The Political Reform Act of 1974 provides for the comprehensive regulation of conflicts of interest of public officials. The act makes a knowing or willful violation of its provisions a misdemeanor.

This bill would prohibit an elected officer from employment by any other elected officer with the same constituency, as provided. except if the elected officer first began their employment by the other elected officer with the same constituency on or before December 31, 2023. The bill would not apply to statewide elected officers. By expanding the scope of an existing crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

The Political Reform Act of 1974, an initiative measure, provides that the Legislature may amend the act to further the acts purposes upon a ²/₃ vote of each house of the Legislature and compliance with specified procedural requirements.

This bill would declare that it furthers the purposes of the act.

The Political Reform Act of 1974 provides for the comprehensive regulation of conflicts of interest of public officials. The act makes a knowing or willful violation of its provisions a misdemeanor.

This bill would prohibit an elected officer from employment by any other elected officer with the same constituency, as provided. The bill would not apply to statewide elected officers. By expanding the scope of an existing crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

The Political Reform Act of 1974, an initiative measure, provides that the Legislature may amend the act to further the acts purposes upon a ²/₃ vote of each house of the Legislature and compliance with specified procedural requirements.

This bill would declare that it furthers the purposes of the act.

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 251

Author:(Newman)

As Amended Ver:January 3, 2024

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Increases the maximum fine for knowingly making a false statement of a material fact in a candidate's statement from $1,000 to $5,000.

Major Provisions

Increases the maximum fine, from $1,000 to $5,000, for a candidate in an election, or an incumbent in a recall election, who is convicted of violating the law for knowingly making a false statement of a material fact in a candidate statement with the intent to mislead the voters in connection with the candidate's campaign for nomination or election to a nonpartisan office.

COMMENTS

Existing law gives candidates for local nonpartisan office the option of submitting a candidate's statement that appears in the local voter information guide. Candidate statements may include the candidate's name, age, and occupation and a brief description, of no more than 200 words, of the candidate's education and qualifications expressed by the candidate themself, but are prohibited from including the party affiliation of the candidate, or membership or activity in any partisan political organizations.

During the 10 calendar day public examination period, any voter of the jurisdiction in which the election is being held, or the elections official, may seek a writ of mandate or an injunction requiring any or all of the material in the statement to be amended or deleted. However, a peremptory writ of mandate or an injunction is issued only upon clear and convincing proof that the material in question is false, misleading, or inconsistent with the law, and that an issuance of the writ or injunction will not substantially interfere with the printing or distribution of official election materials as provided by law.

This bill increases the maximum fine for a candidate who knowingly makes a false statement in their candidate statement with the intent to mislead the voters about their qualifications from $1,000 to $5,000. It is unclear whether an increased fine will deter this behavior. According to the Senate Public Safety Committee's analysis of this bill, there are a number of penalty assessments that are applied to every fine in order to raise funds for various purposes. As a result, a $1,000 fine would be approximately $4,100 with penalty assessments, and a $5,000 fine (which this bill proposes) would be approximately $20,000 with penalty assessments.

According to the Author

"Current law provides various guidelines for which a candidate for elected public office must abide when forming their candidate ballot statement. If a candidate intentionally falsifies information on their ballot statement with the intent to mislead voters, the candidate may be punished by a fine not to exceed $1,000. This fine has not been adjusted since 1993. Many other election crimes carry a much higher penalty in order to deter these crimes from happening. SB 251 will ensure voters and taxpayers are protected against candidates for public office who intentionally misrepresent their background and mislead voters. Raising the maximum fine from $1,000 to $5,000 will provide a stronger deterrent for candidates who intentionally mislead voters. SB 251 is a good governance bill that will help protect our fair and open elections in California."

Arguments in Support

In support of this bill, the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) writes: "Intentional false statements by candidates undermine the will of voters and heighten the risk that unqualified candidates are elected to office, specifically the role of County Auditors. Local elected officials serve an essential and often unappreciated role in their communities. The role of a county auditor, for example, performs vital functions including budget control, financial reporting, and managing disbursements and receipts. Due to the importance of that role, CSAC was proud to support AB 910 (Wilson) in 2023, which provided much-needed clarity for the qualifications for the office of county auditor and expanded the documentation that must be submitted to a county elections official to be a legal candidate for the office. SB 251 builds on those policies and further protects against the dangers of unqualified candidates being elected to office.

"Further, the Elections Code Section that includes the fixed penalty amount of $1,000 has not been updated since 1994 (Statutes of 1994, Chapter 920). The benefits of holding public office may simply outweigh the costs of the existing fine for an unscrupulous individual looking to advance their own interests at the expense of the communities they are intended to serve. While increasing the fine will not guarantee bad behavior will cease, it will help to ensure that our candidates for local office are qualified and properly vetted by their communities."

Arguments in Opposition

None received.

FISCAL COMMENTS

None. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the Legislative Counsel.

VOTES

SENATE FLOOR: 36-0-4

YES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Atkins, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballero, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk

ABS, ABST OR NV: Ashby, Becker, Limón, Niello

ASM ELECTIONS: 8-0-0

YES: Pellerin, Lackey, Bennett, Berman, Cervantes, Essayli, Low, Weber

UPDATED

VERSION: January 3, 2024

CONSULTANT: Nichole Becker / ELECTIONS / (916) 319-2094 FN: 0003539

Date of Hearing: June 12, 2024

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS

Gail Pellerin, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 251

Author:(Newman) – As Amended Ver:January 3, 2024

SENATE VOTE: 36-0

SUBJECT: Candidates’ statements: false statements.

SUMMARY: Increases the maximum fine for knowingly making a false statement of a material fact in a candidate’s statement from $1,000 to $5,000. Specifically, this bill increases the maximum fine, from $1,000 to $5,000, for a candidate in an election, or an incumbent in a recall election, who is convicted of violating the law for knowingly making a false statement of a material fact in a candidate statement with the intent to mislead the voters in connection with the candidate’s campaign for nomination or election to a nonpartisan office.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Permits a candidate for nonpartisan elective office in any local agency, including any city, county, city and county, or district, to prepare a candidate’s statement to appear in the county voter information guide. Permits the statement to include the name, age, and occupation of the candidate and a brief description, of no more than 200 words, of the candidate’s education and qualifications expressed by the candidate themself. Prohibits the statement from including the party affiliation of the candidate, or membership or activity in partisan political organizations. (Elections Code §13307)
2. Allows an officer whose recall is being sought to file a statement with the elections official to be sent to each voter, together with the voter information guide. (Elections Code §11327)
3. Requires a candidate’s statement to be limited to a recitation of the candidate’s own personal background and qualifications, and prohibits the statement from making reference to other candidates for that office or to another candidate’s qualifications, character, or activities and prohibits an elections official from printing, posting on an Internet Web site, or circulating any statement that the elections official determines is not so limited or that includes any reference prohibited. (Elections Code §13308)
   
4. Requires that a copy of the candidates’ statements be made available for public examination for a period of 10 calendar days immediately following the filing deadline for submission of those documents, as specified. (Elections Code §13313)
5. Allows any voter of the jurisdiction in which the election is being held, or the elections official, to seek a writ of mandate or an injunction requiring any or all of the material in the candidate’s statements to be amended or deleted during the 10-calendar-day public examination period. Requires the writ of mandate or injunction request to be filed no later than the end of the 10-calendar-day public examination period. Provides that a peremptory writ of mandate or an injunction shall be issued only upon clear and convincing proof that the material in question is false, misleading, or inconsistent with the requirements of existing law, and that issuance of the writ or injunction will not substantially interfere with the printing or distribution of official election materials. (Elections Code §13313)
6. Requires the elections official to send each voter a sample ballot and a voter information guide which contains the written statements of each candidate. (Elections Code §§13307, 13307.5; Government Code §85601)
   
7. Provides that any candidate in an election or incumbent in a recall election who knowingly makes a false statement of a material fact in a candidate’s statement, with the intent to mislead the voters in connection with their campaign for nomination or election to a nonpartisan office, is punishable by a fine not to exceed $1,000. (Elections Code §18351)

FISCAL EFFECT: None. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the Legislative Counsel.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose of the Bill: According to the author:

Current law provides various guidelines for which a candidate for elected public office must abide when forming their candidate ballot statement. If a candidate intentionally falsifies information on their ballot statement with the intent to mislead voters, the candidate may be punished by a fine not to exceed $1,000. This fine has not been adjusted since 1993. Many other election crimes carry a much higher penalty in order to deter these crimes from happening.

SB 251 will ensure voters and taxpayers are protected against candidates for public office who intentionally misrepresent their background and mislead voters. Raising the maximum fine from $1,000 to $5,000 will provide a stronger deterrent for candidates who intentionally mislead voters. SB 251 is a good governance bill that will help protect our fair and open elections in California.

1. Candidate Statements: Existing law gives candidates for local nonpartisan office the option of submitting a candidate's statement that appears in the local voter information guide. Candidate statements may include the candidate's name, age, and occupation and a brief description, of no more than 200 words, of the candidate's education and qualifications expressed by the candidate themself, but are prohibited from including the party affiliation of the candidate, or membership or activity in any partisan political organizations.

Elections official are required to make a copy of the candidate statement available for public examination in the elections official’s office for a period of 10 calendar days immediately following the filing deadline for submission of those documents. During the 10 calendar day public examination period, any voter of the jurisdiction in which the election is being held, or the elections official, may seek a writ of mandate or an injunction requiring any or all of the material in the statement to be amended or deleted. However, a peremptory writ of mandate or an injunction is issued only upon clear and convincing proof that the material in question is false, misleading, or inconsistent with the law, and that an issuance of the writ or injunction will not substantially interfere with the printing or distribution of official election materials as provided by law.

This bill increases the maximum fine for a candidate who knowingly makes a false statement in their candidate statement with the intent to mislead the voters about their qualifications from $1,000 to $5,000. It is unclear whether an increased fine will deter this behavior. According to the Senate Public Safety Committee’s analysis of this bill, there are a number of penalty assessments that are applied to every fine in order to raise funds for various purposes. As a result, a $1,000 fine would be approximately $4,100 with penalty assessments, and a $5,000 fine (which this bill proposes) would be approximately $20,000 with penalty assessments.

1. Recent Examples: According to the author, current law does not contain a strong enough deterrent to intentional misrepresentation on a candidate statement. As evidence for the need for this bill, the author points to a candidate for the Contra Costa Board of Education who was found to have misrepresented his educational qualifications on his candidate statement while running for office in 2014. In 2015 the Contra Costa District Attorney’s office started an investigation about whether the candidate had knowingly made a false statement in his candidate statement. In 2016, the candidate made a statement in court saying that he had indeed incorrectly stated his educational qualifications in his original candidate statement, but had done so believing the statements to be true. The candidate was sentenced to twenty hours of community service.

Additionally, in 2022 multiple media outlets reported that then- United States (US) Representative for New York’s 3rd Congressional District George Santos was under investigation and faced numerous allegations of criminal wrongdoing, including wire fraud, money laundering, theft of public funds, and making materially false statements to the House of Representatives, among others. Last October, the US Department of Justice filed a 23-count superseding indictment charging George Santos with one count of conspiracy to commit offenses against the US, two counts of wire fraud, two counts of making materially false statements to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), two counts of falsifying records submitted to obstruct the FEC, two counts of aggravated identity theft, and one count of access device fraud, in addition to the seven counts of wire fraud, three counts of money laundering, one count of theft of public funds, and two counts of making materially false statements to the US House of Representatives that were charged in an original indictment. Furthermore, former US Representative Santos was expelled from the House of Representatives over criminal corruption charges and accusations of misspending campaign money.

1. Arguments in Support: In support, the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) writes:
   

Intentional false statements by candidates undermine the will of voters and heighten the risk that unqualified candidates are elected to office, specifically the role of County Auditors. Local elected officials serve an essential and often unappreciated role in their communities. The role of a county auditor, for example, performs vital functions including budget control, financial reporting, and managing disbursements and receipts. Due to the importance of that role, CSAC was proud to support AB 910 (Wilson) in 2023, which provided much-needed clarity for the qualifications for the office of county auditor and expanded the documentation that must be submitted to a county elections official to be a legal candidate for the office. SB 251 builds on those policies and further protects against the dangers of unqualified candidates being elected to office.

Further, the Elections Code Section that includes the fixed penalty amount of $1,000 has not been updated since 1994 (Statutes of 1994, Chapter 920). The benefits of holding public office may simply outweigh the costs of the existing fine for an unscrupulous individual looking to advance their own interests at the expense of the communities they are intended to serve. While increasing the fine will not guarantee bad behavior will cease, it will help to ensure that our candidates for local office are qualified and properly vetted by their communities.

1. Previous Legislation: SB 248 (Newman) of 2023 would have required any candidate for elective office to submit a candidate experience disclosure form to disclose their prior education, work, and military service history, as specified. SB 248 was held on suspense in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
   
   AB 894 (Frazier) of 2017 was substantially similar to this bill. AB 894 was vetoed by Governor Brown, who wrote in his veto message, “I am not convinced this is a widespread problem in California elections or that this bill would be much of a deterrent. The conventional response to resume puffing is exposure by the press or political attack by the opposition.”

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Association of Clerks and Election Officials

California Association of County Treasurers and Tax Collectors

California State Association of Counties

League of California Cities

Opposition

None on file.

Analysis Prepared by: Nichole Becker / ELECTIONS / (916) 319-2094

 CONSENT  

Bill No: SB 251

Author: Newman (D)

Amended: 1/3/24

Vote: 21

PRIOR SENATE VOTES NOT RELEVANT

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 5-0, 1/9/24

AYES: Wahab, Seyarto, Bradford, Skinner, Wiener

SENATE ELECTIONS & C.A. COMMITTEE: 7-0, 1/9/24

AYES: Glazer, Nguyen, Allen, Durazo, Menjivar, Newman, Umberg

SUBJECT: Candidates’ statements: false statements

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill increases the maximum fine for knowingly making a false statement of a material fact in a candidate’s statement from $1,000 to $5,000.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Permits each candidate for nonpartisan elective office in any local agency, including any city, county, city and county, or district, to prepare a candidate’s statement on an appropriate form provided by the elections official. Provides that the statement may include the name, age, and occupation of the candidate and a brief description, of no more than 200 words, of the candidate’s education and qualifications expressed by the candidate themself. Permits the governing body of the local agency to authorize an increase in the limitations on words for the statement from 200 to 400 words. Prohibits the candidate’s statement from including the party affiliation of the candidate, or membership or activity in partisan political organizations.
2. Requires that a copy of the candidates’ statements be made available for public examination for a period of 10 calendar days immediately following the filing deadline for submission of those documents, as specified.
3. Provides that any voter of the jurisdiction in which the election is being held, or the elections official, may seek a writ of mandate or an injunction requiring any or all of the material in the candidates statements to be amended or deleted during the 10-calendar-day public examination period. Requires that the writ of mandate or injunction request be filed no later than the end of the 10-calendar-day public examination period.
4. Provides that a candidate in an election, or an incumbent in a recall election, who knowingly makes a false statement of a material fact in a candidate’s statement, is punishable by a fine not to exceed $1,000.

This bill increases the maximum fine for knowingly making a false statement of a material fact in a candidate’s statement from $1,000 to $5,000.

Background

Public Examination of Candidate’s Statements. The elections official must make a copy of candidate statements available for public examination in the elections official’s office for a period of 10 calendar days immediately following the filing deadline for submission of those documents. During the 10-calendar-day public examination period, any voter of the jurisdiction in which the election is being held, or the elections official, may seek a writ of mandate or an injunction requiring any or all of the material in the statements to be amended or deleted.

A peremptory writ of mandate or an injunction shall issue only upon clear and convincing proof that the material in question is false, misleading, or inconsistent with the requirements of this chapter, and that issuance of the writ or injunction will not substantially interfere with the printing or distribution of official election materials as provided by law.

Previous Effort. AB 894 (Frazier, 2017) sought to increase the maximum fine for knowingly making a false statement of a material fact in a candidate’s statement. The introduced version removed the $1,000 maximum fine and instead required a candidate or incumbent convicted of knowingly making a false statement of a material fact in a candidate’s statement to forfeit the office for which the candidate’s statement was prepared. Additionally, if a special election was to be held to fill the vacancy in the office caused by the forfeiture, the candidate or incumbent would have been required to reimburse the jurisdiction for any expenses authorized and necessarily incurred in the preparation for, and conduct of, the special election.

AB 894 went through various iterations that included forfeiting the office for which the candidate’s statement was prepared along with a maximum $1,000 fine and increasing the maximum fine from $1,000 to $10,000. When the AB 894 passed the Legislature, the bill increased the maximum fine from $1,000 to $5,000.

Governor Brown vetoed AB 894. Below is Governor Brown’s veto message:

I am returning Assembly Bill 894 without my signature.

This bill increases the maximum fine for knowingly making a false statement of a material fact in a candidate’s statement from $1,000 to $5,000.

I am not convinced this is a widespread problem in California elections or that this bill would be much of a deterrent. The conventional response to resume puffing is exposure by the press or political attack by the opposition.

Comments

1. Author’s statement. According to the author, “Current law provides various guidelines for which a candidate for elected public office must abide when forming their candidate ballot statement. If a candidate intentionally falsifies information on their ballot statement with the intent to mislead voters, the candidate may be punished by a fine not to exceed $1,000. This fine has not been adjusted since 1993. Many other election related crimes carry a much higher penalty in order to deter these crimes from happening.

“SB 251 will ensure voters and taxpayers are protected against candidates for public office who intentionally misrepresent their background and mislead voters. Raising the maximum fine from $1,000 to $5,000 will provide a stronger deterrent for candidates who intentionally mislead voters. SB 251 will help protect our fair and open elections in California.”

1. Prior Version. The prior version of this bill would have prohibited an elected officer from being employed by another elected officer with the same constituency. That version of the bill failed passage in the Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee by a vote of 2-0 (four votes were needed for passage).

Related/Prior Legislation

AB 894 (Frazier, 2017) would have increased the maximum fine for knowingly making a false statement of a material fact in a candidate’s statement from $1,000 to $5,000. AB 894 was vetoed by Governor Brown. Governor Brown’s veto message stated, “I am not convinced this is a widespread problem in California elections or that this bill would be much of a deterrent. The conventional response to resume puffing is exposure by the press or political attack by the opposition.”

AB 1021 (Rogers, Chapter 57, Statutes of 1982) provided that a candidate in an election, or an incumbent in a recall election, who knowingly makes a false statement of a material fact in a candidate’s statement, is punishable by a fine not to exceed $1,000.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 1/9/24)

California State Association of Counties

OPPOSITION: (Verified 1/9/24)

None received

Prepared by: Scott Matsumoto / E. & C.A. / (916) 651-4106

1/11/24 11:12:34

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

ELECTIONS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS

Senator Steven Glazer, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Bill No: 251 Hearing Date: 1/9/24

Subject:

DIGEST

This bill increases the maximum fine for knowingly making a false statement of a material fact in a candidate’s statement from $1,000 to $5,000.

ANALYSIS

Existing law:

1. Permits each candidate for nonpartisan elective office in any local agency, including any city, county, city and county, or district, to prepare a candidate’s statement on an appropriate form provided by the elections official. Provides that the statement may include the name, age, and occupation of the candidate and a brief description, of no more than 200 words, of the candidate’s education and qualifications expressed by the candidate themself. Permits the governing body of the local agency to authorize an increase in the limitations on words for the statement from 200 to 400 words. Prohibits the candidate’s statement from including the party affiliation of the candidate, or membership or activity in partisan political organizations.
2. Requires that a copy of the candidates’ statements be made available for public examination for a period of 10 calendar days immediately following the filing deadline for submission of those documents, as specified.
3. Provides that any voter of the jurisdiction in which the election is being held, or the elections official, may seek a writ of mandate or an injunction requiring any or all of the material in the candidates statements to be amended or deleted during the 10-calendar-day public examination period. Requires that the writ of mandate or injunction request be filed no later than the end of the 10-calendar-day public examination period.
4. Provides that a candidate in an election, or an incumbent in a recall election, who knowingly makes a false statement of a material fact in a candidate’s statement, is punishable by a fine not to exceed $1,000.

This bill:

1. Increases the maximum fine for knowingly making a false statement of a material fact in a candidate’s statement from $1,000 to $5,000.

BACKGROUND

Public Examination of Candidate’s Statements. The elections official must make a copy of candidate statements available for public examination in the elections official’s office for a period of 10 calendar days immediately following the filing deadline for submission of those documents. During the 10-calendar-day public examination period, any voter of the jurisdiction in which the election is being held, or the elections official, may seek a writ of mandate or an injunction requiring any or all of the material in the statements to be amended or deleted.

A peremptory writ of mandate or an injunction shall issue only upon clear and convincing proof that the material in question is false, misleading, or inconsistent with the requirements of this chapter, and that issuance of the writ or injunction will not substantially interfere with the printing or distribution of official election materials as provided by law.

Previous Effort. AB 894 (Frazier) of 2017 sought to increase the maximum fine for knowingly making a false statement of a material fact in a candidate’s statement. The introduced version removed the $1,000 maximum fine and instead required a candidate or incumbent convicted of knowingly making a false statement of a material fact in a candidate’s statement to forfeit the office for which the candidate’s statement was prepared. Additionally, if a special election was to be held to fill the vacancy in the office caused by the forfeiture, the candidate or incumbent would have been required to reimburse the jurisdiction for any expenses authorized and necessarily incurred in the preparation for, and conduct of, the special election.

AB 894 went through various iterations that included forfeiting the office for which the candidate’s statement was prepared along with a maximum $1,000 fine and increasing the maximum fine from $1,000 to $10,000. When the AB 894 passed the Legislature, the bill increased the maximum fine from $1,000 to $5,000.

Governor Brown vetoed AB 894. Below is Governor Brown’s veto message:

I am returning Assembly Bill 894 without my signature.

This bill increases the maximum fine for knowingly making a false statement of a material fact in a candidate’s statement from $1,000 to $5,000.

I am not convinced this is a widespread problem in California elections or that this bill would be much of a deterrent. The conventional response to resume puffing is exposure by the press or political attack by the opposition.

COMMENTS

1. According to the author: Current law provides various guidelines for which a candidate for elected public office must abide when forming their candidate ballot statement. If a candidate intentionally falsifies information on their ballot statement with the intent to mislead voters, the candidate may be punished by a fine not to exceed $1,000. This fine has not been adjusted since 1993. Many other election related crimes carry a much higher penalty in order to deter these crimes from happening.

SB 251 will ensure voters and taxpayers are protected against candidates for public office who intentionally misrepresent their background and mislead voters. Raising the maximum fine from $1,000 to $5,000 will provide a stronger deterrent for candidates who intentionally mislead voters. SB 251 will help protect our fair and open elections in California.

1. Previous Version. The prior version of this bill would have prohibited an elected officer from being employed by another elected officer with the same constituency. That version of the bill failed passage in this committee by a vote of 2-0 (four votes were needed for passage).
2. Double Referral. Since SB 251 was amended to reflect the current language, this bill was double-referred to the Committee on Public Safety.

RELATED/PRIOR LEGISLATION

AB 1021 (Rogers), Chapter 57, Statutes of 1982, provided that a candidate in an election, or an incumbent in a recall election, who knowingly makes a false statement of a material fact in a candidate’s statement, is punishable by a fine not to exceed $1,000.

AB 894 (Frazier) of 2017 would have increased the maximum fine for knowingly making a false statement of a material fact in a candidate’s statement from $1,000 to $5,000. AB 894 was vetoed by Governor Brown. Governor Brown’s veto message stated, “I am not convinced this is a widespread problem in California elections or that this bill would be much of a deterrent. The conventional response to resume puffing is exposure by the press or political attack by the opposition.”

POSITIONS

Sponsor: Author

Support: None received

Oppose: None received

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Senator Aisha Wahab, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Bill No: SB 251 Hearing Date: January 9, 2024

Subject: Candidates’ statements: false statements

HISTORY

Source: Author

Prior Legislation: AB 894 (Frazier) Vetoed 2017

Support: Unknown

Opposition: None known

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to increase the penalty for knowingly make a false statement with the intent to mislead voters in connection with a campaign for office from $1,000 to $5,000.

Existing law provides for an additional "state penalty" of $10 for every $10 or fraction thereof, upon every fine, penalty or forfeiture imposed and collected by the courts for criminal offenses including all offenses, except parking offenses, involving the Vehicle Code. Of the money collected, 70 percent is transmitted to the state and 30 percent remains with the county. The state portion of the money collected from the penalty is distributed in specified percentages among: the Fish and Game Preservation Fund (0.33 percent); the Restitution Fund (32.02 percent); the Peace Officers Training Fund (23.99 percent); the Driver Training Penalty Assessment Fund (25.70 percent); the Corrections Training Fund (7.88 percent); the Local Public Prosecutors and Public Defenders Fund (0.78 percent, not to exceed $850,000 per year); the Victim-Witness Assistance Fund (8.64 percent); and the Traumatic Brain Injury Fund (0.66 percent). (Penal Code § 1464.)

Existing law provides for an additional county penalty assessment of $7 for every $10 or fraction thereof, upon every fine, penalty, or forfeiture imposed and collected by the courts for criminal offenses, including all offenses involving a violation of the Vehicle Code or any local ordinance adopted pursuant to the Vehicle Code except parking offenses. The money collected shall be placed in any of the following funds if established by a County Board of Supervisors: Courthouse Construction Fund; a Criminal Justice Facilities Construction Fund; Automated Fingerprint Identification Fund; Emergency Medical Services Fund; DNA Identification Fund. (Government Code § 76000 et seq.)

Existing law, as a part of the 2002-03 Budget Act, the Legislature imposed what was to be a temporary state surcharge of 20 percent on every base fine collected by the court. All money collected shall be deposited in the General Fund. This section was made permanent in the 2007 Budget. (Penal Code § 1465.7.)

Existing law established the "State Court Facilities Construction Fund" and added a state court construction penalty assessment in an amount up to $5 for every $10 or fraction thereof, upon every fine, penalty, or forfeiture imposed and collected by the courts for criminal offenses. The variation in the amount is dependent on the amount collected by the county for deposit into the local Courthouse Construction Fund established pursuant to Government Code Section 76100. As a result, the penalty assessment ranges from $0.00 for every $10 in two counties to the full $5 for every $10 in nine counties. This provision took effect on January 1, 2003. (Government Code § 70372.)

Existing law, established by Prop 69, Nov. 2004, levies a $1 penalty assessment on every $10 in fines and forfeitures resulting from criminal and traffic offenses and dedicates these revenues to state and local governments for DNA databank implementation purposes - the state will receive 70% of these funds in the first two years, 50% in the third year and 25% annually thereafter. The remainder will go to local governments. (Government Code § 76104.6)

Existing law provides that in addition to the amount in Government Code Section 76104.6, there shall be an additional state-only penalty of $4 for every $10 on every fine penalty or forfeiture imposed by the courts for all criminal offenses, including all offences involving a violation of the Vehicle Code or any local ordinance adopted pursuant to the Vehicle Code. (Government Code 76104.7)

Existing law creates an additional penalty assessment of $2 on every $10 to support emergency medical services. (Government Code § 76000.5)

Existing law provides for an additional $4 on every Vehicle Code violation or local ordinance for the Emergency Medical Air Transportation Act Fund. (Government Code § 76000.10)

Existing law provides for a flat fee of $40 on every conviction for a criminal offense to ensure adequate funding for court security. (Penal Code § 1465.8.)

Existing law imposes a $35 court facilities assessment on every conviction for a criminal offense including a traffic offense, excluding parking offenses, and on any local ordinance adopted pursuant to the Vehicle Code. (Government Code § 70373)

Existing law provides that if a court conducts night or weekend sessions then it may impose $1 to every fine, forfeiture and traffic violator school fee imposed. (Vehicle Code § 42006)

Existing law provides that a court that uses a traffic assistance program may charge a traffic violator fee for any traffic infraction. (Vehicle Code § 11205.2)

Existing law provides that if a person is convicted of a misdemeanor they shall pay $150 in restitution in addition to any fines, forfeitures etc. (Penal Code §1202.4)

Existing law provides that if a person is convicted of any violation of the Fish and Game Code they shall pay an additional penalty of $15 that shall be deposited in the Fish and Game Preservation Fund. (Fish and Game Code § 12021)

Existing law provides that any candidate in an election or incumbent in a recall election who knowingly makes a false statement of a material fact in a candidate’s statement, prepared pursuant to Section 11327 or 13307, with the intent to mislead the voters in connection with his or her campaign for nomination or election to a nonpartisan office is punishable by a fine not to exceed $1,000 (approximately $4,100 with penalty assessments) (Elections Code § 18351)

This bill increases the penalty to $5,000, (approximately $20,000 with penalty assessments)

COMMENTS

1. Need for This Bill

According to the author:

Current law provides various guidelines for which a candidate for elected public office must abide when forming their candidate ballot statement. If a candidate intentionally falsifies information on their ballot statement with the intent to mislead voters, the candidate may be punished by a fine not to exceed $1,000. This fine has not been adjusted since 1993. Many other election crimes carry a much higher penalty in order to deter these crimes from happening. 

SB 251 will ensure voters and taxpayers are protected against candidates for public office who intentionally misrepresent their background and mislead voters. Raising the maximum fine from $1,000 to $5,000 will provide a stronger deterrent for candidates who intentionally mislead voters. SB 251 will help protect our fair and open elections in California.

2. Increase of Penalty

This bill increases the penalty for knowing making a false statement of material fact in the candidate’s statement with the intent to mislead the voters in connection with his or her campaign for nomination or election to office from $1,000 (approximately $4,100 with penalty assessments) to $5,000 (approximately $20,000 with penalty assessments).

3. Penalty Assessments

Until the budget year 2002-2003, there was 170% in penalty assessments applied to every fine. Starting with the 2002-2003 a number of penalty assessments were added to raise funds for various purposes. By 2008, the penalty assessments rose to 270%. The current penalty assessments are approximately 310% with an additional $79 in flat fees.

Thus, when the $1,000 fine adopted by this statute was added in 1993 the actual fine imposed was $2,700. Today that same fine would be $4,100. Should this fine be increased to $10,000 which would be over $40,000 with penalty assessments?

4. Veto to AB 894

In 2017 Governor Brown vetoed a bill identical to this one stating:

This bill increases the maximum fine for knowingly making a false statement of a material fact in a candidate's statement from $1,000 to $5,000.

I am not convinced this is a widespread problem in California elections or that this bill would be much of a deterrent. The conventional response to resume puffing is exposure by the press or political attack by the opposition.

-- END –

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

ELECTIONS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS

Senator Steven Glazer, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Bill No: SB Hearing Date: 4/18/23

Subject: Political Reform Act of 1974: elected officers: conflicts of interest

DIGEST

This bill prohibits an elected officer from being employed by another elected officer with the same constituency.

ANALYSIS

Existing law:

1. Creates the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), and makes it responsible for the impartial, effective administration and implementation of the Political Reform Act of 1974 (PRA).
2. Prohibits a public official at any level of state or local government from making, participating in making, or in any way attempting to use the public official’s official position to influence a governmental decision in which the official knows or has reason to know the official has a financial interest. Specifies that this provision does not prevent any public official from making or participating in the making of a governmental decision to the extent the official’s participation is legally required for the action or decision to be made. Provides that the fact that an official’s vote is needed to break a tie does not make the official’s participation legally required for purposes of this provision.
3. Provides that a public official has a financial interest in a decision if it is reasonably foreseeable that the decision will have a material financial effect distinguishable from its effect on the public generally, on the official, a member of the official’s immediate family, or on any of the following:
   1. Any business entity in which the public official has a direct or indirect investment worth $2,000 or more.
   2. Any real property in which the public official has a direct or indirect interest worth $2,000 or more.
   3. Any source of income, except gifts or loans by a commercial lending institution made in the regular course of business on terms available to the public without regard to official status, aggregating $500 or more in value provided or promised to, received by, the public official within 12 months prior to the time when the decision is made.
   4. Any business entity in which the public official is a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee, or holds any position of management.
   5. Any donor of, or any intermediary or agent for a donor of, a gift or gifts aggregating $250 or more in value provided to, received by, or promised to the public official within 12 months prior to the time when the decision is made. The amount of the value of gifts specified shall be adjusted biennially by the FPPC to equal the same amount determined by the FPPC pursuant to a specified provision of the PRA.
   6. For purposes of this section, indirect investment or interest means any investment or interest owned by the spouse or dependent child of a public official, by an agent on behalf of a public official, or by a business entity or trust in which the official, the official’s agents, spouse, and dependent children own directly, indirectly, or beneficially a 10-percent interest or greater.
4. Requires every state and local governmental agency to adopt and promulgate a conflicts of interest (COI) code. Requires each COI code to include a specific enumeration of the positions within the agency, with the exception of certain high-ranking public officials who are identified in statute, that involve the making or participation in the making of decisions which may foreseeably have a material effect on any financial interest. Requires each person who holds such an enumerated position to file periodic statements of economic interests (SEIs) disclosing his or her financial interests in accordance with the provisions of the COI Code.

This bill:

1. Prohibits an elected officer from being employed by any other elected officer with the same constituency.
2. Specifies that “elected officer” does not include a person holding a statewide elective office, as defined.
3. Specifies that elected officers share a constituency if any individual is represented by both officers.
4. Provides that an elected officer may be employed by any other elected officer with the same constituency if that employment began on or before December 31, 2023.

BACKGROUND

Political Reform Act of 1974. In 1974, California voters passed Proposition 9, an initiative commonly known as the PRA. Proposition 9 created the FPPC and codified significant restrictions and prohibitions on candidates, officeholders, and lobbyists. The Legislature is permitted to amend the PRA, but the amendments must further the purposes of the PRA and requires a two-thirds vote of both houses of the Legislature.

Statements of Economic Interests. As part of the PRA's comprehensive scheme to prevent conflicts of interest by state and local public officials, existing law identifies certain elected and other high-level state and local officials who must file SEIs. Similarly, candidates for those positions must file SEIs. Other state and local public officials and employees are required to file SEIs if the position they hold is designated in an agency's conflict of interest code. A position is designated in an agency's conflict of interest code when the position entails the making or participation in the making of governmental decisions that may foreseeably have a material financial effect on the decision maker's financial interests.

The information that must be disclosed on an SEI, and the location at which an SEI is filed, varies depending on the position held by the individual. Although there are some exceptions, individuals who are required to file an SEI typically must file that document with the agency of which they are an elected official or by which they are employed.

Holding Two Positions. According to the FPPC, nothing in the PRA or its conflict of interest rules prevents a public official from seeking or holding a particular employment position, whether public or private. A conflict of interest may arise only after a person takes office and is subsequently dependent on that person’s conduct. A conflict of interest does not prohibit a person from seeking or holding office. Rather, the conflict of interest provisions of the Act prohibit a public official from participating in a decision that will have a financial effect on his or her financial interests. This prohibition is applied on a case-by-case basis.

Incompatible Offices.  Government Code Section 1099 codifies the common law prohibition against the holding of “incompatible offices.” This doctrine restricts the ability of public officials to hold two different public offices simultaneously if the offices have overlapping and conflicting public duties. For this section to apply, each position must be a “public office.”

Pursuant to Section 1099, a person may not simultaneously hold two public offices if: either of the offices exercises a supervisory, auditing or removal power over the other office or body, there is a significant clash of duties or loyalties between the offices, or there are public policy considerations that make it improper. The consequence of holding an incompatible office is that the person is “deemed to have forfeited the first office upon acceding to the second.” (Gov. Code Section 1099(b).) In addition, the California Constitution has provisions addressing the holding of two government positions.

The doctrine of incompatible offices is outside the jurisdiction of the FPPC, but the Attorney General's office has issued numerous opinions on the subject which are available on the Attorney General’s web site.

COMMENTS

1. According to the author: Throughout the state of California, service as a local elected official—on city councils, school boards, community college boards, etc.— generally entails compensation only on a part-time or stipend basis. Consequently, the vast majority of local elected officials depend on other types of work for the bulk of their earnings. This is the natural byproduct of the design of our governing systems by their framers, who viewed participation in the public sphere as an act of civic altruism and generosity, where the privilege of service was assumed to be the main enticement and reward. Under this construct, able and civic-minded citizens would be inspired to canvas their neighbors and stand for election and, having been selected, find the time in their otherwise busy lives to attend to the community’s civic affairs within the jurisdiction of a particular office. Whether this is a good or effective basis, in the current day and age, for sourcing talent to fill the daises of California’s local governing bodies is a matter of debate, but it is nevertheless the framework in which public service currently takes place.

What the framers of this system did not have in mind, though, were scenarios where a person would serve in one local elective office while simultaneously serving as the paid staff for another elected official with overlapping constituents. To do so is fairly self-evidently problematic, since it is bound to create situations characterized by actual or perceived conflict of interest at any time.

In California government offices, it’s fairly commonplace to find members of an elected official’s professional staff who are simultaneously serving as elected officials in their own right (e.g., a legislative district office staffer who is also an elected member of a local city council, school board, or water board). While this has long been a standard feature of legislative and county supervisorial staffs, this practice presents profound issues with respect to conflicted interests, particularly from the perspective of constituents reasonably concerned about their ability to receive a fair hearing and impartial service from those tasked with dutifully serving them in the public sphere.

In order to provide the public with the assurance of unconflicted representation and service, SB 251 would prohibit any full-time, salaried elected official in California from employing any other elected official with common constituents as a member of their paid staff.

1. Working For or Directly Hired? SB 251 prohibits an elected officer from being employed by any other elected officer with the same constituency. This could include a multitude of scenarios. For example, someone who is elected to a local parks board may work for the county Sheriff. Under the bill, the employee may need to find other employment because they would be an elected official who is employed by another elected official with an overlapping constituency. The author and committee should consider if the bill should be narrowed to only affect employees are elected officials who are directly hired and employed by another elected official.
2. Recusals. The author and the committee should consider whether the elected official employed by an elected official who has an overlapping constituency should recuse themselves from voting on issues that they have worked or advocated for on behalf of their employer (i.e. the elected official employing an elected official).
3. Voters Have the Final Say. At the end of the day, voters have the ability to keep someone in office or replace them with someone new. Voters may decide their vote for a variety of reasons. With this, as well as many other issues on the minds of voters, they ultimately decide if there is an inherent conflict by having an elected official be employed by another elected official and if that conflict warrants keeping the incumbent or elected a replacement.
4. Argument in Support. In a letter supporting SB 251, the League of Women Voters of California stated, in part, the following:

The League of Women Voters seeks to promote an open governmental system that is representative, accountable, and responsive, and we support an efficient, effective, and equitable balance of responsibility and authority among the levels of government with accountability to the public. We support SB 251 to limit conflicts of interest, or the appearance of them, on the part of elected officials.

1. Argument in Opposition. In a letter opposing SB 251, the California Contract Cities Association stated, in part, the following:

It is our understanding that the legislation’s goal is to address conflict of interest issues. However, in its current form, the PRA already provides comprehensive regulation in regards to the conflicts of interest of public officials. Specifically, Chapter 7 of the PRA outlines many detailed requirements to reduce conflicts of interest such as disclosure requirements and postgovernmental employment restrictions. With the existing requirements in mind, it is our position that SB 251 unnecessarily attempts to broaden the scope of the PRA in a way that unfairly targets local elected officers, as state officers are explicitly exempt from the proposed legislation. Further, as written SB 251 is very broad, and therefore we are concerned the legislation could have vast, negative impacts on municipal employment in cities across the State of California.

RELATED/PRIOR LEGISLATION

AB 10 (Gatto) of 2015 would have, among other provisions, required a public official who holds an office listed in Government Code Section 87200 to disclose on his or her SEI, as specified, each governmental decision for which a financial interest resulted in the official's disqualification from making, participating in making, or in any way attempting to use his or her official position to influence a governmental decision. AB 10 was vetoed by Governor Brown. In the Governor Brown’s veto message, the Governor stated, in part, the following:

The Political Reform Act already requires public officials to disclose their income, investments and business activities with enough particularity so that conflicts of interest can be identified. This bill adds yet more complexity to existing reporting requirements without commensurate benefit, and I am not convinced that this bill will provide more useful information to the public.

POSITIONS

Sponsor: Author

Support: League of Women Voters of California

Oppose: California Cities

California Contract Cities Association

California School Boards Association

-- END --