Senate Standing Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments

Good morning. Good morning, everybody. The Senate Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments will come to order. I see we don't have a quorum just yet, but I want to welcome the public and those who are here in person and those who are connecting with us via the teleconference service for individuals wishing to provide public comment. Today's participant number is 877-226-8216 and the access code is 6217161. We are holding our committee hearing in the O Street building.

I would ask all members of the committee to come and join us here in room 2100 so we can establish a quorum and begin our hearing. I do know that there are three, potentially four Senate committees meeting concurrently with us, so we do have members who are double booked. Some, in fact, are chairing other committees. So it will create a challenge for us as we hear these important bills today. 17 bills on our agenda.

We have four bills, excuse me, three bills on the consent calendar today. The items on consent are file item number 15, SB 798, file item number 16, SB 821, and file item number 17, SB 888 by the Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments. So we'd like to invite authors to come join us. We'll meet as a subcommittee prior to establishing a quorum.

So authors in the building, come on down so we can hear your bills, and we'll take a short recess while we wait for them to arrive. On time. Thank you very much, Senator Skinner, for joining us. You have file item number one, SB 25, and you can begin when you're ready.

Thank you so much, Chair. My tips are a little different, but that's okay. So, in California, under current law, you must be in person in the State of California to file your declaration of candidacy. Now, we have circumstances where, say, you're a congressional member and you must be in DC for a vote, then it becomes very difficult to be physically present in California on the deadline to file candidacy.

Most other states allow in those such circumstances the ability to go before a notary, even if you're not in the state, but to go before a notary where your declaration of candidacy is then notarized and you're able to file. So what this bill does, and the sponsor is our Secretary of State, Dr. Shirley Weber, is allow for that exception under those circumstances where you cannot be physically present, say you've had a medical emergency or some other circumstance, like I've mentioned, and it only makes that single change to the election law in order to address that issue. And I would like to introduce Ted Muhlhauser from the Legislative Affairs Office with the California Secretary of State.

Thank you very much, Senator Skinner. Mr. Muhlhauser, you're welcome to begin.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Skinner. Ted Muhlhauser, on behalf of Secretary of State Shirley Anne Weber, Ph.D., sponsor of Senate Bill 25. This measure aims to solve the problem described by Senator Skinner by allowing candidates to submit a declaration of candidacy using a notarial certificate performed by a notary commissioned in another state if they are located in the United States.

The solution guards against the possible disenfranchisement of voters by removing barriers to the number of candidates that voters may ultimately choose from when they cast their ballot. And again, on behalf of Secretary Weber, respectfully request you aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there another primary witness in support, Senator Skinner, or just one?

Just one.

Okay. So for our rules, we're going to hear from those in the room first in support. Okay? If there's others in support in the room, if they'd come to the microphone, indicate their name and affiliation and their position.

Izzy Swindler, on behalf of the California Faculty Association, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and members, Cliff Costa, on behalf of the National Notary Association. Would like to thank the author and the sponsor for working with us on some technical changes that were amended in the bill last week. And for that, we will be submitting a support letter wanted to express our support today.

Great. Thank you. Just for those who have not been to our committee before, we're going to hear from those in favor and opposed in the room, and then we're going to go to the teleconference lines. So anybody else in support of the bill here in the room? Okay, let's go to opposition. Is there anyone here in opposition to the bill here in our hearing room? All right, seeing none, anyone wishes to come to the microphone in opposition? Seeing none, will go to our teleconference line. Moderator, are you there?

I am here.

Great. Thank you for helping us today. If you could ask anyone who was queued up that would like to indicate their position in support or opposition to SB Senate Bill 25 by Senator Skinner, that would be great.

Thank you. If you're in support or opposition, you may press one and then zero. Again, that is one and then zero. If you're in support or opposition of SB 25 in one moment, we do have a few queued up. And just reminder, support and opposition of SB 25. And we will go to line 39. Your line is open.

Hi. I'm opposed to this bill, and my name is Beth. I'm from San Diego County and representing Election Integrity Project California.

Thank you very much. Next caller, please.

Thank you. We'll go line 26. Your line is open.

My name is Missy from LA County. I am strongly opposed to this bill.

Thank you. Next caller, please.

Thank you. And next, we will go to line 41. Your line is open.

My name is Marlena, and I'm strongly opposed to this bill.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 22. Your line is open.

Yes, my name is Liz, and I am strongly opposed to this bill.

Moderator, if you could just reiterate that this is Senate Bill 25. I know we have a Senate Bill 24 on our docket today. I just want to be clear that they're testifying on Senate Bill 25.

Thank you. And, Mr. Chair, we have no further opposition or support in queue.

Very good. Thank you. It's always dangerous when you're right next to a number from Senator Umberg. So I just want to be clear on that. Okay. We're going to bring the issue back to the committee for discussion and comments. Anyone here have discussion or comments? Senator Skinner, this is a good bill. I'm happy to support it today. I just want to clarify, in your opening, you mentioned that you had to have a reason you were stuck a doctor's appointment or something. I don't believe that's part.

That's not a requirement. It was more to give the illustration of why this would occur.

Yeah, but given the standards that are high for notaries throughout the country, doesn't seem to be any material difference between having that notarized here in our state versus elsewhere.

Correct.

Did you give any thoughts to people who might be traveling internationally, therefore, on an extended trip? Could be a congressional trip to the Middle East that might be lasting more than just a few days. Any thoughts about whether that would be appropriate in your bill?

We hadn't really anticipated that, and I think that's a bit trickier, only because depending on what country they're in, the notary standards may not be the same. So it seemed much easier to deal with ensuring that, at least within the United States, the notary standards are comparable.

Great. And does that include Puerto Rico and some of our other affiliate?

I believe so, but we might turn to our representative from the Notary Association to be able to indicate whether those standards are the same there. I believe they are, but let's hear from him.

Senator, through the Chair, I'd have to get back to the committee on the standards of Puerto Rico. I don't know that off the top of my head.

Very good. Sometimes questions you don't even think about till you're having testimony. So appreciate you taking a look at that. Well, that is the only question I had. We don't have a full Senate Committee here at this moment but look forward to recommending an aye when we do have a full quorum.

Excellent.

Thank you for your presentation today. Okay. All right. Looking for more authors here for Senate elections. So I see we have Senator Umberg on that very confusing Senate Bill 24 that we could. Senator Umberg, would you like to present?

I would love to present.

Chair. Okay, we will welcome your presentation. Shall we start with Senate Bill 24, final item number eight? Okay, terrific.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and staff, thank you for your assistance, your personal assistance, as well as the ever talented Scott Matsumoto. This is SB 24, which provides for local control as to whether or not cities and counties who are general law. Cities and counties wish to provide some sort of public financing in connection with campaigns.

This is basically the same thing that Senator Ben Allen did some time ago, but it was found to be in violation of the FPPC or in violation of the Fair Political Practices Act because it was required to go to the voters. This simply puts on the ballot an opportunity for Californians to vote as to whether or not general law, cities and counties may enact some form of public financing.

From my perspective, there'll be a number of different localities which will experiment with different forms of public financing. We have a challenge with respect to public financing and how it deals with independent expenditure campaigns, and I'm interested to see how different entities deal with that issue. So with me is Mr. Trent Lange of California Clean Money, and also Evan Minton, Voices for Progress.

Great. We look forward to the testimony of your two principal supporters. A reminder that we do two minutes for each speaker, two minutes for each side, for both those speakers. So you may begin.

Great. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Mr. Chair and staff. Trent Lang, President of the California Clean Money Campaign. We're proud to sponsor SB 24 and are very grateful for the leadership of Senator Umberg and Senator Allen for authoring it and for the work of this committee. Voters are increasingly concerned about the problems of money in politics. In a recent Gallup poll, only 20 percent of respondents reported being satisfied with the way the American campaign finance system works.

In a poll conducted by the California Clean Money Campaign, 79 percent of likely voters said that big money contributors have too much influence over elected officials in California, and 68 percent said ordinary voters have too little influence. 15 states and 19 municipalities across the country have adopted voluntary public financing campaigns that address these concerns by empowering voters and helping candidates run campaigns that are more focused on the people they represent.

Los Angeles, San Francisco and Berkeley have matching Fund systems that provide a six-to-one match on small donations from individuals living in the city, magnifying the impact of small donors and allowing candidates to run without relying on large donations. Oakland just passed a democracy dollar program similar to Seattle's in which residents get $425 vouchers to give to the qualified candidate of their choice. A study by Georgetown University found that Seattle's system led to a dramatic increase in the number and diversity of residents who participated.

We believe it's time to return local control to general law cities, districts and counties and the state itself to try public financing systems like these that work for them the same way that charter cities have. SB 24 would allow the voters the opportunity to make that decision to address the issue of money in politics while adding important protections. So we respectfully request your yea vote.

Thank you, sir. Next speaker in support thank you.

My name is Evan Minton and I'm with voices for progress. Our mission is to galvanize the advocacy of major political donors, business leaders and others to unite to champion a healthy climate and environment, strengthen our democracy, and ensure economic and social justice. Our members know the importance of engaging in the political process by helping good candidates get the resources they need to run for office, and they're fortunate enough to be able to do that.

However, they also know that democracy can't function to its fullest potential if the vast majority of voters can engage in the same way. And they see that voters get increasingly cynical about elected officials and government when they see how much candidates rely on large donations from wealthy interests. Public financing systems can change that. With matching fund systems like in Los Angeles, San Francisco and Berkeley, small donations from city residents get matched six to one.

So, voters know that even their smaller contributions can have a big impact on the system. In fact, in Seattle, a Georgetown study found that 7.6 percent of voting age residents gave democracy dollar vouchers to candidates, and that was a vastly higher rate than Californians who gave to state candidates. And those voucher users were similar to voters in the general election in terms of race, age and income. And that's important to point out because it's a stark contrast to campaign contributors in most California cities.

And these examples show the promise of public financing systems to increase voter participation and trust. And I want to point out that once the voters are given the chance, they approve the public financing ordinances overwhelmingly.

So Voices for Progress members respectfully request you to vote yes on SB 24 for two reasons. To take a necessary step to create more equitable access to our democracy, and also to give all California governments the same opportunities that our charter cities already have for local control of their campaign finance systems. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Are there other individuals here in the hearing room that would like to indicate just their support, position, name and affiliation, if any?

Thank you. Mr. Chair. Jean Hurst here today on behalf of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors and support.

Good morning, Dora Rose, League of Women Voters of California, in very strong support.

Very good. All right, seeing no more speakers in support, we're going to go to speakers in opposition. Is there anyone here in the hearing room that would like to be the principal opposition on this measure? Same rules apply. Two speakers, two minutes. Two minutes each. Can you introduce yourself?

My name is Colleen Britton. I'm with the Election Integrity Project California, and we strongly oppose this Bill. It's designed to create an equal playing field for lesser known candidates. That's very laudable, but do it by extending public funds to bona fide candidates. But this bill is not able to accomplish this as written. Instead, it grants incumbents the same, equal access to those funds. The bill does not take into consideration incumbents and candidates with special interest backing.

Unless public funds are the only source of campaign financing allowed and distributed equally among all candidates meeting a reasonable standards of viability, the discrepancy between incumbents and lesser known challengers would remain the same. The bill does nothing to eliminate or even reduce the influence of special interest money on politics and political campaigns. It fails to address super PACs and dark money.

Furthermore, allowing incumbents to accept public funding is a conflict of interest and risk candidates and their parties becoming organs of the state rather than part of civil society. If all or substantial amount of candidates funding comes from the state rather than voluntary sources, political parties risk losing their ties to the people they seek to represent. It is possible that the state could use public funds to encourage parties or candidates to behave as they expect, possibly in an unethical influence. Public funds come from citizens taxes.

They are involuntary contributions. Those funds should benefit the whole of the people, not politicians. Lastly, SB 24 is vague in that it does not specify exactly how the distribution of funds would work. The devil's in the details we urge no on SB 24. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else here in the hearing room that would like to speak in opposition to this measure? Good morning.

Good morning. My name is Jeanette Feltz and I just like to voice my opposition to this bill.

Thank you, Jeanette. All right, seeing no further speakers in opposition here in the hearing room, we'll go to our teleconference line. Moderator, you could ask anyone who would like to speak in support or opposition to SB 24 by Senator Umberg to so indicate. And again, at this point in the hearing, we're only looking for name and affiliation, if any, and your support or opposition to the bill.

Thank you. If you're in support or opposition of SB 24, you may press one and then zero. Again, that is one and then zero if you're in support or opposition. And we will go to line 45. Your line is open.

Thank you. I'm Roche Faye, and on behalf of Change Begins with ME and Indivisible California State Strong. We're in strong support of SB 24. Thank you.

Thank you. And next we will go to line 43. Your line is open.

Hi. Good morning. My name is Paul Stout, Los Angeles County. I have no affiliation, and I strongly oppose.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 44. Your line is open.

Hi. This is Sandra Cushion with CalPERS in support of SB 24.

Thank you. And next, we'll go to line 25. Your line is open.

Hi, my name is Myrna from the City of Walnut, and I strongly oppose SB 24. Thank you.

Next, we'll go to line 30. Your line is open.

Hi, my name is Mary Bevins. I live in San Mateo. I'm definitely in support of SB 24.

Thank you. And next we will go to line 28. Your line is open.

My name is David Craig from San Bernardino County. I have no affiliation, and I strongly oppose SB 24.

Thank you. Next we'll go to line 29. Your line is open.

Good morning. My name is Ruth Weiss. I'm with Volunteers in Politics, and I strongly oppose this bill.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 26. Your line is open.

Hello, my name is Missy, LA County. Regarding SB 24, public campaign financing. I vehemently oppose this Bill.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 35. Your line is open.

Pat Schwinn from Oakland, with California Clean Money, in strong support of SB 24. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we'll go to line 39. Your line is open.

Line 39, do you have us on mute?

Can you hear me now?

Yes.

Can you hear? My name is Beth Prince, San Diego County Election Integrity Project. I strongly oppose this bill number 24.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 20. Your line is open.

Good morning. I'm Michelle Sutter from Money Out Voters In, and we support SB 24. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 48. Your line is open.

This is Nancy Neff from Palo Alto in support of SB 24.

Thank you. And next we'll go to line 23. Your line is open.

Lee Mantebury with Election Integrity Project California in opposition of Bill 24.

Thank you. Next we'll go to line 17. Your line is open.

Hello, my name is Catherine Porier from San Diego, California. Strong opposition to SB 24.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 24. Your line is open.

Robert White, San Jose. Affiliation, Election Integrity. I strongly oppose this bill.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 49. Your line is open.

Roman Dylan Fiero, Eureka, California. Humboldt County, Republic of California. I vehemently oppose SB 24. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we'll go line 18. Your line is open.

Hello, this is Shirley Shelangoski, Contra Costa Move on, in strong support of SB 24.

Thank you. Next we'll go to line 37. Your line is open.

This is Andy Miza, County with EIPCA, strongly opposed to SB 24.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 50. Your line is open.

Yes, my name is Craig Wright, La Verne, California. I'm with EIPCA, and I strongly oppose this bill.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 19. Your line is open.

My name is Chris Foster from Orange County, and I oppose SB 24.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 33. Your line is open.

Hello, this is David Schmidt from San Francisco. I'm a volunteer for the California Clean Money Campaign, and I'm in strong support of SB 24.

Thank you. Next we'll go to line 32. Your line is open.

My name is Joe Ely. I'm with the California Clean Money Campaign. I'm calling from Brentwood, and I strongly support SB 24.

Thank you. Next we'll go to line 55. Your line is open.

My name is Sheila Fish, and I'm a member of Contra Costa Move On. I live in Maraga, and I'm strongly in support of SB 24.

Thank you. Next, line 54. Your line is open.

Yes, this is Carla Henny from San Joaquin County, and I am strongly opposed to SB 24.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 27. Your line is open.

Hello. This is Lawrence Basket, representing the Indivisible California State Strong Coalition in full support of SB 24.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 41. Your line is open.

This is Marlena Dufrain. I'm in Santa Clara County, and I strongly oppose SB 24.

Thank you. Line 40, your line is open.

This is Gary Appellate, Marin County, California Clean Money, strongly support SB 24.

Thank you. Line 52, your line is open.

Hi, this is Jennifer Cardinas with Election Integrity Project California, and I strongly oppose SB 24.

Thank you. Line 36, your line is open.

I am Gordon Miller, Walnut Creek, Contra Costa Move on and others, strongly in support of this bill.

Thank you. Next, we'll go line 57. Your line is open.

Doreen Whitworth from Madeira County, strongly opposed to SB 24.

Thank you. And we'll go line 53. Your line is open.

Hello. Is this 53?

Yes.

Okay. My name is Chen Fen Huang, citizen of Santa Clara County. I strongly oppose SB 24. Thank you.

Thank you. And, Mr. Chair, we have no further support or opposition in queue.

Very good. Thank you, Moderator. We'll bring the issue back to the Committee for comments or questions. Senator Umberg, just to be clear, there may be some misunderstanding. This measure simply places a measure on the ballot for the voters of California to decide if they should extend this privilege that your bill provides to other cities. Is that right?

That's correct.

And no one's required to engage in public financing. Each individual entity can decide on their own.

It's not mandatory. You're correct.

Very good. All right. I know that there are strengths and weaknesses to public financing, but given the fact that this is a voter approval and local choice, it's something I'm happy to support today. Any other comments or questions? Would you like to close?

Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't often agree with the Election IntegrityPproject, but I do as to the fact that this doesn't address dark money, that's absolutely correct. This doesn't address a number of different details, and that's up to the localities. As you suggest, Mr. Chair, is that there's nothing mandatory about this. This is a two step process. First, the voters of the State of California would have to approve it. And then secondly, the locality would also have to approve whatever mechanism, whatever construct they choose to enact.

They then would have to approve it as well, either by a vote of the council or by a vote of the people of that locality. I understand the opposition. I understand the opposition's concern that the voters of the State of California might give that opportunity to localities and that they don't trust city councils and perhaps boards of supervisors to actually be able to create, enact, enforce some scheme which provides for public financing. I understand that, but that's how we work. We let local governments make that decision. So I urge an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Umberg, we're going to leave your bill here as we haven't established a quorum yet, but we'll take it up as soon as we do. Thank you for that presentation.

Thank you.

I know we have another author in the room. Senator Caballero, thank you for your patience this morning. We had robust public engagement here just a moment ago, which I know we all appreciate. So you have file number six, SB 632, and you can begin when you're ready.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And I always enjoy seeing the public participate. It's always a good thing. And I want to thank Senator Umberg for relinquishing the mic so that I can make a presentation on a very simple bill. So thank you for the opportunity to present SB 632. As you know, California is geographically large and populous, which plays a significant role in how the district boundaries for public offices are shaped. Assembly and Senate districts and house races often encompass multiple counties.

For example, California's Senate district one is made up of 11 counties. Running for an elected office is often a daunting task, especially in districts with multiple county election offices that may have separate rules, guidelines, and procedures for filing the appropriate candidate papers, such as nomination forms or other filing documents.

Candidate statements are filed with each county election office to be published in county voter information guides and serve as a critical component to inform voters about a candidate's intentions, details about their past experience that inform their ideas, priorities they wish to accomplish should they be elected, and organizations that support their cause. Currently, candidates that run for an elected office in a multicounty district must file a candidate's statement in each county within the district.

Current law allows each county election offices office to determine whether or not a candidate statement meets their guideline and provides them the ability to reject a statement unless changed. While this is an important part of the process, it creates a major hurdle for campaigns that are navigating several county election offices. Furthermore, it results in inconsistent candidate statements across counties. Under SB 632, candidates that run in an election that covers more than one county may submit their candidate statement for approval by the Secretary of State.

Once approved, that candidate statement may be shared with all county elections offices without the need for further revisions. Now you're going to have to pay for it to end up in the voter guide, but the statement would be accepted as it is written. SB 632 is a simple tool that will allow candidates and election staff to spend more time on what matters, which is really a successful election. With me to testify in support is Navkaran Gurm.

Thank you, Senator Caballero. We welcome your witness in support to the microphone.

Good morning, Senator Glazer and Members. My name is Navkaran Gurm. I'm the Political Director of the California Young Democrats and also principal of Five River Strategies, a public affairs consultancy in the Central Valley where I primarily work with young POC candidates running for local office. I want to thank Senator Caballero and her team for bringing forward SB 632, a pragmatic, common sense bill that improves accessibility in our elections process. As I'm sure you're all aware, filing to run for office is often a cumbersome process.

This Bill makes that process just a little bit easier, especially for State Senate and congressional districts that often sprawl many counties. Working on racing in the Central Valley, I've seen firsthand the conflicting information that oftentimes comes from two neighboring county elections offices. These conflicts and information oftentimes makes for a very stressful and daunting process of getting your candidate statement approved by streamlining that process through the Secretary of State's office.

By streamlining the approval process through the Secretary of State's office, that'll be a little bit less stressful and also more equitable. Young people are great at knocking on doors and organizing our communities, but navigating bureaucracy is not often our strong suit. SB 632 will decrease bureaucracy for folks running in multicounty district, and I think this will be especially helpful for young POC and first time candidates. With that, I respectfully urge for your aye votes. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. All right, we're going to invite others here in the hearing room who are in support of this bill to come up to the microphone to so indicate if you'd like to do that. All right. Seeing none, we're going to go to opposition here in the hearing room. Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition? All right. Seeing no one jumping to their feet, we're going to go to the teleconference line. Moderator, would you ask if there's anyone who would like to indicate their name and affiliation and support or opposition to SB 632 by Senator Caballero?

Thank you. For your support or opposition of SB 632, you may press one and then zero. Once again, that is one, and then zero for support or opposition.

Okay, very good. We're going to bring the matter back to the Committee for any questions or comments. Senator Caballero, thank you for your work on this. I also have a couple of counties that I represent, so I know the same hardship in which you're addressing in the bill. I don't see a position from the Secretary of State. Have they indicated a position on this bill?

We've been working with them. I think the staffer that has been our contact has not formally said yes. I think they're concerned about workload and we've discussed this with them and may end up taking amendments that take out some of the jurisdictions that potentially might cause a lot of work. Our analysis is that, frankly, it's the Senate, Congressional, and Assembly districts that are probably the most important. Water districts and other JPAs don't have the same kind of problems or same issues that more political candidates do.

Very good. I would simply note that I know our Committee always benefits from the input and advice from the Secretary of State, and it's always better to have that during our hearing process rather than down the line. So unfortunately, it didn't happen in this case. But this is a bill I'm happy to support today. We're still one short of a quorum, so we're going to hold that bill. Do you want to close? Anything you want to say in closing?

No, I just would respectfully ask for your aye vote and let you know that I did speak to the Secretary of State at an informal Women's Caucus event over the fall and advised her that I was going to be doing work in this area. And so she's aware of it personally, and we're working with her staff. So, thank you.

Thank you, Senator Caballero. Okay. I see we have another author here in the room who was also double booked today. So let me invite up Senator Wahab to present File Item Number Five. This is SB 573. Senator Wahab, we're operating as a Subcommittee at the moment.

No, I appreciate it. Thank you.

You're welcome to begin whenever you're ready.

Thank you. All right. Thank you, Chair Glazer, Senators, staff, and members of the public. This bill is a work in progress, and today I'll commit to making this a one-year cooling-off period if the Committee decides to pass this bill. With that said, I'll continue to present this bill. Some staff are upset about the introduction of this bill, but this bill is needed now. The bill is to protect policy from potentially being impacted by private deals or influence.

SB 573 is a lobbying reform bill that creates a cooling-off period for all employees of the State Legislature. During these short months, an employee cannot be employed by a registered lobbyist, register as a lobbyist themselves, or engage in lobbying activities. It's pretty simple. Today, elected members of this body are forbidden from becoming a registered lobbyist for 12 months or so. Staff are not.

Today, elected members are required to fill a Form 700, a statement of economic interest, a public disclosure of personal assets and income that may be materially affected by their official acts. Staff do not have to fill a Form 700. For the public's reference, the Senate is the upper house and the Assembly is the lower house that makes up the State Legislature, 120 elected members total, but many in this building refer to the third house, which is the lobbying industry.

Lobbyists roam this building with more access to members and information than the public. Let's be clear. A lobbyist, by definition, is one who conducts activities aimed at influencing or swaying public officials and especially members of a legislative body or legislation. You can Google it. Staff have a tremendous amount of influence and authority even if they are not elected. The public knows. Everyone in this room knows the revolving door of staff.

Staff are hired, have salaries funded by taxpayers, spend a few years in the building creating relationships with members and other staff, legislative directors, chiefs of staff, policy committee staff. They obtain potentially confidential information, cell numbers, where people go to hang out, have dinner and drinks every night, what schools their kids go to, members' personal schedules, their strategies, position on policy, strategic planning details regarding current and future bills, including two-year bills, and most importantly, they learn how to count votes based on these relationships, all information gained by being close to members, not through studying policy.

Let's not pretend this isn't the case. There are plenty of policy experts on subject matter areas that don't have these relationships and knowledge that are never hired as lobbyists. Lobbying firms poach our best staff and put them to work in the same legislative cycle, contributing to higher turnover and potentially having these employees utilize their relationships. But these employees depart with a massive investment of state resources regarding their training and professional development.

That's why SB 573 needs to pass. A short cooling-off period from obtaining a lucrative job in exchange for access with existing Legislature is reasonable for all staff. This isn't a forever ban. This isn't even a five-year ban or two-year ban from registering as a lobbyist, simply a few months. Staff are dedicated, but we are also in need to ensure that we don't have bad actors.

No one here wants any staff to be operating for a pay-to-play plans, to tank a bill or pressure amendments, quit their job, walk out the Senate Chamber to a corporate lobbyist headquarter across the street within 24 hours. This bill, SB 573, prohibits that. SB 573 preserves the integrity of this body, limits undue influence and perceived corruption, creates the much-needed safeguards to protect 40 million residents of California from industry lobbyists' influence on policies that affect everyday aspects of their lives.

This bill, SB 573, is critical in maintaining the trust in our legislative processes. We have a lot to do to clean up our policies, as we are actually behind many states in the nation. New York State has a similar two-year cooling-off period, and roughly eight other states have a one-year cooling-off period. SB 573 is a reasonable bill. It's the appropriate safeguards that many other states have already enacted.

If we cannot commit to a few months of a cooling-off period, we are contributing to the overreach of lobbying power and the perceived corruption of government today. The people of California deserve the commitment of the State Legislature and the public servants that work on policy. Thank you.

Great. Thank you, Senator Wahab. Before proceeding, I think we have a quorum present, so I want to take the roll and establish that if we can. So would the Secretary call the roll, please?

This is for a quorum. [Roll Call].

All right, so we have a quorum present. All right. So Senator Wahab has introduced her bill. We're going to ask that, do you have any principal witnesses in support?

Not at this time.

Okay. So we're going to invite those here in the hearing room who are in support of SB 573 to come up to the microphone so they can--indicate your position and your affiliation. All right, not seeing anyone. We're going to go to opposition now here in the hearing room. I don't have any established opposition, so we'll invite the first couple speakers that come up to limit themselves to two minutes, and then we'll hear from the others. So thank you for coming. Please share your thoughts.

Mr. Chair and Members, my name is Samantha Corbin. I'm a founder and partner of Corbin and Kaiser, a lobbying firm that represents primarily nonprofit and cause-based organizations, as well as companies that provide essential services to Californians. I'm also a cofounder of We Said Enough, an organization dedicated to ending sexual harassment, bullying, and abuse in the workplace. Five years ago, I helped to pass whistleblower protections for California Capitol staff, and today I'm here in opposition to SB 573.

This measure would place excessive and unnecessary restrictions on the future employment opportunities of all legislative staff, have a chilling effect on public service, and reduce the availability and overall expertise of the state's workforce. The restrictions outlined in this measure are unfairly burdensome and, as written currently, extend far beyond what current law imposes even on elected officials. Under current law, elected officials are prohibited from lobbying before the Capitol for one year after leaving office.

However, they are allowed to hold positions in public policy analysis in an advisory, educational, or consulting capacity. These limitations exist to ensure elected and appointed officials who author and vote on various laws and items are subject to a higher level of scrutiny. However, this bill seeks to place more excessive restrictions on the public employees who work in the building by doubling this amount of time.

And it goes even further to prevent staff from pursuing several natural career pathways, including taking employment as a consultant with an organization that engages the Legislature, working for any lobbying firm, or working for any corporate entity that is registered as a lobbyist employer. This would eliminate job opportunities in most major industries, Fortune 500 companies, and major law firms, leaving options only outside of the field or with nonprofits who typically pay below market rate.

But even still, legislative staff would be unable to even act as an external advisor or contract lobbyist to those same nonprofits. Legislators have set terms, but at any time, they're free to leave their office and pursue other elected opportunities. We've also seen legislators resign for other personal and professional reasons. If SB 573 was in place, legislative staff, through no fault of their own, would be left with limited options as a result of the unfair limitations proposed by this measure. The existing laws and regulations--

If you could just wrap up, please?

Thank you. Already govern the activities of our employees, are sufficient, and these restrictions are unwarranted and counterproductive to good policy. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Corbin. Next speaker.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Alicia Benavidez Lewis here as principal co-owner of Blue Coast Strategies and cofounder of We Said Enough and a former chief of staff from the Assembly. I'm here in strong opposition. This bill has dangerous implications for employees that, through no fault of their own, need to find different employment. In the #MeToo context, this has been the unfortunate reality for victims and survivors of sexual harassment, assault, and workplace bullying.

As we know through the stories that have been shared by the brave women in this Capitol community, staff face numerous sources of negative, discriminatory, and unsafe behaviors, including from elected officials, other legislative staff, lobbyists, or the general public. It is all too often that staff facing these challenges must turn to outside employment as their only option to escape an abusive, unhealthy, or unsafe situation.

And if passed, SB 573 would force staff to remain in inappropriate or dangerous situations by denying them the access to outside employment for which they are well-qualified. If SB 573 had been in effect when I was a staffer, I would not be standing in front of you today. In 2016, when I worked as chief of staff in the Assembly, my boss trimmed out and I had to seek other employment. I landed a job at a law firm that has a lobbying arm.

In the fall of 2017, I was fired shortly after signing the We Said Enough letter, speaking out against the culture of harassment in politics. And as the breadwinner in my household, I had to make a choice: sit on unemployment or take a job that paid far less than what I had made previously, putting at risk my ability to pay my mortgage and support my family. But there was a third option: hire myself. Recognizing the knowledge, experience, relationships, and education that I earned through my hard work, I could work as a contract lobbyist, setting up my own firm, and taking in clients of my choosing.

I represent all progressive, nonprofit clients. All of this happened within the time frame that SB 573 would bar, even with the recent provisions. Because of this option to lobby for clients, I'm still working in our industry, collaborating with many of your offices on some of the most progressive reform work that California so proudly values--

If you can try to wrap up, please.

And I have the autonomy to speak freely on this issue without fear of endangering my employer. But most importantly, I have the ability to appropriately provide for myself and my kids. We sent out, provided a sign-on sheet for current and former staff, and over in the last 48 hours, received over 100 sign-ons, most asked to remain anonymous. But the message was clear: staff wants the ability to continue working here but have the freedom of choice of what their employment options are after leaving.

Thank you very much. Okay. For those here in the hearing room, just name, affiliation, and position, please.

Thank you. Katherine Brandenburg with the Brandenburg Group. I'm here as the President of the Institute of Governmental Advocates. We are opposed, strongly opposed.

Thank you very much. Next.

Good morning. Jackie Koenig, 24-year legislative staffer asking for your opposition.

Thank you.

Hi. Ashley Labar, Assembly Chief of Staff with 18 years experience asking for your opposition. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else here in the hearing room in support or opposition to SB 573? All right, seeing none, we'll go to our teleconference line. Moderator, would you ask if there's anyone who wishes to indicate support or opposition to SB 573 by Senator Wahab? And this is an opportunity just to give your name, affiliation, and position.

Thank you. If you're in support or opposition of SB 573, you may press one and then zero. Again, that is one and then zero if you're in support or opposition of SB 573. We will go to line 26. Your line is open.

Hi. This is Missy of LA County. I applaud and strongly support SB 573, the Political Reform Act of 1974, subject: conflict of interest.

Thank you. And Mr. Chair, we have no further in support--oh. We do. One more. Line 43, your line is open.

Yeah. Paul Stout. Los Angeles County. No affiliation. I support it. Thank you.

Thank you. And now we have no more support or opposition in queue.

All right, we'll bring the issue back to the Committee for comments or questions. Members? Senator Allen.

Well, so first of all, I'm very sympathetic to the goals of the bill and the arguments made. I understand the author's offered some changes. What's the status of the negotiations with the Committee? I know the Committee had some legitimate concerns as well about where the bill was, and I'd love to get a status update as to what's going on between the Chair and the author.

And Chair and Senator, I appreciate that. I have committed to making this a one-year cooling-off period if the Committee decides to pass the bill with specifically where an employee cannot be employed by a registered lobbyist, register as a lobbyist themselves, or engage in lobbying activities. And this is almost mirroring State Senators and Assembly Members. However, obviously, we fill out a Form 700 as well, which is not in this bill.

Well, just to provide some clarification from my end--thank you, Senator Allen--I obviously had thoughtful conversations with Senator Wahab on this issue. I told her that in the bill form that was presented to us that it was not something I could support, and I'll explain that in a few minutes.

But I did offer an alternative that would provide for a one-year cooling-off period for designated staff, specifically staff that I felt have much more of a serious conflict issue, principally, consultants to our committees, long-standing consultants to our committees. I received the word a day or two ago that it was not something that the Senator could support, and that's where the matter was left until hearing her testimony this morning.

So that's where we stand right now, where there's a disagreement over...

So the amendments I provided today are the amendments that I'd like to go with. I think that they're reasonable and they include all staff. I think that the original amendment offered was specifically to policy committee staff, and I don't think that's sufficient, considering the fact that policy committee staff are actually paid a little bit more, whereas other staff are not, and have more intimate knowledge of members, and as I relayed, yes.

Do we have another--we have another hearing, don't we? This is the last one? Oh. Yikes. So there's just a standoff right now? Okay.

Well, that's up to the Committee as to how they want to handle the bill.

Well, sure. Right. But, of course, and yet we also want to be respectful of the Committee's negotiations and work. So, okay. Well, I'll hear the discussion.

Yeah. And I'm happy to now perhaps provide a little bit more context to my conversations with the author. I also agree with your intentions. Conflict of interests are very serious issues. And I think that, as you and I have spoken about, trust in government and the work that we do is really tied to ensuring that we do our work with transparency and without conflict. You mentioned in your testimony that staff don't complete the financial interest forms, and I don't think that's correct. Checking--

It's only a few staff members in top positions. It is not all staff.

Well, it's the significant staff here in the building. I think that was the reason that law was passed quite a while ago, was to ensure that staff that have senior positions, where their point of view might interfere with their own personal financial circumstance are required to fill out those forms. Two aspects of this that have concerned me: one is the unintended consequences that we struggle to get the highest quality staff to come work for us here in the Capitol.

And that's both for our personal legislative staff as well as our committee staff. And I could see an incredible brain drain of very talented members that we rely upon in legislating in this space. As I look at the range of folks that do work here in the Capitol, I'm not convinced that a legislative aide has such enormous access to put our democracy at risk because they decide to leave their job here in the building and go work for somebody, an interest outside of the building.

And as we heard from the testimony, the public testimony a few minutes ago, those that want to influence us is a wide range of folks, from the nonprofit community to the for-profit community. When I look at legislative aides or legislative directors or even chief of staffs, it's like, what's the real advantage they bring that would somehow disqualify them from employment for a year? Have they got some great insight on how we're doing policy in one area or another?

And in that examination, for me, at least, the only place where I see a place that has some concern is committee consultants that would be able to come back and lobby in their area of authorization of their Committee, their area of expertise that we've relied upon in a specific policy area. And so in that space, it seems that it's a place that I could get to the 12-month cooling-off period. Unfortunately, as you are presenting the bill today, it goes much further, and that's what gives me reluctance in supporting what you're proposing.

Thank you. I do just want to highlight a couple of things that we've heard. Number one: this is not about victims' rights. This bill is not about victims' rights. I stand with the efforts of advocates and obviously the creation of the Workplace Conduct Unit. Organizations continue to use the most marginalized individuals--harm to communities, children, women, LGBTQ members, undocumented individuals, and people of color--to distract from the argument at hand. It also cheapens the experience of survivors of sexual assault and discrimination.

This bill is not how or where they will get made whole, which they deserve. And to be using victims as a prop to not have lobbying reform in the State of California is disgusting and not fair to them. I find it also insulting and harmful to the men and women that experience sexual assault, let alone as an advocate and survivor, that an organization would utilize the trauma of people to oppose a bill that strictly is about lobbying reform.

And I will clearly state that I have been committed to the recommendations that I've set forward. I do not believe that there should be any loopholes. No one is excused from leaving the Legislature to cash in for highly lucrative jobs as lobbyists, all for personal financial gain, selling out potentially 40 million Californians. And I will say this: specifically, to say that this town only has jobs as lobbyists is a straight up lie.

There are plenty of jobs out there to leave this building and become an advocate, work in public policy, advocacy, or serve the public at another government institution in the State of California and the capital of California. So I hope that people don't ever use victims of sexual harm or discrimination as an excuse ever again, but we have a moral obligation to the people of this state to have the highest level of ethics and integrity that staff are above reproach. So I do urge an aye vote.

Okay. Any further questions from the Committee? Let me just say, Senator Wahab, that in regard to lobbying reform, I join again with you in support for efforts in that space. We had a special hearing of this Committee just weeks ago, just on the issue of whether or not we're doing the appropriate enforcement and auditing of lobbying firms in our state. I think out of that, I think we learned some insight that I hope will lead to some actions later this year in that space. So I think, again, we joined together in concern about that whole area. Senator Allen?

Okay, look. We're in an uncomfortable situation here because ideally we would punt it to the next hearing so as to give--there's new offers being made. I mean, it seems to me, and we were just chatting a bit, if the concern is that the Committee's proposed counter proposal is too restrictive, maybe there's a way that we can expand it to not being able to work on projects that you worked on before you left for a year so that you'd be more expansive than what the author was mentioning, what the Chair was mentioning, because I understand the pushback in the sense that just lots and lots of people who work for personal staff are working on substantive policy work, too, of course, not just the Committee staff.

So it's unfortunate that we're at this stage because I want to support the Chair and the Committee, and I see where you're going with this, too. And I guess I wonder whether there's room to figure out--I guess we have a lot more bills today, so maybe we can still figure out this morning, but if there's room to figure out some sort of common, some sort of compromise--

I'm willing to compromise as well the one-year mark for all legislative committee staff, but as well as legislative directors and chiefs of staff. I think that that is sufficient and very reasonable.

Senator Umberg, up next.

Since we're all throwing out suggestions, I'll go ahead and throw out another thought. In the federal government, when I worked in Washington, D.C. in the administration, there are sort of different criteria for different bans. In fact, I have a lifetime ban on certain issues that I can't work on because presumably, I had decision making authority and had special information that might be able to be used perhaps forever.

And it does make sense if, for example, you work on a bill, you're a chief consultant on a bill, and you turn around and three weeks later, after you've done the analysis, after you've made a recommendation, then you turn around and begin to lobby for one side or the other, and it's hard to parse out when you made a decision that you were going to leave the Committee, and perhaps that influences your analysis.

We are a little bit different here in that legislators ultimately make the decision, unlike the administration, where individual officials might make decisions. So, I mean, that's another consideration is that if you worked, if you were on committee staff and you worked on a particular piece of legislation, that you can't flip as to something that you had specific knowledge and had specifically worked on. Just another thought.

Definitely. And I just want to be very clear. This is 12 months. This is not a lifetime ban. It's not a two-year ban. It's not a ten-year ban. There are other states that have one-year bans. I think that is very sufficient, very reasonable, and if we care about the integrity of this institution, regardless of what we've heard--of course staff don't like it, right--but we need to do what's best for Californians.

Okay.

So, look, my inclination is--

Senator, I'm going to recognize Senator Allen.

I'm sorry. Thank you. I appreciate that, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it. So my inclination is to move the bill as amended by the Chair, but it's my hope that something along the lines of what Senator Umberg has--maybe a little bit more permissive--would be negotiated before the bill gets to the floor. That would be my inclination, and then with the hope being that we could all come to some sort of agreement, but obviously, just one Member of this Committee.

Thank you, Senator Allen. Now, that is something I'd be willing to support, understanding that if the author wishes to try to broaden that definition, that that's something that will be subject to my--

I guess my question for you, Mr. Chair, is are you--is that your line in the sand or are you willing to consider a more expansive definition? Because I totally hear, I mean, the author feels as though what you presented is too restrictive. I think it may be too restrictive. Are you at least open to conversation about expanding out from that definition somewhat?

I'm always open to conversation to understand where a change would be a material effect in the work of our Legislature. Senator Umberg.

I don't know if my suggestion is more or less restrictive, but I would not impose a ban on even committee staff if they didn't work on that particular issue. So it's only as to staff that worked on that particular issue.

Yeah. I think the challenge is in the writing of such a provision and whether or not it can be written in a way that can be enforceable. As Chair of the Judiciary Committee, I think you appreciate the issue of enforcement and ability.

Just in terms of our work here and what is possible and what is feasible, let me ask Senator Wahab, there have been some suggestions, and I understand that you are not amenable to that limitation.

I think that policy staff, of course, sure, because they're the subject matter experts for a lot of us. But I also think that lobbyists literally are paid for their relationships, and that should extend to at least the chief of staff and legislative director. I think that is fair. I would be happy to take that amendment as a whole and move this bill forward.

Yeah. So for me, I'm not comfortable doing that today. So if, Senator Allen, you want to make a motion, you're welcome to.

I mean, my idea here is to just allow for--just, as I say, we're at the last hearing of the session. It's unfortunate. Obviously, you haven't been able to come to terms. I totally understand that. That happens sometimes. I guess, yeah, I would move as amended, but with a hope that there will be work between the author and the Committee and the Members to expand the definition beyond where your amendment has it, and yet, understanding that it would be a negotiation. That would be my preference.

Okay. Let's just check with Senator Wahab whether she's open to that at all. If not, we'll ask for a motion on the measure as you presented originally here today.

Definitely. And Chair, I think you also mentioned senior level staff. Specifically, you referenced a legislative aide not having those relationships. And again, a lobbyist literally is paid to influence policy. They are not necessarily our policy committee staff. They are well paid for the most part. It is our regular day to day staff. So, legislative director and chief, would you be willing to accept that?

I'm not willing to negotiate here at this point in time. I'll have to differ with you. I don't think our staff is very well paid, so I'm not in that position to--and I even think we have some policy committee staff that are not paid in regard to the expertise they have. All that being said, I don't think this is the time to negotiate.

I think the time is to find out whether there's a motion to either move the bill forward as you have presented it or something different. I think that's the moment where we're at in this hearing at this time.

If moved as presented, I'm willing to also make concessions as we move this bill through the Legislature. It's a lobbying reform bill.

Okay, just hold on. I want to move this along. We have a lot of bills to be heard today, so if you want, we can take a recess on this bill and move on with our agenda. Let me just ask, is there a motion as the bill is presented with the amendment as proposed by the author? Is there a motion at this point in time for that?

I'd like to have further discussions, but certainly my colleagues might move.

Well, if you want to make the motion you can on the bill as presented with her amendment.

I don't want to undermine the Chair in this, but I also understand we have somewhat--

If you're not, then I'm going to say that we're going to put this in abeyance for the duration of our hearing. If you want to come back with a motion based on conversations as we complete our hearing, you're welcome to do that.

Okay.

But at this point in time, I'm not hearing a motion under the proposal as presented. Okay, so we'll put that on hold. Not to say that--

But if you're willing to accept a motion to accept the Chair's amends with the understanding that there is going to be further negotiation, I'm happy to make that motion.

Okay. So my concern is that the further negotiation, if I've already cut this bill down and it's stuck to just policy committee staff, the negotiation is not necessarily fair to me because I've already gutted the bill, basically. So to me, this is very simple to just include legislative director and chief. I think this is a very fair reform bill. This is what a lot of people want, and it, again, preserves the integrity of this institution.

Yeah. It's unfortunate that we're at the situation where we're at the last hearing--

Senator Allen, I guess I'd suggest maybe you have a sidebar conversation with the author, and if you want to come back later in the hearing with a proposal, we can entertain it, but at this point in time, I'm not hearing a motion. So we're going to say, thank you, Senator Wahab, for your presentation today, and we'll put that bill on call.

Thank you for the lobbying efforts. Thank you.

All right. I do see Senator Durazo and then Wilk, who was here first. I'm not sure. We'll just take a quick pause here. All right, we're going to come back to our Hearing. Thanks, everyone, for their patience, Senator Durazo, particularly to you. Thank you for being here. And we have item number two, SB 52. And you're welcome to begin whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. I want to thank the Committee for working with us since last December on this legislation. SB 52 is a bill that requires cities with a population of two and a half million or more to establish an independent redistricting Commission in order to draw its city council district lines and have a fair and transparent process. While this legislation is not directly intended to any specific entity, the redistricting process in Los Angeles city inspired it for decades.

The existing LA City Council redistricting process has been plagued with inconsistencies and biases. Events in October of 2022 depicted how there is a significant potential for biased and self interested motivations to negatively impact the redistricting process for local entities that have not adopted an independent redistricting policy. Redistricting boundaries for elected officials at the state level and for several counties, including Los Angeles County, were determined based on the work of an independent redistricting Commission.

As the state has seen this continued trend build out to more counties, there are still many large entities which have not formally adopted independent redistricting. Los Angeles is the largest remaining local entity yet to adopt independent redistricting. California has taken an increased interest in the adoption of independent redistricting commissions for cities with larger populations.

This interest is based on how these local entities serve as local stewards, with these bodies overseeing the distribution of significant amounts of public resources in the billions to finance critical services such as housing, homelessness, and utility relief. Los Angeles was the most glaring example where members of the council depicted an existing redistricting process that does not prioritize the residents' well-being, eroding public confidence in the redistricting process, and further jeopardizing the fair distribution of vital public resources.

This bill presents a legislative response to an urgent need, and it also recognizes the dynamic of how many large cities are granted autonomy for certain matters as charter cities. Based on extended legal research on that issue, including engagement and legal opinions gathered from UC Berkeley, Laudine, Chamarinsky, and our own state legislative council, there is consensus SB 52 has strong constitutional standing to prescribe a specific independent redistricting process for charter cities impacted by this bill.

That is because there is legal precedent which grants the State of California the ability and the right to legislate on local matters if extraordinary circumstances deem it a matter of statewide concern. Further, the proposed independent redistricting model in this bill started as a copy of the county redistricting model, and my office has remained engaged with various stakeholders to refine the remedy to meet the needs of the community advocacy groups, and other legislators.

I want to end by saying that I want to highlight how SB 52 also includes language that recognizes if cities do establish an independent redistricting Commission through an amendment to their own charter, that model would apply if it meets the baseline intent of independent redistricting. I've been working with other legislators, Assemblymen Brian, Senators Menjivar, Smallwood-Cuevas, other organizations, ACLU, common cause community based groups to make this the best possible bill.

With me today to testify is Richard Zaldivar, prominent community and state leader, founder and Executive Director of the Wall Las Memorias Project to provide testimony in support. At the appropriate time, Mr. Chair, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Durazo. Appreciate it. Mr. S\Zaldivar, the floor is yours. Two minutes.

Thank you so much. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. I am the Executive Director and the founder of the Wall Las Memorias in Los Angeles. But I'm here today to speak in support of SB 52 and the Senator's efforts to provide a remedy to a problem that our community has needed to address for decades. As a local Los Angeles resident, I am saddened by the arrogance that was displayed in the tapes this past summer about the redistricting process.

But it's not the first time that's ever taken place. It was just caught on tape. The conversations that took place depicted a City Council redistricting process where individual interests come before the needs and interests of our communities. These types of conversations were not only conducted on those tapes, but with other members of the council. As the press carried the story about the tapes almost nightly, our local government officials committed to changing the process. And now, with no media stories about this issue, nothing has happened.

It's been months. To put it simply, our local government body is not upholding its commitment as public stewards to protect our best interests. Already almost a decade, the Los Angeles City Council has remained scandal plagued with other incidents, including FBI investigations into corruption and other self interest maneuvers to preserve power, further eroding public trust in city elected officials. It was a public display of failures of the LA Council to provide unbiased and transparent service to the people of Los Angeles.

How we respond this time must be different. Not just another scandal swept away. The moment demands more. The lack of trust and leadership in our community's government is ripping us apart at a time we need our leaders to truly listen, take action, and bring us together. We want our leaders to be better. We want more representative and responsive government. That is why we truly need an independent redistricting process to finally be adopted by the LA City Council. Back in 2022, council members wanted to create a process for independent Commission, but they never followed through.

If you could wrap up, please.

This proposal for independent redistricting occurred during the 1999 Charter Reform efforts and it was rejected. For 25 years, this council has not demonstrated a serious interest in pursuing independent redistricting. I just want to say that as of today, there is no proposal for the public to view council efforts for independent redistricting. And let me just close, which is very passionate to me. The lack of urgency to restore confidence is motivated my interest to support this bill. It is critically needed in the City of Los Angeles.

And lastly, I just want to say that the strength of a democracy is authored measured by the faith of its members' participation. In the electoral process and lack. And lack of participation in the process erodes freedoms and the democratic principles we see often with low voter turnout, the inability to hold our government officials accountable.

Thank you.

I ask you to support transparency. I ask you to support democratic principles. I ask you for a yea vote on this bill.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

We'll be sure that the extra time will be added to the other side. Anyone else here in support want to indicate their name and affiliation, please come on up.

Good morning, Chair, Committee Members, and staff. Christophe Mayer with the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees in support. Thanks to the author for your work on this bill.

Thank you very much. Anyone else here in support? Please come on up. Tweeners are okay. Sure.

Dora Rose, League of Women Voters of California, in strong support of independent redistricting commissions. We have a supportive if amended letter into Senator Durazo. We appreciate the responsiveness of her office and look forward to continuing to work on the bill.

Good. Thank you.

Marquise Mason, California Viable and Voters in support. Thanks.

Great. Thank you. Anyone else in support? Okay, we'll go to opposition here in the hearing room. If anyone wishes to speak in opposition, please come on up to the microphone, and you're welcome to make a statement if you wish. You have three minutes and 18 seconds.

I'll keep it short. City of Los Angeles in opposition.

Okay. All right, thank you. Thank you for being here. Anyone else in opposition? All right, we'll go to the phone lines. Moderator, would you ask if there's anyone who wishes to indicate that their support or opposition to SB 52 by Senator Durazo? And this is the time just to give their name, affiliation, and position. Thank you.

Thank you. If you're in support or opposition of SB 52, you may press one and then zero. Again, this is support and or opposition. We will go to line 26. Your line is open.

Missy from Los Angeles County. I strongly oppose SB 52, the redistricting for larger charter cities.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 14. Your line is open.

Good morning. My name is Seymour Amster, Executive Director of Educators, Teachers, and Students in Action in strong support of this bill.

Thank you. And, Mr. Chair, we have no further support or opposition. Thank you.

Very good. We'll bring the matter back to the Committee for discussion and debate. Members, any discussion or debate. I see a hand from Senator Allen.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Senator, for your work on, uh. I know you know, this is a matter of great import. It's part of why Assemblymember Brian and I are working on a statewide fix that would help to address this issue comprehensively. I guess I want to first just ask you about your thoughts on the statewide effort and the extent to which you're working with the Assembly Elections Chair on this.

Thank you. Yes, I have met with the Assemblymen. We've started the conversation as to where and how we could be supportive of each other. Certainly the scope of what his interest as shared was statewide with a much lower threshold and other issues. So we haven't gone to a real more specific support decision yet, but we're definitely working together and we're committed to working together.

Okay. I really appreciate it.

Thank you for your assistance in that and making that happen as well.

Yeah, thank you. I really appreciate that because I think this is going to be important for us to try to row in the same direction as best we can. You mentioned the fact that you're committed to working with common cause. I do want to draw attention to their letter. They had a supportive, amended letter, which I think really merits examination. There were a number of concerns about the large size of the Commission required by the Bill. I think you're looking at 24 people.

There are issues associated with Proportional Party Composition, the Commissioner's selection process, et cetera. I know that you largely modeled your Bill on the county model. We also know there have been a lot of problems with the county redistricting process last time. And I think that I would love to just get a better sense as to your conversations with common cause as we try to land on a good model for the city.

Just with regards to. I'm trying to find it here with regards to their specific issues. Like you said, the number, right?

Yeah. And the party composition and selection process.

Well, the number, of course, depends. I mean, we have 15 City Council districts in Los Angeles. If you limit it to 14, how do you decide which district doesn't have someone represented on the Commission? And the way we approach it is you can add more all the way up to 24. And each time it's random. It's random, but we want the last three or four or so to specifically address any particular problem that came out as a result of those random selections.

So I'm not sure how far we can get with that. But the other thing to look at this, it doesn't necessarily have to be one merged Bill. I mean, we could support each other and address each other's issues and concerns, and maybe it doesn't end up in one single Bill, but we are supportive of each other as long as it's not conflicting. I think that's the spirit of the conversation that we're having.

Okay. I mean, at least from the way it's written up in the analysis, it says that the Bill specifically provides that the Commission shall consist of 24 Members.

Right. If I might, Senator, the most important thing here is that if there is a better way that the City Council, City Council can pass its own independent redistricting process. So as long as it meets a baseline of what independent means. And so if there are particular things that would apply better in the City of Los Angeles, they can do that just like it would apply to any other entity that might be covered under this.

Right. I mean, I'm happy to move the item. I appreciate your commitment to continuing the work with chair Brian, but I also appreciate your comments. And I really do hope that we'll be able to get on the same page with common cause as well, because I think they have a substantive letter, it's two page letter. They've been working on this space for quite some time. They've also seen some of the deficiencies that exist in a number of the commissions that we have.

And this is ultimately all about getting it right. I mean, the comments that have been made are absolutely correct. We were all really dismayed by what the release of that tape showed about the way that this process had played out in the past and the arrogance with which some of the elected officials in charge of the process took to this process. And I think it's part of why we want to make sure we really get it right.

I think there's, my sense there's total agreement about the need for independent redistricting commissions. We certainly are buying to that model everywhere we go. And I think common cause has been the key player in this rollout. I just look forward to some really good collaborative work between all of our offices and them as we try to figure out how to hone this in a way that will really serve the residents of the City of Los Angeles the best.

Thank you. Senator Allen, any other comments or questions from Members? Okay. Senator Durazo, I applaud your leadership in this space. I think the work of Commission in LA is much overdue for reform, as your Bill proposes. I obviously hear the interest in others in advancing reforms along these lines, and I would note that I particularly appreciate the fact that you've given Los Angeles the chance to do it themselves in a way that has voter affirmation of a process that is fair and honest, and transparent. And with that, I'm happy to support your Bill today.

Thank you.

Great. And then that encourage you to continue to work with others in this space. All right. With that, I'm going to recognize a motion from Senator Allen on this measure. This is a do pass to Governance and Finance. And with that, would you like to close?

Just ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much.

Okay. Will the Secretary call the roll?

This is file item number two, SB 52, with a motion do pass to the Committee on Governance and Finance. [Roll Call]

We're going to put that Bill on call for absent Members. Yeah. Maybe the secretary didn't hear your vote correctly. Nguyen was it not voting? Did you get that? We'll confirm that, and this Bill will stay on call and we'll bring it back for.

Thank you, Members and Mr. Chair.

All right, Senator Wilk, you've been very patient there. Appreciate that. And this is file item number three. Now, SB 518 by Senator Wilk.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Members, in order to have a vibrant democratic republic, government needs to have the support of the people. And because of that, in my time in the Legislature, I've worked on accountability and transparency issues, whether it's government or in elections. I know I worked a lot with Senator Allen on particularly financial disclosure stuff. I believe the more information voters have, the better decisions they make. And this Bill is really a simple reform, as we've transitioned to vote by mail ballot.

In fact, last election cycle, I think, was 87 and a half percent of all ballots were cast. That way. There's a lot of issues, people forget to sign their ballot. I know for me, I had an issue where my signature has changed over the years, and it was rejected due to that, we have this whole curing process, and the problem with the curing process now is it gives a lot of latitude to whomever sitting in the county offices. Had a situation down in Central Valley.

Very tight Senate race this last time. Four counties. All four counties had different deadlines for when they were going to accept cured ballots. And in fact, the one county got conflicting information out of that, and our side thought we had additional time, and then we turned them in. They said no, the deadlines passed. And again, I don't think that was political at all. I just think it was poor management of that particular office.

But I had my candidate who ended up losing by 22 votes, going on social media, questioning the legitimacy of the election. I'm not doing that at all. But what I am saying is that we should have standard deadlines. So all this Bill does is that all cured ballots have to be submitted no later than 48 hours before the data certification, which is, as you know, 30 days. So everybody, all sides on a level playing field, and everybody knows the rules. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Senator Wilk, do you have proponents here to speak in support?

This is such a no brainer. I decided not to do that.

Very good. Anybody here wishes to indicate their support in the room? All right, we'll go to opposition. Anyone here in opposition in the room?

Good morning. Tricia Webber, on behalf of California Association of Clerk and Election Officials, we are in opposition of this Bill. One of the things that didn't make it into the analyses that I wanted to bring up forward is that for presidential elections, we are actually required to certify it 28 days, and it's for the remainder of the items that we would do to 30 days. And I know we had mentioned that to your office, but there is a disconnect there. If it goes to 30 days, then we have a problem with the presidential ones.

Very good. Okay, I think we'll note that, and we'll talk about that in just a moment. Anybody else in opposition here in the room? All right, let's go to the phone lines. Moderator. This is item number three, SB 518. Anyone queued up to speak in support or opposition, just name an affiliation.

Thank you. If you're in support or opposition, you may press one and then zero. Again. That is one and then zero. If you're in support or opposition of SD 518. And we will go to line 17. Your line is open. Line 17, do you have us on mute? You just took yourself out. We will go to line 26. Your line is open.

Missy from LA County. I support SB 518, the elections certification result.

Very good. Next caller, please.

Thank you. And we have no further support or.

Thank you, moderate. We'll bring it back to the Committee for comments or discussions. Any Member-? Senator Wilk, would you like to address the concern that was raised there?

All I'm looking for is a set date. So I'm totally flexible on that. Happy to work with the opposition. Again, all I'm advocating for is that everybody knows the rules in advance. Again, this particular Senate race, four counties, four different sets of rules, and not always communicated clearly. And again, I don't think it was political bias. I think there was some mismanagement, which is a concern as well. But if everybody's operating and everybody knows the rules, that's all I'm looking for. Happy to work with them, to have a date that helps them comply with federal law.

Should I take that as your close?

Yes.

All right. I'm happy to support the Bill today. I think it's a fair standard you're trying to create, and I appreciate your flexibility to work with the clerks on that issue. Senator Nguyen, did you have a motion? Yes. Oh, excuse me. Did you have a comment? Okay, so I haven't recognized a motion yet.

So, Senator Newman?

I just want to comment. I fully support the broader intent of this Bill, the premises Bill. We have gone from having Election Day, Election Eve, to something like election month, and nobody knows when that month ends. And that clearly has a bunch of prospectively corrosive effects. And you've named some of them. So I think this is a good start. I'm glad to hear that you're willing to work with the clerks, whatever the date is. I think to have that clarity about when elections are over would be hugely helpful in many, many ways. So glad to support the Bill today.

Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no further comments, but I recognize the motion from Senator Nguyen. This is do pass to appropriations. Secretary would call the roll file item?

Number three with a motion do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

All right, we're going to hold the roll open for absent Members. Thank you, Senator Wilk. I see Senator Wiener is here. I appreciate your patience. Senator Wiener, this is file item number four, SB 532. And the floor is yours whenever you're ready.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you and the Committee for working with us on this Bill. Mr. Chairman, you and I actually, I think, have worked directly, intensively on this Bill, and we have agreed on amendments to the Bill, which I would like to because it was too late to be in the analysis. I'd like to state those amendments as I understand them so we can make sure that we're in accord. The amendments will be the following.

The existing fiscal disclosures will remain on the ballot label, but the words that comprise those fiscal disclosures will not count towards the 75 word limit. They will be exempt from that limit. So this will be able to go over 75 words. Not to describe the uses of the bond, but the fiscal disclosures that are required. That'll be for both the tiered taxes and for bonds. That exemption from the 75 word limit will apply.

And then in addition, even though this is arguably already the law, under existing law, that we will explicitly allow the option of using bullet points on the ballot. On the fiscal analysis, on the on the on the fiscal analysis, on the fiscal analysis only. Can I have one moment, please? Surely.

You and I had not been explicit about that, but we're willing to go with that, that the bullets will be for the fiscal. So those were the amendments that we agreed to, and if the chair is amenable, we can have that agreement.

Yeah. So thank you, Senator Wiener. I think you've correctly identified the conversations that we had, and I appreciate all your constructive work there to find common ground.

Okay.

And I want to make sure my Committee Members all understand that. Everybody clear on that? Okay?

So with that, we accept those amendments as agreed upon Committee amendments. And I appreciate the Chair working with us. And I do want to say that as I've expressed, the chair, I'm not in love with those amendments, but I'm happy to come to a resolution so that we can move forward in peace and harmony and take a step forward in addressing what's a very, very real issue.

And, colleagues, that issue is that in 2015 and 2017, the Legislature, after decades and decades of not having these requirements, the Legislature imposed requirements for local bond and tax measures that in the 75 word ballot question requiring significant explanation of costs attributable to those measures. I voted for the 2017 when I wasn't here for 2015. On the surface, this seems perfectly reasonable. We all want more disclosure and transparency. In practice, it has been a complete mess. I'm not talking about that.

This Bill does not apply to simple tax measures that only have one tier. That's fine. But when you're talking about bonds and tiered parcel tax measures, there are times when there simply are not enough. You can't fit it into 75 words, particularly with a tiered measure, but also sometimes with a bond, there just aren't enough words to both describe the uses and all the different potential costs. And so in practice, it has been a mess.

It's also been extremely confusing because it requires you to take very complicated and sometimes ambiguous, not ambiguous, but uncertain bond costs, because with bonds, you can't always predict what the cost is going to be. And so you have to use estimates or ranges. You have to then boil that down and include it, insert it into the 75 words in addition to talking about what the bond is going to do. So it has been a complete mess.

It has reduced the passage rate of bonds and tax measures, and they're passing by lower percentages. There are local school districts and cities that they do the polling and the polling tanks so tremendously, when you put this convoluted, confusing language in that they don't even bother to go to the ballot, it's been just a mess. And so in 2019, we came in to try to fix it. The Legislature passed it, the Governor vetoed it.

We came back this year with a revised version of it to try to address the governor's concerns and his veto message. And now we have agreed to amendments to not do everything we wanted to do, but to at least take a step and to stop completely handcuffing our local governments who are trying to do, only thing they're trying to do is serve the community better.

Whether it's fixing a school that is dilapidated or sick so our kids are getting sick, whether it is trying to address fix infrastructure so that when sea level rise happens, we don't have infrastructure getting completely flooded out, or fix our water systems so that we don't have situations like in Flint, Michigan. There are so many ways that we are expecting our local governments to fix infrastructure to address our community's needs, and we make it harder and harder for them to generate that revenue.

And is it any wonder we have such deferred maintenance on our infrastructure? And in 2015 and 2017, this Legislature, I'm going to say it, screwed over our local governments by making it even harder than it already is to raise critical revenue. And this Bill today will help us move in a direction of starting to walk that back and have a better approach so that cities, school districts, special districts, can actually meet the community's needs. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

And with me today to testify Rebekah Kalleen of the Coalition for Adequate School Housing and Stephen Russeli, the Executive Director of the San Diego Housing Federation.

Very good. We look forward to your witnesses. We have two minutes each.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Rebekah Kalleen, on behalf of the Coalition for Adequate School Housing, representing school districts on school facilities issues. Every child in California deserves access to a clean, safe school, including our youngest learners in our newly expanded transitional kindergarten grade level who require specialized facilities. Local bonds are the primary source of revenue to construct these classrooms and to do other vital repairs and upgrades for our schools.

Bonds are a covenant between school districts and their communities, and transparency is vital to sustain the ongoing commitment and support of those communities. Voters need to know how a proposed bond measure will help their community. They also need to understand how it will affect them personally. Yet the current ballot label, fiscal disclosure requirements do not make sense for bonds, leading to voter confusion, and confused voters vote no. Bond tax rates are not fixed instead of they fluctuate to pay principal and interest.

Changes are driven by the economy, interest rates, property values, project schedules and more. We do not believe it is transparent to provide information without proper context that we know confuses voters. This voter confusion leads to a variety of outcomes. Some schools do not put their bond on the ballot. If polling does not show a winning measure, they don't put it on the ballot just to watch it fail. Schools will also reduce the size of their bonds, and they're not able to meet their full, significant needs.

Communities with a long history of passing bonds and support for those bonds are now seeing that they have difficulty passing a bond. We will see a widening gap between the haves and the have-nots, the large differences in school facilities, and the most negative impacts to students in low-wealth communities. We support the proposed compromise as it allows additional space within the existing ballot label to explain both the fiscal disclosures and how the revenues will be spent in this community. And for that, we urge your aye vote. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Ms. Colleen Mr. Russeli.

Good morning. Chair and Members, my name is Stephen Russeli. I'm President and CEO of the San Diego Housing Federation. The San Diego Housing Federation represents the affordable housing sector in San Diego and with more than 100 organizational members across the state and region. And we believe that everyone deserves a healthy, secure, and affordable place to live. Our organization is strong in strong support of Senate Bill 532, a crucial Bill that will tackle the issues created by the latest modifications to ballot measure election laws.

This Bill will establish clarity and transparency while safeguarding the capacity of local agencies and communities to Fund initiatives that address the affordable housing and homelessness crisis. While the intention behind the prior reforms were to increase transparency in the voting process, they've resulted in confusion among voters. As Senator Wiener has highlighted, the current ballot measure requirements take up a significant portion of the available space on the ballot label, making it difficult to describe how these bonds or revenues will benefit the community.

Oversimplified ballot label financial statements do not help voters understand why and how the rates will fluctuate, ultimately misleading them. The City of San Diego has faced this the adverse effects of existing requirements firsthand in recent years. In 2020, the Housing Federation championed measure a, a local bond measure that sought to generate 900 million in local revenue. This funding was aimed at tackling the pressing issue of homelessness by constructing affordable and permanent supportive housing.

However, the current ballot label requirements drastically reduced the support for measure a, which reached 58% but ultimately failed to pass. Polling in May of 2017 with pre AB 195 language illustrated support well above the two-thirds margin required, whereas polling conducted a year later in 2018 during the campaign illustrated a 13.0 drop in support confirmed by additional polling of both non AB compliant and compliant language.

In July of 2018, our efforts to address the homelessness and housing crisis will continue to be hobbled by the current ballot labeling requirements. This limitation has impaired the city's ability to generate much needed revenue to combat the crisis in our region.

Mr. Russeli, if you can finish up, please.

I will, sir. We support the compromise listed here today as it allows for additional space within the existing ballot to explain both the fiscal disclosures and how the revenues will benefit the community. And for these reasons, we urge your support.

Thank you, sir. Any other individuals who'd like to indicate support here in the room, just name an affiliation.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members. Jean Hurst here today on behalf of the Urban Counties of California and on behalf of my colleagues at the California State Association of Counties, in support.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairon. Members Julie Snyder, representing the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority and its parent agencies, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Association of Bay Area Governments, in support. Thank you.

Thank you, Julie.

Mr. Chair. Niccolo De Luca, on behalf of non-profit Housing of Northern California and Oakland, Mayor Sheng Thao, in support, and thank you for Committee staff for all the work on the negotiations.

Thank you, sir.

Izzy Swindler, on behalf of San Francisco Mayor London Breed, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Andrew Detwiler, on behalf of the California Housing Partnership, in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Marcus Detwiler with the California Special Districts Association and also on behalf of the Association of California Healthcare Districts, in support.

Thank you. Thank you, sir.

Good morning. Christoph Mayer with the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees in strong support.

Thank you, sir. Anybody else in support? All right, we'll move to opposition. Anyone here in the hearing room who would like to speak in opposition to this measure?

Tobias Wilkin with the California Taxpayers Association, in opposition, but we appreciate the amendments put forward.

Vanessa Chavez with the California Association of Realtors. We're opposed to the measure in print. However, we will be reviewing the amendments and are reassured by the language provided in Committee today, and we'll reassess our position at that time. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. All right, anybody else in opposition here in the room? All right, we'll go to the phone lines. Moderator. If you'd ask anyone who would like to indicate support or opposition to SB 532 to please so indicate, and we're just, name and affiliation now.

Support and opposition of SB 532. You may press one and then zero. We will go to line 72. Your line is open.

Good morning. Michelle Underwood, on behalf of the Columbus Unified School District and the Association of California Community College Administrators, both in support.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 85. Your line is open.

Good morning. Martin Radovich. On behalf of Santa Clara Valley Water District, in support.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 26. Your line is open.

Missy, in Los Angeles County, affiliated with Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association and California Taxpayer Association, two organizations I oppose SB 532, the ballot measure pertaining to local taxes.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 80. Your line is open.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Committee Members, this is Michelle Gill, on behalf of California Association of School Business Officials, in support.

Thank you. Line 81, your line is open.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, Jeff Vaca, representing the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools and the 23 school district superintendents in Riverside County in support.

Thank you. Next, line 86, your line is open.

Hi, Tiffany Mok. On behalf of CFT in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, we have no further support or opposition.

Very good. Thank you. Moderator. Thanks for all your help today. All right, Members, we're going to bring the issue back to the Committee for comments or questions. Members, any comments or questions on SB 532 as proposed, amended by, Senator Wiener.

I'll move the Bill.

I will just say, Senator Wiener, before your close. Thank you for your constructive work. I know how much you care about investments, and I know this isn't the perfect Bill that you would like to see. I think it's a step forward. We'll continue to work on these issues as the months go forward or the years go forward. With that, would you like to close.

Respectfully, ask for an aye vote.

Okay, so, Senator Allen has moved the Bill. This is a do pass as amended to Appropriations. Will the Secretary call the roll?

[Roll Call]

All right, we're going to keep the roll open for absent Members. Thank you, Senator Wiener. We're going to invite back to the podium Senator Umberg, who didn't get to finish on his second Bill. Looking forward to hearing about this next one. This is file item number nine, SB 678. Is Niello here? Oh, is he in the. Senator Umberg. Excuse me, hiding in the back. We usually Reserve the front row for Members. I want to invite you to the Senate. Senator Niello, we welcome you, and we certainly invite you to sit in the front row next time.

Well, thank you. I'm a very modest person.

This is file item number seven, SB eight. 58. You can proceed when you're ready, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. First of all, go kings. I couldn't resist that. SB 858 will transfer the duty of preparing ballot titles and summary statements for all proposed initiative and referendum measures from the Attorney General's Office to the Legislative Analyst Office: the LAO. The initiative process is an integral and vital component of direct democracy in California and is being exercised with increased frequency. An effective initiative process necessitates an impartial, nonpartisan entity without political leanings to inform voters about the measures.

The soundness of our initiative process is compromised when voter information is at all partial. That's why the LAO provides the detailed analysis of ballot measures in the first place. Unfortunately, ballot title and summary language is drafted by the partisan attorney general, causing it sometimes to be politically biased. This sometimes leads to a misinformed rather than an educated and engaged electorate. While initiatives themselves are, of course, inherently political, the ballot title and summary should not be.

Currently, as I said, the LAO is responsible for providing the detailed analysis of each measure and does so in an excellent, easy to understand, and importantly, impartial manner. It just makes good sense that the LAO to bring this same simple and impartial approach to drafting the title and summary statement with me today. I have Legislative Analyst Gabe Petek to go over what the current role of the LAO is with the initiative process, as well as available to answer any questions that you might have.

Additionally, I have Dora Rose of the League of Women Voters with me.

All right, we'd invite up both of those speakers if they'd like to address the committee.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members, and thank you, Senator Niello. I do want to just begin by saying that our office does not have a position on this proposed bill, and so I'm here to describe our role in the process, as Senator Niello said and our role really is to provide an impartial analysis to California's voters on all ballot measures and referendum that go before the voters. We have four main deliverables when we do this work.

The heart of it really is in the ballot analysis, which is the detailed analysis that Senator Niello mentioned. This includes a section that provides background, a description of the proposal in another section, and then the fiscal effects. In a third section. We also provide summary of the fiscal effects in our fiscal bullets, which the attorney general uses and attaches to the title and summary.

And then we provide a short yes no summary of what the proposal, the measure would do, a vote yes or no means for the voter. And then we write part of the ballot label we do not do currently. The title and summary work that the Attorney General does.

Our understanding of the bill is that that responsibility would shift to us, and I can say that our staff, given the research that we do preparing the ballot analysis, has the analytic capability to do that work, and I'm confident in our ability to do that work impartially. I would also, though, note that the bill, as we understand it, shifts some additional responsibilities to our office that are administrative in nature and call upon us to do some activities that we currently don't have the resources to do.

And so I would just mention these includes a monetary responsibility, collecting the fees for those that file a measure to go before to circulate, to get signatures. It includes setting up a mechanism for receiving public comment on our website and then making that available to the proponents. And then thirdly, just the presence of a staff to respond to questions. Our understanding is that the attorney general's office does receive a lot of questions just about the process.

Our office is quite lean, so we just do not have the administrative staff to do all of those activities. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Morning. Dora Rose, Deputy Director of Legal and Voters of California, here today to speak in support of SB 858, the companion bill to SCA 3. As we all know, California law assigns responsibility for drafting title and summaries to the attorney general. The code requires that those statements be true and impartial and not likely to create prejudice for or against a proposed measure. In recent years, there's been a good deal of controversy and even litigation as to whether that standard has actually been met.

Unfortunately, since the attorney general is necessarily a partisan office, ballot proponents and opponents alike can always plausibly claim unfair treatment, whatever the proposed language is, even if that language is perfectly fair, as it often is, and this undermines the public's confidence in the ballot initiative process. This legislation addresses the problem by giving voters an opportunity to transfer responsibility for drafting titles and summaries to the Legislative Analyst's Office.

The LAO is a nonpartisan, professionally staffed office that has provided fiscal and policy advice to the legislature for 75 years. Its work providing measure summaries is an integral step in the legislative process relied on by Californians as a source of expert and impartial analysis. There's every reason to believe that the LAO would bring the same level of nonpartisan expertise and professionalism to the task of writing titles and summaries. And, as important as that, insulate this important work from the charges of partisan bias.

This is all that the more important in a state like California, where one party holds a supermajority in both chambers of the Legislature. Our electoral processes should be above reproach. This constitutional amendment is in keeping with that ideal. League of Women Voters of California is therefore in support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else here in support of this bill that would like to indicate their name and affiliation for the record? Okay, we're going to go to opposition. Is there anyone here in the room in opposition to this measure? Seeing none, we'll go to the phone lines. Moderator, if you could ask if there's anyone who wishes to give their name and affiliation in support or opposition to SB 858?

Thank you. If you're in support or opposition of SB 858, you may press one and then zero. And we will go to line 86. Your line is open.

Hi, this is Tiffany Mok with CFT. I want to apologize for not getting a letter in, but respectfully appreciate the conversation and the testimony by folks, but respectfully disagree and therefore urge you not to support SB 858.

Thank you. Next caller, please.

Thank you. Line 26, your line is open.

Hello, this is Missy with Los Angeles County in strong support of Senate Bill 858: the initiative and referendum measures title and summary transferred to Lao, and I am a member of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association.

Thank you. Next caller, please.

Thank you. Line 83, your line is open.

Yes, Julia E: Inner City Public School teacher in strong support of this measure.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have no further support or opposition. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much, moderator. We'll bring this matter back to the committee for discussion or debate. Any comments? Questions? Debate? Senator Newman.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, Senator Nielo, I am happy to support this measure. I think to your point, referendum and initiatives, we should argue about those measures about their merits, not about the objectivity of the title and summary. I think to the extent that that is the status quo, it's not a good thing, and this would be a good and positive change if only to strip that out of the conversation.

Let's have those real arguments about the merits of proposed referendum and initiatives without the skepticism that necessarily comes from a partisan actor doing the title in summary. So glad to support it. And I'd ask to be included as a co-author if I wanted to amend moving forward. Thank you.

Very good. Any further comments or questions? All right, Senator, would you like to close?

Yes. Typically, at this point, I would just say I respectfully ask for an aye vote, but I do want to address the LAO's concern, and we'll be talking more about that. Frankly, I think that that also doesn't appropriately belong with the attorney general. Our elections official is the secretary of state, and perhaps that's where those things should arise. But I agree with the LAO that that should be addressed, and we will talk about that as the bill moves forward.

Should I be fortunate enough to have the approval of this committee, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Niello. I'm happy to support your bill today. I'm going to recognize the motion from Senator Newman. Is that correct, Senator Newman? Senator Newman's move the bill do pass to me.

Can I just add a comment?

Not if I've recognized a motion that, according to the rules, is when we have to go immediately to a vote. So you have to catch me before that. All right, so, secretary, please call the roll.

This is SB 858; do pass to the Committee on Appropriation. [Roll Call]

All right, we're going to leave that on call for absent Members. Members, I want to go back now and get motions on all the matters we've heard so far. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Senator Niello. We're going to start with the consent calendar. This is file items 15, 16, and 17. Is there a motion? Senator Allen moves the consent calendar.

Secretary, would you call the roll?

On the consent calendar [Roll Call].

All right, so we're going to leave that on call for absent Members. We're going to move back to file item one. Skinner, SB 25. Already heard the matter. Is there a motion on Senator Skinner's Bill? Senator Allen moves the Bill. Secretary would call the roll.

File item number one, SB 25, with a motion do pass. [Roll call].

We're going to leave that on call for absent Members. On the Durazo Bill, we almost have a full house here. My suggestion is that we're going to. Do we have a vote on that yet? What's the vote total on that?

Four to one.

Four to one? That's enough. I'm going to suggest we close the roll, grant reconsideration, and then allow for another vote to be cast. According to the Clerk, that's the appropriate process to go through. So with that objection, we're going to close the roll on that. That Bill is out four to one. I'm going to recognize a motion for reconsideration from Senator Allen. And so we're going to take. Is there a vote on reconsideration first? Without objection on that. All right, see, no objection. We'll take another vote.

Now, this is the Durazo Bill. This is do pass to Governance and Finance. So if the secretary would call the role on that.

[Roll call].

All right, we're going to leave that on call for absent Members. We're going to move to item three. That vote has been taken. Why don't we call it again and see if absent Members have returned?

This is file item number three with the motion do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call].

Okay, those are only ones missing on that. Is that the same on the Senator Wiener bill?

Yes.

Okay, so we're going to go to file item six, Caballero. This is SB 632. We heard the Bill. It's a good Bill, but didn't have a motion at the time. Is there a motion, Members? Senator Newman moves the Bill. It is do pass to Appropriations. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call].

We're going to leave that on call for absent Members. Next up is file item eight, SB 24 by Umberg. We're looking for a motion on that. No, this is item eight. This is item eight. Senator Allen, are you moving that Bill? This is do pass to the Committee on Rules. The secretary would call the role.

[Roll call].

All right, I will put that bill on call for absent Members. Okay, I think that catches us up. Is that?

Yes.

Okay, now, we want to recognize Senator Umberg for his presentation. We've been waiting with bated breath. This is SB 678, file item nine.

This is the reason.

Senator Umberg, welcome back to the Committee, and we look forward to your presentation.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, special thank you to your fine staff, in particular, Ms. Karen French, for your help on this Bill. SB 678 would require a person paid by a campaign to support a candidate or ballot measure to disclose that the committee has paid them. That's for influencers. So, for example, if you're an influencer and you're being paid to say positive or negative things or influence individuals by a campaign, you simply need to disclose. It would seem to be fair.

Disclosure is required for other kinds of campaign materials, and thus this would be appropriate. I urge an Aye vote. With me here is Lindsey Nakano from the FPPC to testify in support. Mr. Chair.

I would look forward to your testimony, ma'am.

Good morning. Thank you again. My name is Lindsey Nakano. I'm with the Fair Political Practices Commission. SB 678 makes it clear and straightforward addition to the Political Reform Act's rules for disclaimers on campaign advertisements, ensuring that the law keeps pace with evolving technology and practices.

Specifically, the Bill would require a short disclaimer statement on online social media posts that support or oppose a candidate or ballot measure when those posts were made by a third party who was paid by a campaign committee to make that post. The absence of any disclaimer on third-party social media posts can be misleading to voters who are viewing that content as the content could appear to be the person's natural speech as opposed to a paid message.

Disclaimers like the one required by SB 678 provide important information to voters that helps them understand the context of the political endorsement or opposition. Thank you to this Committee for hearing the Bill. I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you.

Thank you. Do you have another lead supporter?

I believe the rest are so-called me-toos

Now let's hear from any other support witnesses in the room. Please state your name and affiliation and your position.

Dora Rose, League of Women Voters of California, in strong support. Thank you.

Trent Lange, California Clean Money Campaign, in strong support.

Seeing no other ones. We will now move on to lead witnesses in opposition. Seeing none. Any other witnesses in opposition would like to make a. Thank you. At this time, we'll move into testify via the teleconference call. Moderator, would you please prompt the individuals waiting to testify in support of opposition of SB 678?

Thank you. If you're in opposition or support of SB 678 you may press one and then zero. Again. That is one and then zero for support or opposition. We will go to line 82, your line is open. Line 82, your line is open. All right, we'll move on to line 26. Your line is open.

Missy in Los Angeles County in support of SB 678 election disclosures.

Thank you. And we have no further support or opposition in queue.

Thank you. At this time, I'll bring it to Members. Questions, comments, motion?

Just one quick comment. I just want to say, Senator Umberg I'm so impressed that you're so in touch with the influencer community. You're young and hard. Obviously. Very commendable.

Thank you, my children would be proud of me.

Okay, now I'm lost. A motion? There's a motion. Senator Umberg, would you like to close?

Urge an Aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. We have do pass to the Committee on Appropriation. Please. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

[Roll call].

All right, we're going to put that Bill on call for absent Members. Next up, I believe. Senator Newman, is that right? As our agenda provides. Senator Newman, we're going to.

I think we have time for one bill Mr. Chairman, can I do the one for which I have a witness?

You may. What? We can get through two bills if we're efficient about it.

I believe Senator Allen when he says he's quick.

All right. Okay. All right, Senator Allen. We're going to go to Senator Allen at the graciousness of Senator Newman, which does surprise me. Not the graciousness, but that he's willing to provide it in this circumstance. Senator Allen, this is file item 14 SB 789.

Thank you, Senator Newman. This is a simple measure. It moves SCA 2 from last session to next year's general election ballot. The measure is currently set to be for voters at the March primary, but we're putting it on the November ballot, and I respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Very good. Are there witnesses in support of the Bill here? This Bill does have the support of the Chair, so I encourage you to be concise.

Dora Rose, League of Women Voters of California. That's a really good idea.

Very good. Anybody else here in support of the measure? All right, anybody here in opposition to the measure, please come forward. Seeing none. We'll go to the phone lines. Moderator, this is SB 789 by Senator Allen. If you can, ask if anyone wishes to provide their name and affiliation in support or opposition of that Bill.

Thank you. If you're in support and opposition of SB 789. You may press one and then zero.

Matario.

Again, that is one and then zero if you're in support or opposition. And Mr. Chair, we have no one in queue.

Okay, very good. We'll bring the matter back to the Committee for comment or questions. I see Senator Umberg down at the end here.

I'm going to forego my 20 minutes of commentary and move the Bill.

I'm not going to recognize that. I'm going to look to Senator Newman, who I think had something to say.

No, I was just going to move the bill.

And I do recognize the motion from Senator Newman. Senator Allen, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

All right. So the secretary would call the role. This is a do pass to Appropriations. Good luck with that. Secretary, please call the role.

[Roll call].

We'll put that on call for absent Members. All right, so now we're going to invite Senator Newman up. Senator Newman, you had a Bill with a witness here that you wish to accommodate. What Bill is that?

SB 409.

SB 409. That is the candidate statement.

That is the candidate statement Bill.

Right. And I just want people to know that we have had you in a side room without any devices or staff to write your statement today, that you.

Wrote this last night without any assistance or spell check.

All right. Please proceed.

Okay. And thank you, Mr. Chair. My apologies. This may not be as fast as Senator Allen's. So, good afternoon, members, and I thank you for the opportunity to present SB 409, which would require that candidates for public office in California who submit a ballot statement would do so by presenting themselves in person, either at a county elections office or at the Secretary of State's Office, and record those statements in person without the aid of outside assistance or other materials.

Doing so will provide voters with a more authentic and accurate basis for the assessment of the candidates on their ballots. As you're aware, under California's Election Code, candidates running for local, state, or federal office may purchase space in the county voter information guide for a statement of up to 250 words in the county or counties in their jurisdiction.

The intent of these provisions is to provide a central repository and an authoritative source for voters to find essential information about the candidates seeking their support on an upcoming ballot. Unfortunately, like so many other features of modern campaigning, the candidate ballot statements have too often become but one more election-related task performed not by candidates themselves, but by professional, paid political consultants.

This trend, while entirely predictable, has led to a status quo where voter guides, despite their ostensible purpose and substantial cost to the taxpayer, have become just one more element in what I would describe as the edification of our politics and elections. The way I see it, if you shouldn't have somebody else writing your college essay, you shouldn't be allowed to have someone else write your candidate statement if you're running for office.

By requiring that candidates present themselves in person and write their own candidate statements without the aid of outside assistance, this measure will bring an enhanced level of authenticity to ballot statements and thereby provide a better and more grounded basis for assessing their ballot choices. The provisions of SB 409 also include provisions to take the next logical step toward bringing voter information guides into the digital age and making them accessible to the broadest possible audience.

By directing the Secretary of State to implement a pilot program that would allow candidates in participating counties to record and present their ballot statements via video. Voters would then be able to easily access these video ballot statements either by going to the website of their county election office or by scanning a QR code on the county voter guide, which would take them to an online repository of the video versions of candidates' ballot statements.

To ensure consistency and an even playing field, each candidate video would be required to adhere to a basic set of specifications on elements such as aspect, ratio, excuse me, framing, and backgrounds. By ensuring that the words in a candidate's ballot statement are in fact their own, and by providing voters the opportunity to view those ballot statements in a medium that is accessible and familiar, SB 409 will advance the cause of transparency and accountability on which our elections and the governance they yield ultimately depend.

I respectfully ask for your Aye vote today. With me today to testify in support of this measure is David Burke, the founder and Director of Citizens Take Action.

Terrific. Thank you, Senator Newman. Mr. Burke, we invite you to come forward with two minutes for your testimony.

Hello. Good late morning and thank you Chairman Glazer and Committee Members. My name is David Burke. I'm the founder of Citizens Take Action, a nonprofit that supports campaign finance reform and works toward improving transparency in government and increasing civic engagement. I was also elected to the Cypress City Council in November, so I know what it is to be an elected official.

I'm here to express my support for Senator Newman's Bill, which would require candidates for public office to submit their ballot statements in person without any assistance, I believe this would be beneficial for multiple reasons. First, requiring candidates to write their own ballot statements will give voters a better sense of each candidate's knowledge of key issues and their true communication skills. Presently, it is too easy for candidates to form out virtually every aspect of their campaign, including writing ballot statements to paid consultants.

This makes it difficult for voters to tell the difference between candidates who actually have the skills, work ethic, and demeanor to be effective leaders and those who are merely propped up by others. I also believe passing SB 409 would encourage only those candidates to run who are actually willing to put in the work. As an elected official, you know, and I can attest that it takes real dedication and acumen to effectively represent one's community.

For a candidate, being able to clearly explain their views on major issues and why they're running for office is an essential skill. We all have an interest in ensuring that every elected official can do that. So there should be nothing controversial about asking candidates to write their own ballot statements rather than paying someone to do it for them. I also believe the provision regarding video ballot statements is a step in the right direction.

In sum, SB 409 will help voters make better decisions and raise the caliber of our elected officials. Therefore, I wholeheartedly urge your support. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Thank you for doing the travel to be here and to share your thoughts. Appreciate it very much. All right, anybody else here in the hearing room to indicate their support for this legislation? All right, anyone here in the hearing room want to express their opposition to this Bill, please come forward.

My name is Colleen Britton. I'm with the Election Integrity Project California. We find absolutely no sense whatsoever in this Bill, especially in, in regard to SB 632, which wants to standardize candidate statements. So it's totally opposite. We want in a democracy. We want a plethora of qualified candidates with diverse ideas and views. This Bill will only further discourage new candidates from entering a campaign. Perhaps this is the real goal of this Bill.

In a digital age, why would we not allow potential candidates to utilize available technology to assist them in drafting a candidate statement for the voter guide and posting it on appropriate portal? It makes absolutely no sense. SB 409 would effectively place candidates back in the Stone Age. Many voters throughout the state who don't have an opportunity to meet candidates or attend events rely heavily on the voter guide to learn about candidates' platforms, values, and more. How else can they make an informed choice?

Putting this totally unnecessary and unrealistic restriction on political candidates not only adds to the frustration of potentially new candidates, but adds to the advantage of the incumbent with deep coffers and the ability to distribute and mail printed campaign materials, making it unnecessary for him or her to go through these ridiculous hoops. A candidate statement in the voter guide is a critical piece of their run for office.

Instead of making it more difficult, a candidate statement should be free, a state-provided benefit for all candidates who have proven their viability. Let the people see what each candidate brings to the table. We strongly urge a No vote on SB 409.

Thank you, ma'am. Anyone else here in the hearing room who wishes to speak in opposition? All right, we're going to go to the phone lines now. Moderator, if you can, ask if there's anyone who wishes to express their position on SB 409 in support or opposition. Just name an affiliation, please.

Thank you. If you're in support or opposition of SB 409, you may press one and then zero. And we will go to line 82. Your line is open.

My name is Marlena Dufrain. I'm from Santa Clara County and I'm in opposition to SB 409.

Thank you. Next we'll go to line 54.

This is Carla Henny, a concerned citizen. I oppose SB 409.

Thank you. Line 25. Your line is open.

My name is Myrna from the City of Walnut, and I strongly oppose SB 409.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 23. Your line is open.

Lee Mantebari with Election Integrity Project California, in opposition to 409.

Thank you. Next will go to line 26. Your line is open.

Missy in Los Angeles County, California. I'm in vehement opposition to SB 409 candidate statements in person without reference to any material.

Thank you. And next we'll go to line 57. Your line is open.

Line 57, your line is open. Next, we'll go to line 69. Your line is open.

Hi, Gloria Sutton, San Jose Santa Clara County, strongly opposed, and I am aligned with EIPCA.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 28. Your line is open.

Name is David Craig from San Bernardino County with no affiliation. I strongly oppose SB 409.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 39. Your line is open.

Yes. Beth Prince, San Diego County, opposition to 409.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 37. Your line is open.

Andy Miza, L.A. County. Strongly opposed to SB 409.

Thank you. Line 76, your line is open.

Hi, this is Chris Foster. I'm from Orange County. I oppose SB 409.

Thank you. Line 93, your line is open.

Hi, this is Lisa with Orange County EIPCA, strongly oppose 409.

Thank you. Next, we go to line 92. Your line is open.

Georgia Wright from Solano County. I strongly oppose 409.

Thank you. Next we'll go to line 53, your line is open.

My name is Tian Sun Huang, citizen of Santa Clara County. I strongly oppose SB 409.

Thank you. Line 63, your line is open.

My name is Fanny Lee, San Bernardino County, and I strongly oppose SB 409.

Thank you. And line 87, your line is open.

Shane McCool. And I oppose this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, we have no further support or opposition in queue.

All right. Thank you very much. Thanks for all those who participated in our hearing today. We'll bring the matter back to the Committee for comments or questions. Members comments or questions? Senator Allen?

Okay, look, let me start by saying I think the video side of this Bill is a really good idea. On the idea of the statement, I guess I hear you. I also feel like if you're somebody who doesn't want to have to memorize their statement, maybe if you're a really good actor, you can kind of get it all in your head. But I like to write things out myself, go over it, edit it, have it on my computer. That's how I've learned to draft things.

And the fact that I can't even bring my own statement that I've written myself as the ballot statement just seems too much to me. Anyway. If there's another path that you can reach some of your goals without kind of impinging upon a candidate's ability to honestly draft a statement as they like and have it be part of to get on the ballot, I'm certainly open to that, but I don't like the way you have it phrased right now quite frankly.

I would love to move forward with the video portion of your Bill. If you can work out another aspect of the Bill relating to the written ballot statement with the chair, I'm certainly open to letting that negotiation continue.

Go to Senator Umberg.

Just a question of Senator Newman or the proponent. What language would this be in?

As we move forward, we could certainly make accommodations for translation. We're not looking at anything by way of substantial cost to translate 250 or fewer words. Let me say, because I am not an unsensible man, clearly, I don't have the votes here. I do think there's an important conversation about how we engage with the folks who would aspire to represent us, what we ask of them by way of the materials and inputs as part of that process.

I'm really impressed by the extent of the calls and opposition today. None of this was intended to discourage candidates from running. I think one of the opponents may have misunderstood. This has nothing to do with costs. Those costs are sort of regulated for other reasons, either under Prop 34 at the local level.

It's really about the broader question about in elections, we, the public, are so far removed from the people who run that it would be good to have more opportunities to gain an honest assessment of who these people really are as opposed to how they are presented by the industry that has coalesced around politics. And so, Senator Allen, to your point, I'm actually more than open to your suggestion through the Chair, to eliminate the first provision, the in-person portion.

Having said that, and I do think there's merit, and I've worked with the Association of Elected County Officials, election officials, on this concept of video ballot statements. It's kind of on the natural that we would move to adopt that technology. There's nothing mutually inclusive about these two provisions. Right. So I'm open to amending the Bill to eliminate the provision for the in-person part. But having said that, I'm not sorry for instigating this conversation.

I'm really not, because I think there is a very compelling case to forcing, and I do mean it, the people who would represent us, the people who would be paid to take these offices, we should have some assurance that we're voting for them and not for the people they hire. And I think we all agree with that. Many of us might find that uncomfortable because it might expose us to a greater level of rigorous as we make our way through that process.

But having said that, Mr. Chair, open to that accommodation.

Okay. All right. So I appreciate the questions, and I appreciate your response to it, as you know, because we've had direct conversations about this. I know your heart is in the right direction on this, because the foundation is about trust in government and the people that they send to represent them. And I know that, for me, as you know, this didn't land in a spot that I could support.

My only comment in that regard is that communication skills are valuable, but I don't think that's necessarily a determinant issue for who could be the best representative. We've had cases in our past, both state and nationally, where we've had leaders who aren't good communicators and may have disabilities that maybe limit it and other things. And so I worry that that standard might be too rigorous and unfair to others.

But given what you have said today, it's my understanding that you're comfortable moving this Bill forward with the pilot program, with the QR code as a standalone in the Bill. And so with the deference of the Committee, I would suggest that we do a motion. Well, we have two choices. We can take that as an amendment today if you want to propose it, or we can move the Bill forward in its current form with the agreement that you'll remove.

Whatever is better for the Chair, for the Committee, but glad to accept either way. But let me make one more comment. Okay.

I think the motion will be to move this Bill with the understanding that we're going to limit it to the provisions I mentioned. So would you want to close Senator Newman?

I just want to point out that the ballot statement is just one of literally hundreds, if not thousands, of different bases for communication by candidates to voters. It happens to be the one that takes place kind of in the public space with public resources. So that's the sort of gist of this notion about improving the rigor. Right?

So clearly, this was not the best recipe for that today, but I stand by the assertion that I think it's important and happy to move forward with the amended Bill.

You should never apologize for doing what you think is right.

Can I take that as your close, Senator Newman?

Yes.

Okay. So I would look for a motion do pass to the Committee on Appropriations with the understanding that the Bill going forward will focus on the pilot program with the QR code link.

So moved.

Moved by Senator Umberg. Secretary would call the roll.

This is file item 13 with a motion do passed to the Committee on Appropriations. {Roll call].

All right, we're going to keep the roll open for absent Members. Folks, we're going to take a recess down on our Committee. I think we're expecting to return, hopefully in this room at 1:30, looking at the sergeants for guidance on that. Okay? So we're going to recess until 1:30. Thanks, everyone, for your patience.

Okay. The Committee on Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments will come back to order. Thank you all for your patience. We are going to move back to our agenda. We have--for people that are paying attention--three bills remaining on our docket: File Items Ten, 11, and 12. And we're going to begin now with File Item Number Ten: SB 248 by Senator Newman. Senator Newman, the floor is yours.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and for the folks here, I think a lot of people are here for judiciary, so you get a bonus, a little legislative bonus today. Mr. Chair and Members, thank you for the opportunity to present SB 248, which would require candidates running for office in California to submit, as part of their standard package of candidacy filings, a summary of their education, work, and any military service through the Secretary of State, thereby creating a legal framework for holding candidates responsible for lying about their past upon penalty of disqualification and other penalties.

As you may have surmised, the inspiration for this bill arose out of the seemingly constantly unfolding drama on New York Congressman and sociopathic fabulous George Santos. As you may recall, shortly after his election in November of 2022, Santos was subsequently revealed as having made a stunning number of false claims, including lies about his residency, his income and assets, his educational background, his experience working for high profile Wall Street firms, and even his mother's whereabouts on 911.

For the last decade, we have been living in an interesting and troubling era of American public life, where all manner of the kinds of norms which have reliably guided the conduct of our civic affairs have progressively fallen by the wayside. And while it's certainly true that personal embellishment has long been a feature of politics, voters typically could nevertheless fairly safely assume that the people on their ballots were generally who they claimed to be.

While the Santos episode represents perhaps the most extreme example, it appears to be part of a larger trend, whereas we're living in what some have described as the age of the death of shame, where candidates for office ever more aggressively dance on the dark side of truth, ethics, and integrity, if we allow them. Consider this.

Had George Santos employed all of those magnificent lies in the service of an application for position in private industry or concluded that information on an application for a loan, he could have been expected to either be summarily fired or possibly prosecuted for false statements on a loan.

Running for election is, at its most basic level, another version of applying for a job, one where the hiring decisions made by a majority of the voters in a particular jurisdiction, and yet, as it turns out, California is no different than New York or other jurisdictions across the country insofar as there is apparently no statutory mechanism currently in place beyond the prospect of an unwieldy and expensive recall for holding candidates legally liable for the wholesale fabrication of their credentials in ways that might defraud voters into placing them into office, even when such lies are ultimately uncovered.

SB 248 would close this gaping hole in accountability by requiring that all candidates running for office provide a basic summary of their qualifications and then to attest under penalty of disqualification and subsequent removal, as well as possible criminal prosecution, that the information being provided is accurate and true to the best of their knowledge.

With public trust in politics already at all time lows, SB 248 will provide voters the assurance of appropriate and effective recourse while allowing for the full exercise of candidates' First Amendment rights if and when it turns out that a candidate has achieved election by running un-demonstrably falsified credentials. I respectfully ask for your aye vote today.

Thank you, Senator Newman. Do you have any witnesses in support here?

I do not.

All right, if there's anyone who would like to speak in support of this bill, please--here in our hearing room--please come forward. Seeing no primary witnesses, anybody who would like to just register their support, please come forward. All right, seeing none, we'll go to opposition. If there's anybody here who would like to be a primary witness in opposition, please come forward. All right, anyone who wishes to put their name on the record in opposition, please come forward. All right, seeing none, we'll go to the telephone lines. Moderator, are you still with us? Took a nice break.

I am here.

Terrific. Thanks for your help today. Could you ask if anyone would like to speak--put on the record their support or opposition to SB 248 by Senator Newman?

Thank you. If you're in support or opposition of SB 248, you may press one and then zero. Again, that is one and then zero if you're in support or opposition. And we have a couple in queue. One moment. And again, this is for SB 248 for support or opposition.

That's correct. And if it's George Santos, ask if he can come to the hearing room, please.

Thank you. And we will go to line 221. Your line is open.

Hello. My name is Susan Perlson, and I am representing Indivisible CA 45, and we support SB 248. Thank you.

Thank you. Next caller, please.

Thank you. We will go to line 200. Your line is open. Please go ahead.

Hello. My name is Scarlett, and I'm in support of bill.

Thank you. Next caller, please.

Thank you. One moment. They're getting their line number. Line 212, your line is open. Please go ahead. Your line is open. Your line is open, please go ahead. We have no more in queue at this time.

Terrific. We'll bring the matter back to the Committee for questions or comments. Members, any questions or comments? Is that a hand up? Senator Umberg.

Well, just a quick comment. As gold medal recipients from the 2008 Olympics, I think both you and I can agree that this is something that is good policy and should be passed.

Thank you, and when I received my Nobel Prize last week, I thought the same thing.

Wow. That was--I'm still trying to follow that. You got a gold medal? Is that what you're saying? Oh, fantastic. Congratulations on that. All right, seeing no further comments, Senator Newman, I think this is a terrific bill. I'm happy to support it today. Do you have a close?

I actually have never provided an acronym for a bill before, but this is called the DUPE Act, and it stands for disqualifying, unscrupulous, and pathological elected or DUPE Act. And I would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Is that enshrined in the bill or that's just your observation as an important--

I hope to have that enshrined in perpetuity.

All right, we're looking for a motion here, Members. See Senator Umberg moving this. This would be 'do pass to the Committee on Appropriations.' Secretary would call the roll.

[Roll call].

All right, we're going to put that on call for absent Members. Senator Newman, you have two bills remaining. You want to take the easy one or the hard one?

That's a subjective question. Your easy. My hard might be different. Let me start with SB 251.

All right. SB 251 by Newman. Please, floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Chair Members. Thank you as well for the opportunity to present SB 251, which would prohibit the employment of an elected official as a full time salaried employee of another elected official in California with whom they share common constituents throughout the State of California. Service as a local elected official on City Council, school boards, community colleges, college boards, et cetera, generally entails compensation only on a part time or stipend basis.

As a consequence, 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 regarded participation in the public sphere as an act of generosity and civic virtue, where the privilege of service was assumed to be simultaneously the inducement and the reward.

Under this construct, able and civic minded citizens would be inspired to canvass their neighbors and stand for election and, having been selected, find the time and the space in their otherwise busy lives to attend to the community's civic affairs through their public service. Whether this is a good or effective basis in the current day and age for sourcing talent to fill the Diocese 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 paid staff for another elected official with overlapping constituents.

To do so, in my mind, is fairly self evidently problematic and inherently conflicted, since it creates an array of more or less constant tensions in a number of different directions, all of which contribute to an underlying dynamic that erodes confidence in the objectivity and faithful service of the elected official simultaneously serving as someone else's full time staffer. So let me consider an interaction between an elected staffer who works for another elected official and their constituents, and I'll give you a kind of a typical scenario.

Let's say I'm the Legislator in this case, and a Member of my staff also happens to be a Member of the City Council of my town. I live in Fullerton. Now, let's say that I have, over the years, received generous support from, say, the cannabis industry, and that there's an ordinance under consideration in Fullerton that would liberalize the city's approach to cannabis and allow for the sighting of recreational marijuana dispensaries throughout that city.

Now, imagine that my staffer, let's call him John Smith, who represents a part of the city where the notion of cannabis dispensaries is especially controversial, so that residents of the district represented by my staff are actively voicing their opposition to the proposed amendment. Now, imagine that despite that opposition, Council Member John Smith, who works for me, votes in favor of the ordinance.

Now, irrespective of his reasons for supporting the measure, it's a pretty reasonable inference, in fact, I'd say an unavoidable inference, that John Smith's vote was colored by his subordinate relationship to me in his day job. Now, consider briefly some of the other dimensions of this inherent conflict that accrues to an elected person working full time for another elected person.

As a member of that governing body, they clearly have a different level of influence and a different set of connections than their colleagues on that same elected body. This is both a source of possible tension as well as perceived conflict further, as a member of the other elected team, they clearly have a different set of motivations and connections than their peers within their boss's office. This is also a source of possible tension and perceived conflict.

Let me lastly give you an example, which is both recent and actually real. On the central coast, there's a recently elected county supervisor who, in the aftermath of being elected, hired as their staff a member of the Council of one of the cities that are nested within that district. And as a result of that, both the supervisor and the Council Member were now members of the Regional Transportation Commission.

Under those circumstances, the presumption that the senior elected official controls effectively not one, but two votes at any given time is hard to avoid. None of this is good, and I would argue that it's all easily avoided.

I'd like to think that in the kinds of jurisdictions we're discussing here, state legislative and county supervisorial districts, that there are probably more than enough talented, qualified people to serve in staff positions, and that the kinds of double duty that this Bill addresses are not, in fact, necessary or unavoidable. Moreover, there's another principle at stake here. The average Californian is already pretty well removed from politics for the obvious reasons.

But if elected people draw upon other elected people as their staff, it further narrows an already narrow space and only increases the distance between people and politician in ways that further promote citizen and corrode faith in government and public processes. SB 251 will protect the interests of Californians and ensure trust in local government by prohibiting one elected official from working for another if they share a common set of constituents. This Bill would not apply to statewide constitutional officers. With me today to testify is Dora Rose with the California League of Women Voters. I am respectfully asking for your aye vote today.

Thank you, Senator Newman. Ms. Rose, the floor is yours. Two minutes, please.

Good afternoon. Dora Rose, Deputy Director with the League of Women Voters of California. Not an olympian, but happy to be in this August.

I'm happy to say you are.

As defined here today in support of SB 251, the problems with double-duty elected officials are readily apparent. Californians deserve to know that the positions that their elected representatives take are truly their own, not their bosses. Allowing double duty creates too much of a danger that instead of purely representing the interests of their own constituents, employees will be influenced by their employers' priorities. And even if there's nothing nefarious afoot, the appearance of a conflict of interest here undermines the public's confidence in representative government.

The League fights every day to build public trust in our democracy. We work hard to counter corrosive myths and disinformation that's spread by troubled, angry people bent on distorting democracy. Double duty, at the very least, feeds that narrative of political corruption that we need to vigilantly counter, and at worst, it may at times prove that narrative true. Local government is designed to be populated by citizen leaders motivated by a genuine desire to serve their communities.

We need to preserve the ideal that public service is a calling, not a trade, not a business. While it's important to ensure that there's fair compensation to open up politics to a diverse range of people who may not be able to afford taking on the roles without reasonable pay, providing political jobs in other offices for the same constituency is simply not the answer to that problem. The fact that this practice is common or longstanding or even understandable is not sufficient justification to continue to ignore it. It's time to clean this up. The League of Women voters supports the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We'll go to other supporters here in our hearing room who would like to come forward, put their name on the record. We don't see anybody here, so we're going to now go to opposition. Here in the hearing room is anyone who'd like to speak in opposition. I don't know if there were primary witnesses in opposition, but we'll give you the privilege of the first two at least being able to speak for two minutes if you wish.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members Carlos Machado with California School Board Association. SB 251 establishes a blanket prohibition on elected officials from being employed by another elected official who has at least one constituent in common. The Bill also imposes an implicit prohibition on individuals serving on school board for county boards of education or employed by another elected official that has any overlapping constituency. School board members arguably are probably one of the most accountable, directly accountable to the constituents that they serve.

School board members, as some Members of this Committee know, often encounter their constituents in the supermarket, dropping off their kids, picking up their kids from school, and also on the sports field. So they have those interactions, daily interactions. Those daily interactions create accountability on behalf of those members to those governing boards and provides that protection against any type of transgression that this Bill might try to deal with. However, there's no specific examples of those transgressions happening that this Bill would prevent in the future.

The number of elected local, city and county, regional and state federal officials who share constituencies with a member of a school district or county board of education is significant, even in the most rural parts of the state. The policy proposed in SB 251 would not only make the pool of candidates available to serve on governing boards smaller, but it would also bar individuals who arguably bring skill sets that enable a board to better serve the needs of the district and the students that they serve.