1
Any other comments or questions from members? Seeing none. Senate member Jackson, you may close.
Redner 18
When it comes to our democracy, boring is good. And we need to do all that we can to make sure that we have as many eyes on the very apparatus of our democracy to ensure that it stays boring. I wanna thank the attorney general for the quick response to this issue. And at the end of the day, we have to make sure that we maintain the integrity and the trust of the process. And when new issues arise, we must address them quickly, efficiently, and then get back to boring.
I respectfully ask for a nay vote.
Redner 1
Thank you so much. As a former county elections official, I was horrified at the thought that a sheriff would come in and seize ballots and election materials away from my custody. That's very troubling, and particularly since we don't know how those ballots are being stored, and what they've done with them. I mean, it's just absolutely unprecedented. And requiring local elections officials to notify the secretary of state and attorney general of any warrant, subpoena, or or active law enforcement investigation relating to those election records is a very, very good first step.
I also encourage the author to work with the sponsor to investigate whether we can also strengthen to make sure those ballots never leave the premises of the elections office and custody and security that they have in their their offices. So, so that would preserve that chain of custody. And with that, I'm recommending support. Do I have a motion?
Redner 1
Moved by Berman, seconded by the new coauthor, Bennett. And, secretary, please call the roll.
Redner 15
On a b sixteen sixty four, the motion is due passed as amended to appropriations. Pelerin? Aye. Pelerin? Aye.
Gallagher? Bennett?
Redner 15
Bennett? Aye. Berman? Aye. Berman?
Aye. Elhawari? Aye. Elhawari? Aye.
Johnson? Salache, Stephanie? Aye. Stephanie, aye.
Redner 1
That bill is up five to zero, but we'll keep the roll open for our absent members.
Redner 1
Thank you so much. And our next author, I do not see in the room anymore. Oh, there she is. Hello. Assemblymember Addis, you have item 15, a b two six nine one, and you may begin when you're ready.
Redner 22
Thank you so much, madam chair and members and staff. Today, I'm here to present a b twenty six ninety one, the Public Trust Protection Act, which would expand the list of felony convictions that disqualify someone from running for or holding state or local elected office to include sexual assault and human trafficking, felony sexual assault and human trafficking. And we did have a witness that was gonna come from UC Davis, but she ended up with a class conflict. So you get me today. But, basically, this bill will ensure that individuals who are convicted of the most serious felony sexual assault and sex trafficking crimes are not eligible to be in a position of public trust in terms of serving an office in state or local, as a state or local elected.
And we do know that in California, certain felony convictions already preclude a person from running for or holding state or local elected office. I know, in the prior bill testimony, there was a question about this. So, specifically, a person is already not eligible for office if they've been convicted of a felony involving accepting, giving, or offering a bribe, embezzlement of public money, extortion of or theft of public money, perjury, conspiracy to commit any of these crimes. And when we look back at, how this came to be, it was really because there were elected officials committing these crimes and up for election, and it was very, very difficult for the voters. And I think we're in a time in our history now where we're seeing elected officials, as well as appointed officials who are committing sex crimes.
And, we've we've all gone through a lot on this, whether it is the, alleged Swalwell victims, the folks who spoke up during Me Too, the enough is enough movement, Ressie Taylor, the Epstein survivors, Chavez survivors, all of all of these survivors talk about, having been victimized by a person who had power over them and by a person who had who they had put their trust in. And so the rationale around bringing this forward is that being an elected office is a position of public trust, but it's also a position of power. And so if we wanna be on the prevention end of things, we have the power to make a singular decision around felony sex assault and felony sex traffic and say that in our democratic society, we just don't believe that those folks should be eligible to run for office, as a form of prevention so that they're not in positions where they can manipulate others into, sex acts that they don't wanna be part of, which is what we hear from victims what I hear from victims. Every time I've talked to a sex assault victim or a sex trafficking victim, they describe the power dynamic and the trust dynamic, and so we wanna be in a prevention space.
So a b twenty six ninety one would expand the list of felony convictions that disqualify someone for running for or holding state or elected office to include any type of sex assault or human trafficking. And, with that, I will, close or pause.
Redner 1
Is there anybody in the room that would like to, register your support for this measure? Step to the mic. Your name, organization, and position, please.
Redner 5
Yes. Thank you. Ashley Walker with Nossiman on behalf of the Monterey County Board of Supervisors. Just wanna thank assembly member Addis for her leadership on this common sense measure and urge your I vote. Thank you.
Redner 9
Good morning. Chris Khan representing the Victim Policy Institute in support, and I've also been asked to express support from Stand With Survivors. Thank you.
Redner 10
Good morning. Phoebe Hamida Hashmat from Davis, and I like to show support on behalf of UC Student Association. Thank you so much.
Redner 1
Thank you so much. Is there anybody in the room who is a primary witness in opposition to this bill? Anybody who wants to register their opposition at the mic? Seeing none, I'll return to the dice. Any questions or comments from our members?
Redner 1
a motion. We have a second, but we have a question from a selling member Elhawari.
Redner 17
I just really wanna thank the author, for the opportunity to have a conversation about this bill. I mentioned earlier my focus on, you know, really thinking about the work that we can do around our justice system. One of the things I did wanna mention specific to the human trafficking portion is that, you know, for a lot of my district has a huge problem around human trafficking. There's a particular corridor, the Figueroa Corridor, that unfortunately has been a space where so many young girls, especially, have been impacted by human trafficking. Many of them are foster youth, and a lot of times what happens is in that kind of human trafficking kind of process of being manipulated and and and working with the perpetrators, sometimes those same young people who have been victims also become, a part of the trafficking problem, and they've been they've been convicted of human trafficking as a result.
No one should be involved in human trafficking, but for young people who are foster youth who have been impacted by a system that hasn't supported them, that has cycled them in and out of of foster homes, of group homes, and then and oftentimes them ending up on the streets. What I don't wanna do is, you know, keep those young people who are who are actually survivors but have been also convicted of crimes related to human trafficking from having an opportunity, to, run for office. And so I just wanted to uplift that. I think in general, sharing what I said earlier in terms of, you know, wanting to ensure that folks have second chances, but I I really do appreciate what you said that this is a power dynamic. And folks who have taken advantage of a power dynamic should not have an opportunity, to be in a space where they're, then have even more of an opportunity to continue to exercise that level of power, and then potentially abuse it in this way.
So I really appreciate what you're doing, but I want you to know, why I'll be laying off today.
Redner 16
I would just offer the distinction that I hear from you based on the comments that we had earlier with the other bill is this power dynamic. And we are seeing firsthand here in the news today, the the power dynamic keeps getting and and the elected office is one of those places where that power dynamic can be pretty significant. So I think that's one of the compelling cases for your position here. So I'll be supporting the bill. Thank you.
Redner 1
Any other questions or comments from members? Seeing none. Assembly member, you may close.
Redner 22
Thank you so much. And I really wanna appreciate the the conversation both on the bill earlier and the bill right now. I guess the the one thing I would say or one one thing that I might add is in doing, legislation every year around sex assault survivors, what we have uncovered is that oftentimes, these are this is a different kind of crime. Often, when people, commit sex assault or are trafficking, these are repetitive crimes in a way that maybe theft of food is a crime of necessity. Sex crimes often become repetitive unless there are both preventative measures put in place as well as consequence.
I really see this this bill as more of a preventative measure similar to if somebody is convicted of child sex assault, they're no longer eligible to work in schools because we don't want them to have access to children because we know that by giving them access to children, they're highly likely to commit that kind of crime again. And so this is really about prevention rather than retribution or, you know, being angry and not giving people a chance at at restoration. And, and I know the assembly member and I talked about restorative justice a little bit ahead of the hearing, but I'm a full believer in restorative justice. I was a teacher in the classroom for twenty one years. I fully understand, the, you know, school to prison pipeline and many of the issues, and there's nothing in this bill that would prevent restorative justice.
So if somebody commits a crime and is convicted and wants to go through the process of restorative justice and the victim wants that too, they're absolutely welcome to do that. So just to clarify, this is really about preventing people, in power from having that access where they may continue to commit these kinds of crimes. And with that all respectfully, Astraea, I vote.
Redner 1
Thank you so much, and I appreciate your leadership on this issue. I absolutely agree that those elected positions are positions of power and influence, and anybody who has committed a crime of, sexual assault or human trafficking should not be running for these positions. And this bill is especially timely in light of our recent reports about sexual misconduct of elected officials. So we have a motion by, I believe was it Berman? And seconded by Stephanie, I heard.
And, secretary, please call the roll. I'm recommending support.
Redner 15
This is AB twenty six ninety one. The motion is due passed. Pelerin? Aye. Pelerin, aye.
Gallagher? Bennett? Aye. Bennett, aye. Berman?
Aye. Berman, aye. Elhawari? Elhawari is not voting. Johnson?
Celache? Aye. Celache, aye. Stephanie?
Redner 1
That bill's up five to zero, but we'll keep the roll open for absent members. Thank you. Alright. Next up, we have item eight by, assembly member Ransom, a b twenty four thirteen. And you may begin when you're ready.
Yes, ma'am.
Redner 15
Alright. Thank you. Good morning, madam chair and members. I'm here to present assembly bill twenty four thirteen, a bill that further protects public funds from being used for political advertising in California. The political reform act of 1974 provides strong protections in ensuring that taxpayer dollars are not used for political advertising.
Redner 24
This includes strict prohibitions on mass mailings featuring elected officials to ensure that elected officials aren't using government government funded communications for campaign purposes. Currently, these protections do not fully extend to large outdoor advertisement communications like billboards, bus and bus wraps, which vary in price depending on location, size, and format, but could range from 10,000 to $25,000 per month. And it specifically does not apply to state boards that have elected members appointed to their bodies. Given the high cost of billboards, advertisements purchased with tax tax dollars should be carefully scrutinized. AB twenty four thirteen would put that scrutiny into law by prohibiting public dollars from being used for large format public advertisements that include the image of elected officials.
In doing so, this bill will further the public trust in government and ensure public funds do not go towards renting expensive billboards for political purposes. When the time comes, I respectfully ask for your I vote. With me today to, support the bill, I have Lindsey Nakano, the senior legislative counsel with the Fair Political Practice Commission.
Redner 3
you again, madam chair members. Lindsay Nicano, senior legislative counsel with the FPPC. The commission is pleased to sponsor a b twenty four thirteen. The political reform act currently prohibits certain mass mailings from being sent at the public expense if they feature an elected official or include the name office photograph or other reference to an elected official affiliated with that agency. The a b twenty four thirteen would add a similar prohibition for large format public advertisements as defined in the bill that include the photograph of an elected officer affiliated with the agency.
The bill takes a measured and tailored approach to appropriately prohibit public money from being used by state or local government agencies to promote elected officials affiliated with that agency. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you so much. Anybody else in the room who wants to add on as a supporter of this bill? Seeing none, any primary witnesses in opposition or anyone who wants to come to the mic and express opposition? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the committee. Any comments, questions?
Redner 24
K. This is a very simple bill. AB twenty four thirteen is something most of us thought was already in existence, and it's about responsible use of public funds. With that, I respectfully ask for your I vote.
Redner 1
Thank you. Certainly, informational and educational billboards can be helpful tools to raise public awareness about important issues in our communities. And, however, we need to ensure that public funds used for these billboards are not being used as political advertising for the elected officials affiliated with those agencies. So thank you so much for bringing this bill forward. I'm recommending a support.
We have a motion by selling member Berman, seconded by Stephanie. Madam secretary, please call the roll.
Redner 15
On a b twenty four thirteen, the motion is due pass to appropriations. Paleron? Aye. Paleron? Aye.
Gallagher? Bennett? Berman? Aye. Berman?
Aye. Elhawari? Aye. Elhawari? Aye.
Johnson? Solace?
Redner 1
That bill is out five to zero, but we'll keep the roll open for absent members. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you so much. Okay. Do we have an author in the room?
Who's next? Alvarez? Oh, okay. Okay. The two that have signed in are Alvarez and Berner.
I do not see them. Am I missing them? No. I do not see them. Okay.
So then we are happy to move on to the other author in the room, who's also at the dais. Is that right? We can move it on him?
Redner 1
Item number seven, a you have two bills today. I well well, you got two bills. Right? Three. Okay.
You're doing a hat trick today, Sun River Berman. Okay. You've got item number 7AB2281. Item number 13AB2604, and item 19AJR29.
Redner 20
Chair Palarin and colleagues. Do I have no. That's fine. I was proud to author legislation in 2018 to establish the office of election cybersecurity within the secretary of state's office. This office is responsible for coordinating efforts to address cyber threats and monitoring election miss and disinformation.
Additionally, local and state election officials have relied on federal resources and support to improve the security of their election systems. Unfortunately, the Trump administration has cut critical funding and coordination that helps states guard against threats to our elections. In response, a b twenty two eighty one would direct the office of election cybersecurity to assess if additional resources are necessary to replace the loss of federal cybersecurity support. This will ensure that California officials continue to have the information and tools necessary to defend our democracy from cyberattacks. AB twenty two eighty one would also strengthen the office of election cybersecurity by authorizing the office to consult with academic researchers, was a unintentional omission from the first bill.
I respectfully ask for an I vote. No witnesses.
Redner 1
Alright. I don't think. Anybody wanna come to the mic and express support? Anybody in the room who's opposed to this bill? Or just wanna go to the mic and say you're opposed?
Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the dice. Any questions, comments from members? You've left us all speechless. You may go ahead and close.
Redner 1
Thank you so much. You know, certainly, the changes to federal government's role as a frontline of defense against foreign intelligence in US elections is extremely troubling, and the cybersecurity and infrastructure security agency in particular, that you brought into law has been invaluable to election security. It is unclear whether state local governments can replicate the work that the federal government did in previous election cycles. So that's especially true for local elections offices that are unlikely to have the resources and expertise to protect against attacks from sophisticated and well resourced actors like nation states. So this bill helps to ensure California continues to have the tools necessary to protect our elections.
I know as a former elections official, I relied on this department and this program very much, and I appreciate your work in this space. And I recommend any support. Do we have a motion?
Redner 1
Moved by Solace, seconded by Elhawari. Madam secretary, please call the roll.
Redner 15
On a b twenty two eighty one, the motion is due to pass to appropriations. Pelerin? Aye. Pelerin, aye. Gallagher, Bennett, Berman
Redner 15
Berman, aye. Elhawari? Aye. Elhawari, aye. Johnson, Solace?
Aye. Solace, aye. Stephanie? Aye. Stephanie, aye.
Redner 1
That bills out five to zero. We'll keep it open for absent members. We're gonna let you take a rest since the assembly member Alvarez So is you're getting the boot, and I will. Our assembly member Alvarez has item 10 a b two four eight four. And you may begin when you're ready.
Redner 4
Thank you, madam chair. And committee members, good morning to you all. It's a pleasure to be here, and I wanna thank you for the opportunity to present 2484 related to the San Diego Metropolitan Transit, system. Again, I wanna like to thank the the committee for the work that was done and the analysis on this bill. And twenty four eighty four is gonna sound familiar because we've had similar issues before us in the legislature.
Redner 22
This is related to the authority in San Diego in the transit system that serves well over 3,000,000 people with a almost pre pandemic level of utilization of a transit system, which I know in other systems, we're not hearing that level of re rebound of of of utilization. But in San Diego, it has happened. And so we wanna make sure that the transit system continues to serve all of the people that it serves. Wanna start off by being very clear, that this bill does not create or impose a tax. It empowers voters and them alone to choose whether to authorize a local transactions and use tax dedicated to funding the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System or MTS as we call it through a local ballot initiative.
Redner 4
At its core, AB twenty four eighty four is about local control, choice of voters, and planning ahead for the future of San Diego's transit system, which is really at a crossroads. AB twenty four eighty four clarifies that voters may propose and approve a local transaction and use tax of up to point 5% dedicated to MTS through the initiative process. It also ensures that any voter approved MTS tax is excluded from the existing statutory cap that so many of our localities are now hitting in order to have revenue to protect their local funding priorities. So as I said, MTS is not just a transit provider. It serves millions of people.
And just to give you a little bit of a glimpse, 70% of riders rely on transit as their primary mode of transportation. They do not have an alternative mode of transportation. And more than two thirds of these are using it to get to school or get to work, the expectation we have of all of our citizens. But despite this, the success, MTS is approaching a fiscal cliff as many other transit agencies are. It's projected that in 2030, the agency will face a structural deficit of more than 120,000,000, driven by rising operating costs that are, not stagnant, but they're growing, and workforce needs and limited local funding.
Over just four years, that gap could exceed half $1,000,000,000. Without action, that means real consequences. It means fewer routes for those students, for those employees, longer wait times, and higher fares, more cost to those who use it. And these are the people who likely can least afford it. Transit in San Diego is not optional.
It is essential specifically to the district that I represent. It connects people to jobs, to education, to health care. It supports housing production, and we've built a lot of housing along the transit lines, incentivized that housing literally built on trolley and transit stations, utilizing underutilized land to build housing that's so desperately needed. So it is also important that MTS is considered as a as a partner regionally in our bi binational connector. You hear me talk about I represent the border region.
They carry more than half of the daily pedestrian crossings at our busiest port of entry in the entire world, which is in my district at San Isidro. And, they jump onto the trolley and buses as early as three in the morning to go to work. AB twenty four eighty four provides a proactive solution by giving voters a transparent, locally controlled option to decide whether they want to invest in the transit. Now I'd like to turn it over to a board member of the MTS system, a board that I proudly served on when I was on the city council, and I appreciate the support of council member who's joining us here today. Council member Woodburn.
Redner 26
Okay. Thank you. Good morning, chair. Good morning, committee members. My name is Steven Whitburn.
I, serve on the San Diego City Council. I also serve as the chair of the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System board of directors. Thank you very much, Assembly Member Alvarez, for your leadership on AB 2484 and for bringing forward this important conversation about the future of transit in our region. From my role at MTS, I see firsthand how critical this system is to the daily lives of San Diegans. Over 77% of the people who use our system are transit dependent.
That emphasizes the need for a very sustainable transit system in San Diego. This is not, of course, an abstract policy discussion for us. This is about whether people can get to work on time, whether students can get to their classrooms, whether families can access needed services. NTS has worked very hard to be a responsible steward of public resources. We've made significant operational improvements.
We've increased efficiency. We maintained service during and following the pandemic. Today, we are seeing strong ridership recovery and growing demand across the system, averaging about 250,000 trips each weekday. But even with that progress, the financial challenges are real, and they are unavoidable. Without a sustainable funding solution, the people most impacted will be those who already face the greatest barriers to mobility that will be forced to make difficult decisions.
That could mean reducing service frequency or eliminating routes, decisions that would disproportionately impact those who rely on transit the most. And once service is cut, it is incredibly difficult and extensive to restore. AV twenty four eighty four helps to ensure that the voters in San Diego have the authority to decide the future of their transit system. It does not guarantee new funding. It guarantees a local choice.
Redner 6
It allows the people of San Diego to decide for themselves whether investing in transit is a priority worth supporting. Major metropolitan regions across California have already taken steps to secure long term transit funding through voter approved measures. AB twenty four eighty four ensures that San Diego has the same opportunity to remain competitive, to continue growing responsibly, and to meet the demands of a modern regional economy. As local leaders, we believe that decision should rest with the voters who use and depend on the system every day. On behalf of the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System and the riders we serve
Redner 1
Okay. Wonderful. Anybody else in the room who would like to add on as support to this measure? State your name, organization, and position, please.
Redner 18
Hello. Nate Fairman from IBW Local four sixty five in support. We also submitted a support letter. It's what it looks like, and we sent it to all committee members. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you so much. Are there any primary witnesses in opposition to this measure? Anybody wanna come to the mic and express opposition? State your name, organization, position, please.
Redner 22
Good morning. Amy Garrett with the California Association of Realtors in respectful opposition to this measure this morning.
Redner 1
Thank you so much. Seeing no other opposition, I'll bring it back to the dice. And that'll be a senate member Bennett.
Redner 16
Thank you. I I am in strong support of local communities doing these transit initiatives as the chair of budget sub four. We keep hearing about the transit cliff that we're getting ready to to to go over. And I do think local agencies need to be able to help themselves as they go forward. So I really applaud this, and I would be supporting all of these measures across the state.
But I know it's a bit uncharacteristic to coauthor a district bill, but I feel so strongly about local districts doing this. I'd love to be a coauthor if the author is comfortable with that
Redner 16
Of this bill to recognize appreciation for San Diego Metropolitan District doing this.
Redner 11
Yeah. There was a similar bill at our last committee, and and this is kind of my essential question is why should we allow kind of a special deal, you know, for your community? Because prop 13 and the and the progeny of that said that you have to have two thirds vote for a special use tax. Right? I mean, that's the law.
And so why should we allow that, you know, this below that threshold? And the reason for it is because, look, when you're gonna tax people, like, there should be a higher threshold before you go in and level that tax. Right? And we could change that law. You could do a constitutional amendment, right, to change that and give local districts a lower threshold.
In fact, that's been tried, and it failed. Right? But why should we kind of piecemeal this? And if you are, like, look, it should apply to everybody, right, not just certain communities. Right?
And that's why I think this is better presented as a constitutional amendment to everybody. Hey. If you wanna change the law and allow this for all communities, then let's do that instead of sort of allowing it for, albeit a a worthy measure, you know, transit issue that you guys are having in your district. Totally understand that. But why allow that in this particular instance?
Redner 4
Well, first, why it's localized is because, the locals are in support and wanting to pursue this. And, certainly, I I have personally been supportive of anybody, and if you were to bring a measure forward from your district that you'd like to pursue the same thing, happy to support that as well as I have for others. I would also say that, you know, this is gonna could move forward. The voters could place this on the ballot. These courts have spoken about, voter initiatives.
They have ruled those to be constitutional, and so we are staying within the bounds of the constitution. Would not be voting on a bill that's unconstitutional. And if there's individuals who may think it's it is unconstitutional, they can challenge it once the voters place this on the ballot if they choose to do so and voters approve it if they choose to do so, then there could be a process at that point. But, clearly, there's indications already in case law that this could be allowed, and so we wanna just make sure and clarify that MTS is able to do that and not hit the cap. The the other important component of this bill is there are limitations that are placed by state, by by us, and we are the only ones who can change that through this legislative process, and that's what we're pursuing here.
Redner 11
And then two just two last questions, and either you or maybe your witness can answer is, why not use a prop two eighteen vote, you know, which allows you to, I believe, do it by by parcel. And as long as a majority of those who vote, it has you have to show the measure has a special benefit. Right? But doing a drop two eighteen vote, you could do a, basically, a mail ballot election. And as long as 50% plus one of those who return their ballots pass it, that would pass.
So why not do a two eighteen vote? And then why is it that the transit system is losing money right now?
Redner 4
Yeah. I I definitely wanna turn over the MTS fiscal cliff, which I think this committee has probably heard from other bills in previous years, and I think the legislature has heard as to what's happening there. But the technical numbers, I'll leave it to them. On the issue of two eighteen, you know, that's that's a a can be used and is used by localities, for example, when it comes to water rates and others. You have to be a a beneficial user.
Not everyone who owns who lives in a home utilizes transit. I don't think that there's been any other election that has been pursued, the two eighteen route. I think that's definitely much more challenging when it comes to the constitutionality because of two eighteen to go through that process. And if a homeowner is or a renter is is or parcel owner does not write transit, you know, how are you able to tax them? And that's why you have to go through a ballot measure and have the voters approve it.
But, you know, if you have any examples of cases where that's happened, I think it'd be interesting to to look into that. As far as the fiscal cliff that MTS is facing, I'll let them
Redner 25
Thank you. So since the COVID nineteen pandemic, MTS has recovered more than 95% of our rider pre COVID ridership, and we now rank among the top transit systems nationwide for ridership recovery. However, despite this progress, we are facing an impending fiscal cliff like many other transit agencies, mainly driven by pandemic related revenue losses, rising workforce expenses, higher operating costs, flat sales tax revenues, and really limited local funding. So, you know, we have developed a comprehensive financial sustainability strategy to delay our fiscal cliff and allow for more time to seek and pursue additional funding. And this clarifying, you know, change in our enabling statutes would provide another potential mechanism to address the fiscal cliff.
Redner 11
I did I have used two eighteen, actually, in my district on a flood control measure. They did a prop two eighteen vote in a in a, you know, pretty tax adverse place, you know, that's not really loving passing you taxes. But when you can make the case that, hey. This is for flood control. It helps keep us safe from dangerous floods, you know, in your case.
So I think it's maybe possible to do and that it wouldn't it wouldn't require us having to do a special piece of legislation. But I do see that you guys are obviously operating well, certainly doing better than BART, and, you know, they just got a bailout. So I guess maybe you guys need, you know, some help as well. Yeah.
Redner 4
Thank you. To your point, mister Gallagher, there have been some difficult choices that have been made by the leadership of MTS, and that includes, unfortunately, some elimination of some routes, which has not been has not been fun or easy, to the point of of what you heard from the testimony. That has allowed them to at least, you know, postpone that fiscal cliff. But this is about planning for that eventuality. There's only so much how many cuts you can do at some point.
At the end of the day, public transit is a subsidized system. That is the truth, and it has to be subsidized in some way. That is a utilization of local resources. That is what MTS is seeking to do. They'd still have to one, voters still have to put on the ballot, and they still have to vote for it and approve it.
So there's no guarantee, and this gives us the time between now and then to do the right planning and not be facing an immediate decision in 2030 that completely changes what the, system looks like and how it serves people. And for that reason, respectfully, ask your I vote today.
Redner 1
Thank you so much. I appreciate San Diego, MTS' efforts to propose a sales tax through the initiative process. Nothing in this bill affects the voter threshold required for that approval of taxes. Therefore, I am recommending a support position. Did I have a No.
A motion by Bennett, seconded by Berman. Madam secretary, please call the roll.
Redner 15
On a b twenty four eighty four, the motion is due passed to local government. Pelerin? Aye. Pelerin? Aye.
Gallagher? Bennett? Aye. Bennett? Aye.
Berman? Aye. Berman? Aye. El Hawari?
Aye. El Hawari, I. Johnson? No. Johnson?
No. Celache? Aye. Celache, I. Stephanie?
Aye. Stephanie, I.
Redner 1
That bill is out six to one, but we'll hold the roll open. Or do we have any absent members? No.
Redner 1
We we see another author in the room, but I still don't see Berner. Right? No? No. Okay.
Okay.
Redner 1
So we will bring up our next author, assembly member Avi LaFarius. Yep. Item number 5AV2230. And you may begin when you're ready. Okay.
Redner 21
Thank you, madam chair and members. First, I would like to thank the chair and her staff for the work on this issue, and I affirm my commitment to working with you, senator Cervantes, who has also led the charge to defend California's election process. My staff and I are excited to work collaboratively with you to ensure that the legislation is implemented and not duplicative of your efforts or anyone's efforts. ICE enforcement has created fear across California, impacting both citizens, immigrants alike. AB twenty two thirty protects two critical spaces, voting centers and childcare facilities.
Redner 20
This bill prohibits immigration enforcement from entering surrounding the surrounding locations, ensuring people can vote and children can learn without fear. California is home to 10,000,000 immigrants, many of whom are US citizens and are eligible voters. At a time when there are growing concerns about intimidation at the polls and aggressive enforcement tactics, we must act to protect fundamental rights and community safety. No parent should be should be fear losing their child to enforcement actions, and no voters should be intimidated for from participating in our democracy. AB twenty two thirty ensures these spaces remain safe and fear and free from fear and intimidation.
Redner 1
Lovely. Anybody in the room that wants to add on as a supporter of this measure? Seeing none, any primary witnesses in opposition? You may step up, you have two minutes.
Redner 5
Good morning, chair and fellow committees. I apologize. I do not have a letter in. My name is David Bolag representing the SFP Alliance, and I can also be as bold as to say I represent the 6,000,000 voters who voted for the current executive administration who are very happy about the immigration enforcement. We're also happy about the way the administration is handling the gender issue.
Redner 13
Let's let's be be real, though. We there are some cons there is some contention with the war, with the handling of the Epstein files, and with not pushing the mob movement, which has nothing to do with this. But with this, I can see where the author is a little bit concerned because both the current and the former head of the h of the Homeland Security said they wouldn't rule this out, but the press secretary did say that it's a silly notion. I I don't see it happening, but I do find it a little bit, as the governor would say, I find it peculiar that there'd be concerned about election sites because anybody that's going to an election site to cast their vote has to be a citizen. So there were I don't see how anybody who's not a citizen who might be here illegally would be intimidated by that because they wouldn't be going to the polls.
Redner 5
And, also, let's mention, I think it's 33 or 35 of the counties in California that are mostly populated get their ballots sent to their houses. Now, there's also in this legislation that has more to do with the human services or human forgot the name of the committee that was testified at yesterday. I apologize. Talking about, going to daycare centers and having a fine of $10,000 two, three, and five years on it. ICE will go wherever somebody is, has committed any crime and has that, I two zero five administration arrest warrant to grab those people that have harmed people in the society.
So you can put this through, but they still will enforce that. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you so much. Anybody else wanna come to the mic and express opposition? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the dice, and we have a ceiling member Bennett.
Redner 16
ICE will also, intimidate people of color, and, I really appreciate this bill. And, so I will make the motion to, approve the bill.
Redner 11
Yeah. I think my question would be, like, how is this going to be enforced? And you have two issues, I think. One is we don't have jurisdiction over federal officers, in California, and that's already been made pretty clear. But secondly, you know, it's not like childcare centers are, like, clearly marked, And many of them are in community.
I mean, we just in in suburban communities, someone can have a child daycare center. Right? And you don't nobody knows that. Right? So how this is within a 100 feet.
Right? So let's say there's an ICE officer that's doing their job and they're going through a, you know, you know, in a in a community or even with a vote center. We don't know you know, it's not like those are necessarily marked off. We tell people where they're at, you know, so that people can go visit them and vote. But, I mean, I could conceivably see some federal law enforcement officer, you know, beam within a 100 feet and not even knowing that they were actually next to a childcare center.
And and then can they really prosecute that?
Redner 21
Right. So I appreciate the comments. So I'm actually working with the DOJ. They had reached out to me, and so we'll we'll be flushing all as we go through the process. They've taken an interest in this bill, and so we will be working with subject matter legal experts as we move forward.
But also with, like you know, I I'm not here to
Redner 21
you know, again, we're gonna work with the state, I'm sure they will connect as well, so I will have more to tease out in that space. And, again Have they have they
Redner 11
successfully prosecuted a a federal law enforcement officer, the state DOJ?
Redner 21
Have they successfully? I'm not sure. I don't have that information, but I'd be happy to look into that and get back to your office on that. But what I'm here is about democracy, protecting having people being able to freely go exercise their right who are eligible voters. Immigrants, many of us are immigrants, at one point that are eligible to, you know, vote in this country and not debate, immigration policy, or federal enforcement because we all know that if we did look at the law, federal enforcement is supposed to only happen a 100 miles within the borders of Northern California and Southern California.
And so this bill is simply protecting because we are seeing unprecedented actions, violations of civil liberties, constitutional rights, and I'm trying to protect Californians to have the ability to exercise, their rights of being able to freely exercise, the ability to vote, and not in fear or intimidation of the polling areas and protecting our child care centers.
Redner 11
Do you have an example of a law enforcement raid by ICE into a childcare center?
Redner 21
I do not have one to bring to you, but I think I'd Like, is that happening? Is that happening? Well, we haven't had an election post these, you know, aggressive tactics where they have violated spaces. And but I'm happy if that's information that you would like, for consideration.
Redner 11
Usually, before passing a law, I'd like to see, like, hey. Is this actually happening?
Redner 21
We're actually not passing a law. We're going through committee and discussing. This is what committees are for, is to deliberate.
Redner 21
It's a process, but we're not deliberating today. That happens on the green carpet. What I'm here again to reinforce is I'm protecting Californians from their constitutional rights being violated and protecting a vulnerable population that we have seen the past twelve months been aggressively and unfairly discriminated against in many different spaces and racially profiled. So I can show up to a polling area, and depending what I look like, we can have a federal ICE agent saying asking questions that are not appropriate. So keeping them off.
Redner 21
Has that happened? I don't have stats for you today, but I'm sure it has happened. So I'm I'm happy again to say to bring information to you where we can provide examples. But whether it's like mister Gallagher, this is what I'm gonna say to you. It's like seat belts.
You can ride a car without a seat belt and risk not having an accident, and hope that not wearing your seat belt, that you can survive that. I'm trying to legislate to hope that we don't have to deal with this. And if we do have to do it, then we do have legislation to protect our community members.
Redner 11
Okay. I I'm just asking questions about the bill. Yeah. I wanna get to, like, why this is
Redner 21
you know, hypotheticals. Anything can happen. Again, I'm trying to protect, given we have twelve months of history to see things that we never would have imagined to happen in our community, from people just doing their job on the streets of selling street vendors to people going to school. Being brown and black in California right now is not safe for people, especially undocumented and immigrants. So, again, it's the car analogy.
I can jump in a car, not put my seat belt on, and hope that I can make it from point a to point b and hope that nothing happens. I'm simply trying to legislate and put that seat belt on.
Redner 11
Yeah. So I'm just here asking questions about a bill, and that is part of the deliberative process, these committees where we get to the bottom of and one of the first questions always is, like, why do we need this bill? And that's what I'm delving into. People have died in car accidents for not wearing seat belts. Right?
We have documented evidence of that. I'm simply asking you, do you have any evidence of this ever being a problem? And you can't even give me an example.
Redner 11
your question. You're coming in here telling me that this is such a problem and then you don't have any examples of where a child can Here, me. No. I'm not I'm not done. I'm just finishing.
I'm asking you a question.
Redner 20
Mister Weisser, I'm so happy be here. It should be noted that you continuously interrupted you continuously interrupted the author when she was trying to answer your questions. So don't get defensive when
Redner 1
And vice chair Gallagher, you have asked your questions. Assemblymember, Avia Lefarias, has answered those questions. Do you have additional questions?
Redner 11
As I I was just asking the questions, and the bottom line is you haven't presented any evidence this isn't actually a problem. Right? And, yes, if the absolutely, I would a 100% agree with you. If someone who is, going to exercise their constitutional right to vote was stopped by an ICE officer and prevented from voting, that would be a 100% injustice. It hasn't happened.
But you're here telling me that I should have some prohibition on not not from them stopping anybody, but from them being anywhere within a 100 feet of a polling center and a childcare center. I'm saying that's not really enforceable. And by the way, these people do need to do their job. And I think we would I would hope we would agree that someone who is here illegally shouldn't be going to a voting center and voting anyway. Right?
They're not allowed to vote. So, you know, ICE agents going out and doing their job, which overwhelmingly, that's what they're doing, and they're responsible and and good people who are doing their jobs, right, are not the enemy. And we shouldn't be, like, creating these sort of red zones a 100 feet from places they might not even know as a childcare center or a vote center where they can't go and they could potentially be prosecuted. Thank you. Again, there's obviously jurisdictional issues that this committee is well aware of that we can't prosecute federal officers.
We don't have jurisdiction over federal officers. So for all of those reasons, that's why I'm opposing your bill. It's not personal. You know? It's it's not disrespectful ask questions about your bill and and the justifications for your bill.
And I appreciate you, and I know that you care and you wanna, you know, present your ideas, and I'm glad that you're doing that. But I I also can respectfully disagree and delve into, you know, the basis for the vote.
Redner 16
Madam chair, I'd just like to point out there's many documented examples of ICE agents racially profiling and targeting brown people. And so even though somebody is a citizen, a legal citizen born here, if they're brown, they could be intimidated at a polling place. I think that is the one of the big just justifications for the need for this bill. And, with that, I think we've already made the motion. Hope we can vote on it.
Redner 20
Well, I wanna thank the author for bringing the bill forward. It should be noted that there have been multiple instances, including instances in California, where ICE agents sought to influence the political process. For example, was it Bonino? Who is the clown who's not there anymore? Yes.
Yeah. Showed up at the prop fifty rally that the governor was speaking at in Los Angeles. Didn't seem to be doing any actual ICE activity. Seemed like he was just posturing for the media and trying to intimidate people from participating in the political process. And the idea that oh, here's another example.
Was it in Tennessee, where a couple of army helicopters flew did flybys of a no kings rally in late March. No and and what happened? What happened was the joke of a defense secretary of The United States pops off on Twitter and says, no problems. No problems that you did a flyby of who's that has been? Kid Rock.
Kid Rock's apartment Mhmm. And then goes and does a flyby of No King's rallies. And so the idea that this president would not send ICE agents to intimidate legitimate voters Right. At polling places is laughable. This president will do whatever he possibly can to hold on to power.
He's shown that time and time again. And this is a president who said, we're gonna go after gang members. ISIS is gonna go after gang members in the worst of the worst. They're not going after gang members in the worst of the worst. They're going after grandmas, grocery store clerks, green card holders, they're also arresting citizens.
They're also I'm speaking
Redner 20
They're also arresting citizens. And so I thank the author for bringing this forward. We need to put every measure in place possible to defend Californians who should be participating in our democracy from an administration that has shown that it will stop at nothing to hold on to power. Proud to support the bill today. Okay.
Thank you very much.
Redner 11
Just did the same thing the member did to me. So Enough. You're allowing it.
Redner 1
I'm trying to bring back some decorum. Does any other member have questions or comment? Assemblymember Solace, please.
Redner 13
Thank you, madam chair. To the author, thank you for engaging us in the discussion. I have nothing but high respect for the positions that we were all elected to this body. And, you know, I think that one of the things that we do, a difference of opinion at times, is that we do create laws and have these kind of conversations and debates so that when we could prevent something happening, I understand some concerns from the other side of the aisle respectfully. I understand that there's concerns, but I also can't sit here and just imagine the moment that we all living under a rock because day two of these disgusting raids happened in my district.
Redner 3
Mhmm. 60 federal agents showed up with Texas license plates, Arizona license plates, in shorts, T shirts, masking, cowardly hiding behind to come and do whatever operation in our communities. So when we have a debate about it's still something to help prevent, I will be the first to say, my community, my district is living in fear. When I go to a local car wash, which, by the way, a more conservative part of my district, and you take six car wash employees that work about eight hours a day under the sun, drying our cars and cleaning our cars so that we could all live good lives, and you take four of the sticks that I actually know by name, like, just saying good morning, hello, I I could assure you that they're not criminals. They're contributing to our society.
Redner 13
So, yes, healthy debate about what the legislation that the member's bringing. That's a fair discussion, but that we have to assume that nothing is happening and the intimidation. So I just I think that debate is fair. It's healthy. But just let's let's also realize that there are things happening in different districts.
And I happen to live between Downtown LA and Long Beach, prominently folks that look like myself and, you know, are being living they're they're just living in fear. So I just wanna put that in perspective that these things are happening, and for us to say that they're not happening, they're not gonna happen, trust me, people are not going to work. The attendance levels in schools are low in my district because people are living in fear. And all they wanna do is just live their lives, contribute to society. When they go to the supermarket, they pay their groceries.
When they're buying something at local Best Buy, they're they're buying something and they're paying taxes. They're contributing to society. And more importantly, as a person of faith and someone that introduced a bill to consider not having agents come into my per my place of worship, that's I want people to go to church and just feel that they could, you know, pray for a better society, a better world. And when my own community is feared to go to the our local Catholic church because of intimidation and fear tactics, yes, this is happening in our districts. So, again, I I will welcome the debate on on the technicalities of this bill fair.
But to just assume that that's not happening, I just wanna have perspective that this is happening in our community. So, again, just with all due respect, I wanna, encourage the author to keep working with, either our state or federal, folks to, you know, make this legislation or future legislation fair. And on the child care part of your bill, obviously, you know, we we wanna make sure that parents feel comfortable going to take their kids to school. Right? It's happening.
Maybe it's not in numbers, but it can hap yes. The we've seen examples after examples of different things are happening. So a preventative mode of having childcare protected is definitely a priority for our communities. And that's not a a brown black issue. That's all community.
These are parents are obviously single moms across the board that depend on child care centers. So, again, just again, thanks for the conversation. I know that this is advancing what if happens to the other side of Iowa, and respectfully, you know, let's talk about the the technical part. But with that, it's just thank you for your the conversation. I look forward to supporting this today.
Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you so much. Any other comments or questions from members? Signing over Stephanie.
Redner 6
Yeah. I just wanna back up my Democratic colleagues here and just say, you know, this is really a healthy prevention measure given the very insane and very sad times we seem to be living in. And I wanna thank you for bringing it forward and thank my colleagues for their contributions to the discussion. Thank you.
Redner 1
Any other comments or questions from members? Seeing none, assemblymember, you may close.
Redner 21
Thank you, chair and members. I appreciate the dialogue, and I I appreciate those who have even more lived experience, than even the geographic area. And, mister Gallagher, I I welcome to bring information to you as well. I know it's very difficult to understand a space that your point, and your perspective and your even perspective of privilege doesn't allow you to understand why I'm trying to legislate. But you did say in your last statement to me, that you understand and you undersport, you know, democracy and people not being fearful.
So I'm not gonna focus on the in delineating where you and I don't agree. I'm gonna focus on where you and I do agree. And so I do think in principle and concept you do agree with this because you said it in your statement. So, but I'm happy as this bill moves forward to to sit down and talk with you about this and address your concerns because, again, my geographic area has a different lens than my colleagues in Southern California. I'm here to be a voice for the most marginalized of our society to allow them to exercise their their civil liberties and and the democracy participate.
So, I am hearing you, and, I I look forward to working with you on this bill. And, chair, thank you for the time.
Redner 1
Thank you so much. In light of these unprecedented attempts by the federal government to interfere with the administration of our, elections, California must remain vigilant and proactive. And we must be prepared for the possibility that federal agencies could be interfering with California's election operations. And that's why I appreciate the author's goal to prevent voter intimidation, election interference, and protect everyone's right to vote. Last year, a b SB eight fifty one authored by senator Cervantes was a vital safeguard that empowers elections officials with protections and tools that they need to defend against any federal, overreach.
And I encourage the author to continue to work in collaboration with senator Cervantes, the attorney general's office, and other stakeholders to ensure that the bill is consistent with these continued efforts. And with that, I recommend a support. So, madam secretary, please call the roll.
Redner 15
This is a b twenty two thirty. The motion is due passed to public safety. Pelerin? Aye. Pelerin?
Aye. Gallagher? Gallagher is no. Bennett? Aye.
Bennett? Aye. Berman? Aye. Berman?
Aye. El Hawari? Johnson? Johnson? No.
Solache?
Redner 1
That bill is out five to two. We'll keep the roll open for our absent member. Thank you so much. And we'll now bring it to a selling member, Berner, who's got item four, a b seventeen eighty nine. And begin when you're ready.
Redner 28
Good morning, madam chair and members. First, I wanna thank the chair and her committee staff for working with me on this bill. I will be taking committee amendments and will continue to work with the FPPC to ensure that there are no unintended consequences. AB seventeen eighty nine is a good governance bill. It ensures that candidates and treasurers are trained to comply with the state's campaign requirements by completing a training course on their campaign duties.
These training courses include detailed requirements for committees, candidates, treasurers for purposes of promoting transparency, accountability, and integrity in state and local campaigns. It's important that we make meaningful efforts to increase trust in government, and this is a common sense approach to ensure that candidates and treasurers are properly equipped. I respectfully ask for an I vote. I'm here today, with Lindsey Nakano. Nakano?
Nakano. Nakano. I was just in in Tokyo, and there's a Nakano. Sorry. So Nakano with the FPPC, the sponsor of the bill.
Redner 3
Thank you. Good morning again. Lindsay Nakano, senior legislative council with the FPPC. The commission's sponsoring the bill, and I'm here again in, support. The political reform act includes requirements and restrictions that govern the conduct of conduct of campaigns in the state.
Redner 2
Many of these provisions are activated quickly upon becoming a candidate and raising funds, including rules on initial paperwork and registration, opening a campaign bank account, contribution limits and restrictions, permissible expenditures, reporting, and others. These requirements include important details and nuances and are often subject to strict deadlines. Through the power of education, a b seventeen eighty nine will help candidates and treasurers understand their duties and will promote compliance, which will in turn promote transparency and public confidence. The bill would also raise the itemization threshold from 100 to $200 for purposes of reporting contributions and expenditures on campaign reports. The $100 threshold was set nearly fifty years ago, and the adjustment made in this bill reflects a modest cost of living living adjustment that's less than half of the actual CPI inflation amount.
Redner 3
Thank you to this committee and staff, and thank you to assembly member Berner for authoring this bill.
Redner 1
Thank you so much. Anybody else in the room that'd like to add on in a support position?
Redner 23
Good morning. Daniel Conway here on behalf of Common Cause. Respectfully, we are in the oppose unless amended position. We love everything about the training and education piece. What we would like to see, though, is the threshold stay at $100, which is consistent with about 43 other states according to the analysis.
So thank you all.
Redner 1
Thank you so much. Any members have questions or comments? Senator Member Solace.
Redner 13
Just wanna thank my colleague for bringing this to the table and, of course, our partners at the FTC. I think anything we do that's transparency, it's great for all of us, especially when at times, we've made some unintentional errors, and I think any training is good for that. I give you a quick example. I talked to the chair of this in the past of of when you file your for for to be a candidate, there's a there's a 700 form that is due. Well, I wish it was actually required when you actually are filing because if you don't file it with you know, you're supposed to file it after the fact.
Right? And and and in one instance, someone forgot to do it unintentionally. And so then there's a there's a there's a penalty for that. Right? But I guess that what I'm saying is if it could just be in the training of, you know, what you need to do and ensure that it's I know that it's it's you know, you're being told, but it was just actually required before you became a candidate.
Just makes it even easier. Right? But for now, I will welcome the conversation in a training purposes that when we train, future candidates that, hey. You need to join the 700 form, and it's required because of you know, even though it's, you still become a candidate. Just wanna add that as an extra part of the training for what it's worth.
Redner 12
I think all of us who were in elected office know beforehand. I ran in a small city, and I was looking for a treasurer. And then I realized it was very specific training that you needed. Like, not anybody who was a CPA or new finance could just do this. And so I think that training would allow more people to enter and support campaigns in places that are smaller cities that maybe don't have campaign infrastructure too.
Redner 28
So that's one of the reasons I wanted to be the author of this bill. But I think there are lots of cases from candidates not making errors. There's nothing that this bill would do other than improve the current system. And I think when we're looking at a CPI adjustment from fifty years ago that is much under what the actual CPI adjustment would be Mhmm. That would make sense, for today's day and age.
Redner 13
Go ahead. Just wanna add one more thing. And I also applaud the idea of having the treasurers go through the training because as much as we rely on our our expertise, the officers that we hire as as members of candidates and or now elected officials, you know, they're human too, and it's that respectfully that there's errors that can happen, just human error. So ensuring that they get the proper training so that when we do pay the services for a treasurer service that they, are doing the best job they can for all of us. Right?
So I think it's a it's a win win situation. I just wanna thank, the author for this bill.
Redner 1
a motion. We have a motion by Johnson, second by Solace. Seeing no other comments, you may close.
Redner 28
I respectfully ask for an I vote and love that there's a Tasha and Natasha Lyons.
Redner 1
And certainly requiring candidates and treasurers to complete training about their legal obligations may help reduce the number of inadvertent violations of the political reform act as the solemn member noted. And, however, it's important that we ensure that the training requirements can be effectively implemented and aren't overly burdensome. So I wanna thank the author and sponsor for being open to the amendments that were proposed by committee staff. And with that, I am supporting the bill. Madam secretary, please call the roll.
Do we have a motion and a second? Right? Yes. We did that. We already did that.
Redner 15
This is a b seventeen eighty nine. The motion is due passed as amended to appropriations. Pelerin? Aye. Pelerin?
Aye. Gallagher? Bennett? Aye. Bennett?
Aye. Berman? Aye. El Hawari? Johnson?
Aye. Johnson? Salache? Aye. Stephanie?
Aye. Stephanie?
Redner 1
That bill is out six to zero. We'll keep it open for our absent member. Thank you. And with that, Assemblymember Berman, close us out. Alright.
Redner 14
During my tenure in the legislature, we have taken numerous steps to ensure that voting in California is secure and accessible, and our vote by mail process is both. Unfortunately, missing or mismatching signatures still result still result in far too many invalidated vote by mail ballots. In order to streamline the process to fix signature issues and get ballots processed faster, AB twenty six zero four would have the secretary of state implement a statewide system that counties could use or make available resources to allow California voters to fix or cure their vote by mail ballot electronically. Three years ago, I authored a bill to authorize county election officials to offer this option, and several counties have found the resources to contract for this option. But statewide adoption can benefit California voters and potentially lead to faster processing of ballots, which I know is something we all care about.
Redner 20
As the committee analysis notes, Contra Costa County, one of the counties that offers this option to voters, has determined that it has significant benefits and was particularly appealing to younger voters, the demographic most likely to have a signature issue. Similarly, Colorado and Nevada have successfully utilized a similar statewide process whereby a voter can address a missing signature or signature mismatch via text or similar technology. I respectfully ask your I vote. And here, with me today is Kim Alexander of the California Voter Foundation and Ben Gipps with Protect Democracy United.
Redner 16
Thank you. Good morning, members of the committee. My name is Ben Gipps, and I am an impact specialist at Protect Democracy United, a proud cosponsor of a b twenty six zero four. This bill promotes mobile signature curing, which, as you've just heard, is an important safeguard to the right to vote for Californians. Each election, millions of Californians cast a vote by mail ballot.
Redner 29
And each election, tens of thousands of those voters have their ballot rejected. If all goes to plan, the voter receives a notice that their ballot has been rejected, and they have a chance to remedy that issue, typically by returning a signed statement by mail in a process commonly known as signature curing. However, all too often, as the assembly member discussed, this process does not go to plan. Voters miss the notice informing them of the issue with their ballot, they don't get around to resolving the issue, or something else goes wrong in that multistep process. AB twenty six zero four offers a way to meaningfully improve this experience for voters by allowing them to cure their signatures using a smartphone rather than through the mail.
This reduces delays in the curing process and helps voters feel sure they have taken the necessary steps to make their voice heard. As the assembly member noted, several counties in California already used this technology successfully, and we have heard interest from several others. Additionally, states like Colorado and Nevada have also implemented this at a statewide level. Expanding this program is a common sense move. At Protect Democracy United, we also see it as a particularly timely response to recent bad faith attacks on the legitimacy of California elections.
By streamlining streamlining a time consuming process and introducing a user friendly option to voters, we can help Californians feel confident in the election even after the unfortunate experience of having a ballot rejected. Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee today, and I respect for the urgent I vote.
Redner 27
Thank you. I'm Kim Alexander with the California Voter Foundation, and we are cosponsors of a b twenty six zero four. CVF has been shining a light on vote by mail ballot rejection for over a decade since the release of our 2014 report on California's vote by mail process, highlighting the problem of ballot rejection for the first time. We followed up in 2020 with another study in collaboration with the Center for Inclusive Democracy and found that young voters in the three counties studied were three times more likely to have their ballots rejected than voters generally, with missing or mismatched signatures among the top reasons for rejection. And further study by CID of the twenty twenty four election found that this was true statewide as well.
Redner 11
While the statewide ballot rejection rate was 0.9%, for young voters age 18 to 24, it was 3.3%, more than three times the statewide rate, with non matching signatures the top reason for rejection in that age group. Young voters face unique challenges when voting by mail. They are not accustomed to using the mail or making a signature, and they are new to voting. Ensuring California's young voters can ballot can cast ballots successfully when they vote for the first time will encourage them to keep voting. Giving Californians, especially our younger voters, the ability to use their smartphones to cure a ballot envelope signature provides voters with an accessible, simple, and timely way to submit a ballot signature to their county election office and have their ballot counted rather than rejected.
Redner 27
This process is working securely and successfully in a handful of California counties currently utilizing it as well as the states of Nevada and Colorado. And at the CACEO panel last December, several counties expressed interest in using this tool for their voters. AB twenty six zero four is supported by a number of labor unions, voting rights, and voter access groups, and there's no opposition to the bill. I respectfully respectfully ask for your I vote.
Redner 1
Thank you so much. Is there anybody in the room that would like to add on in support? Just step up to the mic. Sorry. State your name, organization, and position, please.
Redner 21
Terry Brennan with SEIU California. If there were any other way 85,000 disenfranchised voters could be helped, this is the way to do it. It's simple. It's easy. We urge your high vote.
Redner 1
Carol Moon Goldberg with the League of Women Voters of California. There's a letter on the way. The league is in support of this bill. There is a letter on the way, and we urge your I vote. Thank you.
Thank you.
Redner 19
Good morning. Nellia Griffin with the American Federation of State County Municipal Employees in support.
Redner 1
Thank you so much. Any witnesses in the room that are primary witness in opposition to the bill, step on up, and you will have two minutes.
Redner 5
David Polag, SFV Alliance, and I thank you again, chair, for allowing me to speak without a letter submitted. I do appreciate that the author is trying to put forth legislation to try to, make it easier to cure ballots. The problem I have is with the way we do allow people to register right now. It is so easy, and I know people say there's no evidence of fraud because I think that's because it's not looked at. Because right now, anybody can fill out a voter registration online and just make up a name.
They have an address to send it to, make up a birth date, Make up the last four digits of the Social Security number. Sign it, and it is perjury. It is a crime, but nobody checks it. And you could do it online. They could send it back.
And whatever the signature is, it just has to match. So we don't know if these people that didn't sign or that they didn't sign clearly doesn't match the signature. We have no idea if that voter registration is actually somebody who is a citizen, actually a real person, actually somebody who's not just made up. So with that, I I oppose it because just the basis of our election system is it's not clear that that person's really a voter. Thank you.
Redner 1
Okay. And and just let okay. Let me just say that when voter registration comes in and they do provide last four of Social Security and driver's license, it is checked through those databases, and failure to provide ID like that that's verified when the person does show up to vote, they are required to show ID. So there are safeguards, and every voter registration card is checked against those databases.
Redner 1
Okay. Very good. And any other people in the room who wanna jump on in opposition? I know I have a a motion. Right?
Is that what any comments or questions about the bill? Senate member Johnson.
Redner 7
want it on? I will. Happy to do that. Sir, for opposition, can you state your name? I'm sorry.
I didn't hear your organization name.
Redner 5
Is David Bolaga. Bravo Oscar Lima Oscar Golf, and the name of the organization is SFV, like Serving Family Values or San Fernando Valley Alliance.
Redner 5
We don't have a specific yet. We've used different things, it's not it's not solidified with us. We
Redner 1
Any other comments or questions from members? Seeing none, as a family member, you may close.
Redner 1
That was easy. Thank you for your continued work in this area. It's a very important issue, providing county elections officials with the resources to offer voters another option to cure that missing or mismatched signature on their vote by mail envelope is absolutely essential, and I'd be honored to be added as a coauthor. And I'm recommending support of this bill, and, madam secretary, please call.
Redner 1
need a second. Okay. I had a a motion by Bennett, a second by Stephanie. And, madam secretary, please call the roll.
Redner 15
On a b twenty six zero four, the motion is due pass to appropriations. Halloran? Aye. Halloran? Aye.
Gallagher? Bennett? Aye. Bennett? Aye.
Berman? El Hawari? Johnson? No. Johnson?
No. Solace? Aye. Solace? Aye.
Stephanie?
Redner 1
And you're gonna close this out with your third bill today, item 19, a j r 29.
Redner 20
Thank you, chair Pelerin and colleagues. Free and fair elections are the foundation of our democracy. And when the federal government oversteps its constitutional authority to undermine them, California must push back. In California, we've learned that when voters of all political persuasions get a ballot in the mail, they vote. Voting by mail is enormously popular with California voters across party lines with over 91 of twenty twenty two primary voters using a vote by mail ballot and nearly 89% this past November.
California voters have embraced voting by mail because it is safe, it is secure, and it is reliable. And it allows a host of Californians for whom in person voting presents a hardship. We'll get back to you on that line. Yeah. And notwithstanding what president Trump wants people to believe, the rate of fraudulent vote by mail ballots is negligibly small and statistically insignificant.
President Trump exceeded his constitutional authority and issued an executive order in an attempt to erect barriers to voters all voters in California no matter your party registration of voting by mail. President Trump's executive order fourteen three nine nine is a direct attack on the fundamental right of Californians to have their vote counted. It is also ironic and wildly hypocritical given that the president himself voted by mail in an election in Florida just weeks before he issued this executive order. AJR 27 would put California on the record in opposing the executive order and call on congress to protect the rights of states to offer this safe, secure, and reliable option for voting. I respectfully ask for your I vote.
Redner 1
the dais. Any comments or questions? Got a motion by Solace. Seconded by Bennett. Any comments or questions?
There you go. Close this out.
Redner 20
Appreciate the committee working on with me, working on this with me at the last minute, and respectfully ask for I vote.
Redner 1
Appreciate you, and I'm I'm, honored to be your principal coauthor on this resolution. The president's latest executive order on elections is misguided and legally unfounded. Courts have already blocked the president's prior attempt to impose election rules by executive order affirming that the constitution gives states, not the president, the authority to administer elections. So I thank the author for this resolution. I'm recommending support, and we have a motion to second, madam secretary.
Redner 1
Absolutely. Thank Thank you so much. And we'll go ahead and call the roll.
Redner 15
On a j r twenty nine, the motion is be adopted. Pelerin? Aye. Pelerin, aye. Gallagher?
Bennett? Aye. Bennett, aye. Berman? Aye.
Berman, aye. El Hawari? Johnson?
Redner 15
Johnson is not voting. Solace? Aye. Solace, I. Stephanie?
Aye. Stephanie, I.
Redner 1
That bill is out five to zero, and we'll keep it open for our absent member. Thank you so much. And with that, we've concluded all the measures. We're now gonna be establishing a quorum. Okay.
Wait a minute. What am
Redner 1
Oh, yeah. Before we established a quorum, the committee heard from Assembly Member Pacheco on a b twenty five ninety two. The author agreed to accept amendments and that were suggested in the committee analysis. I'm recommending a support. Is there a motion for this bill?
Second. We have a motion by Stephanie, seconded by Johnson. Madam secretary, please call the roll.
Redner 15
On a b twenty five ninety two, the motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. Pelerin? Aye. Pelerin, I. Gallagher?
Bennett? Aye. Bennett, I. Berman?
Redner 1
That bill is out six to zero. We'll keep the roll open for our absent members. We had another bill we took out before we established a quorum. We heard from a selling member Sharp Collins on AB twenty five seventy three. I'm recommending support.
Is there a motion for this bill?
Redner 1
a motion by Johnson, seconded by Stephanie. Madam secretary, please call the roll.
Redner 15
This is eighty twenty five seventy three. The motion is due passed to appropriations. Pelerin? Aye. Pelerin?
Aye. Gallagher? Bennett? Aye. Bennett, I.
Berman? Aye. Berman, I. El Hawari? Johnson.
Aye. Johnson, I. Salache.
Redner 1
That bill's out six to zero. We'll hold that roll open for our absent members. I'm going to lift the call on item number 16, AB 2,753 by Assembly Member Soria. The current vote is four to zero with the chair voting aye. Secretary, please call the absent members.
Redner 1
zero. That bill is out six to zero. And that bill is out, six to zero. Alright. So our secretary is gonna go through the bills that we left the the role open for our absent members, but we're trying to get some of our absent members back.
But we could probably have, I think, a couple here. So why don't we go ahead and go through those now?
Redner 15
Solace, aye. On file item number two, AB1664, the motion is due passed as amended to appropriations. Gallagher, Johnson? No. Johnson, no.
Solace? Aye. Solache? Aye. On file item number four, a b seventeen eighty nine, the motion is due passed as amended to approves Gallagher, Elhawari.
Redner 15
File item number seven, AB twenty two eighty one by Berman. Gallagher? Bennett? Aye. Bennett, I.
Johnson?
Redner 15
Johnson, not voting. File item number eight, a b twenty four thirteen by Ransom. Gallagher? Bennett, Bennett, I, Johnson?
Redner 19
8AB2413. Johnson is I. They're not here. Oh, on file item number 15AB2691, Johnson? Aye.
Redner 7
We just need I think I'm checking. I think I might have missed file item nine. Do you have any photos?
Redner 1
Alright. We have two absent members that we're wait on. We understand they're coming back to the hearing to add on. And for those of you who are here and completed your duty for elections committee, thank you so much for your service.
Redner 1
Alright. We're gonna close out the, open roll on the bills. So, madam secretary, go through the bills, please.
Redner 15
Gallagher is a no. And I should ask you, mister Gallagher, on the consent.
Redner 15
Gallagher, aye on consent. File item number four, AB1789. Gallagher? I. Gallagher, I.
El Hawari? I. El Hawari, I. File item five, a b twenty two thirty. El Hawari?
Aye. El Hawari? Aye. File item number 7AB2281. Gallagher?
Gallagher? No. File item number 8AB2413. Gallagher?
Redner 15
Gallagher, aye. File item number 11AB2573. Gallagher? I. Gallagher, I.
Elhawari?
Redner 15
Going back on file item number 10AB2484. Gallagher, no. Gallagher, no. File item number 12AB2592. Gallagher?
Redner 15
Gallagher, I. Elhawari? Aye. Elhawari, I. File item number 13AB2604 by Berman.
Gallagher?
Redner 15
Gallagher I. File item item number 19, AJR 29 by Berman Gallagher. Gallagher is not voting. El Hawari?
Redner 1
Alright. That concludes the items on our agenda for today. This hearing is adjourned.
Stellen Sie eine Frage zu diesem Video – ich analysiere das Transkript, um Ihnen zu antworten.