Assembly Standing Committee on Elections

Good afternoon and welcome to the August 23, 2023 hearing of the Assembly Elections Committee. We do not have a quorum present, so we will begin as a Subcommittee. If Members of the Committee are monitoring this hearing, please come to room 444 where it's vibrating a lot at the State Capitol and we can establish a quorum. We have two options for the public to testify at today's hearing in person or by a moderated telephone service.

The Committee has one item on its agenda and there is nothing on consent. We will have a maximum of two primary witnesses in support and two primary witnesses in opposition of the measure with a limit of two minutes per witness. After we have heard from the primary witnesses, the public will have up to 15 minutes in total time for additional public comment, starting with the Members of the public who are here in the room.

Other witnesses are limited to providing their name, their organization they represent, if any, and their position on the Bill. Three items name, organization, position. Additional comments will be ruled out of order. If you're unable to get through on the phone, please feel free to submit written testimony through the portal on the Committee's website. This written testimony will become part of the official record of the Bill.

For those who are watching this hearing remotely and wish to call in to register your position, the call in number for this hearing is 877-692-8957 and the access code is 131544. You can also find this number on the Assembly Elections Committee website as well as on your TV or computer screen. If you are calling in, please eliminate all background noise. This includes Muting, your live stream broadcast and your smart devices to reduce the sound distortion.

If you are having any problems with the moderated phone service, you can call the Committee at 916-319-2094 and the Committee staff will be there to try to help. Thank you for bearing with us as we implement methods to continue to serve the people of the State of California. Where am I doing this? Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Before we move on to the agenda, I have two additional announcements to make.

First, I have a letter from Speaker Reevis appointing Assemblymember Kate Sanchez to replace Assemblymember Bill Asali on the committee for the purpose of today's hearing only. Second, I have a letter from Speaker Reevis appointing Assemblymember Mark Berman, who's not here yet, to fill the Democratic vacancy on the Committee for the purpose of today's hearing only. Assemblymember Sanchez and Berman, thank you for joining us. With those announcements out of the way, we will now move on to the Committee's agenda.

The only item on the agenda today is ACA 13 by Assembly Member Ward. Assembly Member, thank you for joining us today and you may present your measure.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. I'm here to present ACA 13 as a measure that asks just one very simple but important question if a measure is proposed to raise a vote threshold to greater than a majority, shouldn't the same proportion of voters be in agreement? Currently, under California law, any ballot measure approved by a majority of voters could selectively require a future supermajority to pass for a future question.

ACA 13 the Protect and Retain the Majority Vote Act would retain the majority vote requirement for passage of state and local initiatives by requiring any statewide initiative seeking to increase a threshold to also be approved by the same. Higher threshold that it's proposing with a pattern of abuse of our initiative process to use a lower threshold to set higher thresholds for future voters and worse, using this tactic to extract legislative action for special interests.

The time is right for the Legislature to reflect the protection afforded in the Oregon Constitution since 1998 and adopt ACA 13 to send it to the voters for their consideration. The success of these tactics would mean that in future elections, questions would be decided through a veto pattern of a minority, not the will of a majority. And this is inherently undemocratic. This measure has been characterized as eminently sensible, and it's very basic.

Again, if a measure is proposed to raise a vote threshold to greater than a majority, should it achieve the same vote threshold that it proposes to enact? We often see this issue paired with revenue questions. And make no mistake, raising the voter threshold for local governments without the same level of support of voters jeopardizes their ability to deliver essential services, including the funding for schools, public safety, homelessness, housing and more. But it's not just about a revenue question.

Ohio issue one attempted to raise thresholds to thwart a question on reproductive rights. Supermajority votes for local housing policy or citing shelters for homeless individuals have also been floated. Really, any subject could come up. This measure will protect and retain the majority vote for these important questions. It also provides clarity for the rights of local governments to submit an advisory vote to the voters subject to a majority vote to provide feedback on their priorities as they see fit.

Now, I'd like to present my witnesses in support of this measure. Annie Chou from the California Teachers Association and Ben Triffo from the League of California Cities.

And you each have two minutes. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members. Annie Chou with the California Teachers Association supporting ACA 13, which enshrines a democratic principle of one person, one vote. ACA 13 protects school funding and local control. In addition to state General Fund allocated to schools, local government have the ability to address their needs by using ballot measures to ask voters to approve additional funding for schools. This is funding for classrooms to support students and teachers, and for arts and music education.

A League of California study showed in 2020, voters approved $2 billion through local measures just for school funding. It's integral to ensure that local government and voters retain the ability to recognize what their communities need most and can act on it. CTA has been on the forefront of ensuring stability in school funding and avoiding cuts to education through Prop 30 in 2012 and its extension Prop 55 in 2016.

Prop 30 passed by 55% votes with 55% voter turnout, and Prop 55 passed by 63% with 59% voter turnout. Both occurred during presidential election years with increased voter participation rates and passed by a majority, but by no means a supermajority vote. Both would have seen billions of dollars lost to schools if they did not pass. At the turn of the last decade, California was ranked in the middle 30s in the nation in per pupil's funding.

Thanks to a focus on increased funding through Prop 30 and Prop 55, as well as local measures, California is now 19th. But that is nowhere near where we should be. With the fifth largest economy in the world, ensuring the passage of ACA 13 is incredibly important to protect students and teachers, and for those reasons, CTA urges an Ivote on this priority Bill. Thanks.

Madam Chair Members. Ben Triffo, the League of California City's proud support of ACA 13 today. As has been mentioned, ACA 13 would require any initiative constitutional amendment to conform with any increased voter threshold that it seeks to impose on future ballot measures. This measure would also preserve the right of local governments to place advisory questions on the ballot to ask voters their opinion on issues.

Under current law, a simple majority may vote to require a supermajority voter approval for future actions, even with a corresponding level of support at the local level. This has made it difficult to pass revenue measures dedicated to critical services such as homelessness and housing fire, public safety and roads. For example, from 2001 to 2018, city revenue measures with a two thirds vote requirement have enjoyed only a 51% passage rate, compared to a 70% passage rate of all local revenue measures.

Over that same period of time, the status quo has prevented cities from providing services desperately needed. Regardless, local governments fight to protect public services such as 911 dispatchers and first responders. We fight to ensure we have clean and safe streets. We fight to provide shelter to those experiencing homelessness. ACA 13 empowers voters to decide if they would like to provide additional protections to local government revenue streams. As local governments, we are on the front line of California's crisis.

Now is not the time to tie our hands behind our back. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you so much. We will now move on to the primary witnesses in opposition. As a reminder, each primary witness has a maximum of two minutes, so come on up and have a seat here.

Good afternoon, chair and Members. Vanessa Chavez with the California Association of Realtors here in strong opposition to ACA 13. ACA 13 will fundamentally change the initiative process by increasing the voter threshold required to pass future proposals on a variety of different issues, including those related to taxes, animal rights, and even human rights. ACA 13 will unnecessarily make the initiative process more difficult to navigate.

For Californians, measures that call for a constitutional change are already required to meet a higher signature gathering standard than those that seek to amend a statute. Those thresholds are currently 574,540 6000, respectively. Most concerning, two cars at ACA 13 will likely have unintended consequences of making it easier for NIMBY groups to limit the state's progress in achieving its housing goals and upend the hard work done in the recent years by the Legislature and Administration to alleviate the state's housing crisis.

Further, ACA 13 limits the ability of homeowners to have their voices heard on how taxes are levied upon them. As the Legislature continues its meaningful work to bridge the wealth gap, additional tax increases on homeowners would make first time home ownership less attainable for working families in our diverse state. Effectively, what the proponents are saying with ACA 13 is that voters cannot be trusted to make decisions impacting their community if a measure only needs a 50% plus one vote to pass.

Interestingly enough, Republican led efforts in states such as Ohio, Florida and Missouri have attempted to limit the voice of voters through similar measures. Democrats from other states have raised concerns regarding the negative impacts that the proposals of this nature would have on the ability of voters to meaningfully participate in the initiative process. And for these reasons, we must respectfully request your no vote on ACA 13. Thank you.

Scott Hoffman, Legislative Director, Howard Drivers Taxpayer Association in Opposition. ACA 13 reminds us of the recently failed effort in Ohio to make it more difficult to pass constitutional amendments in Ohio. When Republicans attempted to raise the voter threshold for all constitutional amendments, many in this Legislature expressed outrage. Even President Joe Biden called it a blatant attempt to weaken voters voices, and Governor Gavin Newsom said the GOP tried to silence the will of the voters.

Unlike Ohio, this Legislature has notably exempted itself from ACA 13 and would seemingly only require higher constitutional thresholds to impose new limits on taxation. Majorities of California voters have routinely and consistently demanded stronger requirements for new and higher taxes. Proposition 13 in 1978, Proposition 62 in 1986, Proposition 218 and 1996, Proposition 26 and 2010. How is creating a two tiered system for amending the California state constitution any less democratic than Ohio? We would argue ACA 13 is more so.

ACA 13 is an attack on the will of the majority. Further, since our state constitution was passed in 1849, constitutional amendments have required a majority vote of the electorate. At no time in the state's history have constitutional amendments had different thresholds for voter approval. Based on their content, ACA 13 is an attack on constitutional norms. It also begs the question why the Legislature would impose such content based distinctions to pass constitutional amendments when none have existed before.

Since there is no precedent for this, it seems an obvious attempt to undermine an initiative that has already qualified for the ballot. The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act will restore voter thresholds that have restore voter thresholds that the state constitution already requires for new and higher taxes. These thresholds were set by voters when they approved Proposition 13 and 218. They are central tenets of Proposition 13 and 218. And ACA 13 is an attack on Proposition 13. Vote non.

ACA 13 is an attack on the will of voters constitutional norms and Proposition 13. And then here on the table, you may be wondering we have more than 1800 letters from your constituents and voters from across California asking you to oppose ACA 13 and protect Proposition 13. Since we printed these letters, we have collected more than 4000 letters in less than 48 hours. In less than 48 hours, we urge you to listen to the thousands of your voters and oppose ACA 13. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Let's move on to additional witnesses in support or opposition. We'll start with those who are in the committee room. And I want to remind you that you're just to provide your name, the organization you represent and your position on the measure.

Nicole Wardelman on behalf of the city of Ontario, in support.

Madam Chair, Members of the committee. Paul Gonzalez on behalf of the city of Roseville in support.

Juan Rubalcava with alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment in support.

Jessica Hay with the California School Employees Association. Proud co sponsor.

Karen Stout with California Action in support.

Sylvia Solicit on behalf of the city of West Hollywood, in support. Thank you.

Eric Turner on behalf of the town of Apple Valley. In support.

Thank you. Madam Chair Members. Tristan Brown with CFT Union of Educators and Classified Professionals in support.

Carly Shelby on behalf of the cities of Oakland, Palo Alto, Buena Park and...in strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Marcus Detweiler with the California Special Districts Association. In support. Thank you.

Fatima Iqbal-Zubair with California Environmental Voters in support.

Lauren Rebrovich on behalf of housing California in support.

Good afternoon. Teja Stephens with Catalyst California. In strong support.

Afternoon. Eric Lawyer on behalf of the California State Association of Counties. In strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Bryant Miramontes with AskMe California in support.

Ethan Nagel on behalf of the city of Rancho Cucamonga, in support.

Laurel Brodzinsky on behalf of California Common Cause, in support.

Nate Cruz with the California Labor Federation in support.

Laiseng Saechao with California Calls in support.

Maggie Tsai on behalf of the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, Asian American and Pacific Islanders for civic empowerment and also the California Environmental Justice Alliance registering in support.

Thank you. Preston Young from the California Chamber of Commerce here today in opposition.

Madam Chairman, Members, Matthew Hargrove with the California Business Properties Association here today on behalf of our 10,000 Members and associations, NAOP of California, BOMA California, ICSC, IRAM. And I also stand here today as a co chair of the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act in opposition. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members. Good afternoon. Rob Lapsley. The California Business Roundtable. On behalf of our organization and 47 other organizations statewide who are not included in your analysis today, we wanted to be clear in our strong opposition to this measure. Thank you.

Okay, before we go any further, let's call the role and establish a quorum.

Pellerin here. Lackey here. Bennett? Sanchez here. Lee here. Low? Blanca Rubio here. Berman?

Okay, we're now going to be moving on to the phone lines where people may again tell us your name, your organization that you represent, if any, and your position on the measure. I was just told that AT&T has a cap on the number of phone lines that could call in, and we're at that cap.

We're working to see if we can open it up to make sure everyone who has a position on this measure can have their position be known. And again, I want to remind you that you can go to our website for the Assembly Elections Committee and register your position there as well. So moderator let's go ahead and open the phone lines. And again, a reminder, your name, organization, if any position, and any other comments will be ruled out of order. Thank you.

If you would like to queue up for public comment, please press one, then zero. One, then zero. Our first will come from line 236. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Members. Moira Top, on behalf of the city of San Diego in support.

Next, we're going to line 225. Please go ahead.

Patsy Rodriguez Renaud. I'm a taxpayer, retired teacher, and I strongly oppose ACA 13.

Next, we're going to go to line 200. Please go ahead.

Yes. My name is Glenda Masser. I'm calling from Placer County, and everyone I know is opposed to this Bill. And so, you know, people cannot get through to your lines.

Just your name. Thank you. In position. Next caller.

Next, we're going to line 213. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Joseph Pritchard. Taxpayer. I'm in opposition of ACA 13.

Next, we're going to line 268. Please go ahead.

Yes. Linda Rich, Placer County. I am in strong opposition to ACA 13.

Next, we're going to line 235. Please go ahead.

Jennifer Robles with Health Access, California in support.

Next is line 214. Please go ahead.

My name is Alan Ackroyd. I'm a taxpayer and I strongly oppose ACA 13.

Next is line 182. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Adrianna Champagne-Zamora with the League of Women Voters of California and on behalf of Ruth Dawson with ACLU California Action in support thank you.

Barry Franklin, taxpayer opposed to ACA 13.

Next, we're going to line 193. Please go ahead.

Next, we're going to line 119. Please go ahead.

David Maccoux Sacramento, California. Taxpayer opposed to ACA 13.

Next, we're going to line 20. 3203. Please go ahead.

Hi, this is Sana Sethi with San Francisco Rising, strong support.

Next, we're going to line 137. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

I am Jody Basham. I'm a taxpayer, and I strongly oppose ACA 13.

Next, we're going to line 53. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Hello, my name is Tennyson Sebastian. I represent California, and when I express strong opposition to ACA 13.

Next, we're going to line 199. Please go ahead.

Hi. My name is Antonio...in Danville, California. I'm a taxpayer, and I strongly oppose ACA 13.

As a reminder, if you'd like to make public comment, please press one, then zero. Our next comes from the line 96. Please go ahead.

Teresa Herman. I strongly oppose sorry...

ACA 13. We got you. Thank you.

Okay, next we'll go to line 148. Please go ahead.

My name is Jonathan Ratter from San Pedro and I am a taxpayer. And I strongly oppose ACA 13.

Next, we're going to line 172. Please go ahead.

Hello, my name is Inga Lorenzen Doimer, and I'm in very strong opposition to ACA 13. Thank you.

Next, we're going to line 170. Please go ahead.

Richard Green, taxpayer, oppose ACA 13.

Next, we're going to line 257. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Hi, this is David Johansson in Campbell, California, and representing some of my neighbors that I've discussed this with, and we're all in strong opposition to ACA 13.

Next, we're going to go to line 190. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Steve Gordon, taxpayer, voter, strongly opposed.

Next, we're going to line 250. 250, please go ahead.

This is Jimina with Epic Empowering Pacific Islander communities and I am in support.

Our next comment will come from line 141. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

My name is Kathleen Callaway. I am a California taxpayer, and I strongly oppose ACA 13.

Next, we're going to line 216. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

This is Lori Irwin. I'm a taxpayer, and I'm opposed to the measure.

Next, we're going to line 228. 228 Please go ahead.

My name is Adele Watkins. I am a taxpayer in Contra Costa County, and I strongly oppose this measure.

Next, we're going to line 154. Please go ahead.

This is Mimi Willard. I am President of the Coalition of Sensible Taxpayers. A transpartisan alliance has over 1800 residents of Marin, and we strongly oppose this ACA 13. Thank you.

Next, we're going to line 227. 227, please go ahead.

Hi. My name is Kathleen Pritchett. I'm a taxpayer in Alameda County, strongly opposed to no ACA 13.

Next we'll go to line 210. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Hi, my name is Chris Fuel. I'm a California taxpayer, and I strongly oppose ACA 13.

Next is line 108. 108. Please go ahead.

Hello. My name is Josh Lux. I am a taxpayer here in LA County, and I am strongly opposed ACA 13.

Next is line 184. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

My name is Allen Baker Campbell. I'm a taxpayer and voter in San Diego, and I am strongly opposed to ACA 13.

Next is line 218. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

My name is Arlene Dugan. I am a taxpayer in California, and I am opposed to ACA 13.

Next is line 206. 206. Please go ahead.

My name is John Willingham, and I am a housing provider and a taxpayer in California, and I speak in opposition to ACA 13.

Next is line 144. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Sean Casey, California Taxpayer. Strongly oppose ACA 13. Thank you.

Next is line 150. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

George Maximov. Going in opposition, vehement opposition to ACA 13.

Next we'll go to line 174. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Hi. My name is Dave Maganado. I'm a taxpayer and I'm in opposition of ACA 13.

Next we're going to go to the line of 204. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Hi, my name is Shirley Beason. I am a taxpayer, and I strongly oppose ACA 13.

Next we're going to go to line 129. Please go ahead. Your line is opening. Line 129. Your line is open.

This is.

Moderator. Let's move on to the next. Yeah, thank you.

Okay, that will be line 115. Please go ahead.

My name is Connie Hamra, Los Gatos resident. I am highly opposed to ACA 13.

Next we're going to go to line 247. Please go ahead.

Hi. My name is Denny Zane. I'm a vigorous taxpayer, a vigorous voter. And I vigorously support ACA 13.

Next we're going to go to line 211. 211. Please go ahead.

My name is Jennifer Check, California resident and taxpayer, strongly opposed.

Next we're going to go to line 179. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

My name is Deborah Caballero. I'm a taxpayer here in Los Angeles. Strongly opposed ACA 13.

Next we're going to line 233. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Lawrence Walker. Taxpayer, LA County. No, on ACA 13.

Next is line 183. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Is Bruce Corcoran, Marin County taxpayer, strongly opposed ACA 13.

Next is line 185. Please go ahead.

My name is Marilee Terrell. I'm a taxpayer and voter. I'm strongly opposed to ACA 13.

Next we'll go to line 136. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Edson Ford. I'm a California taxpayer, and I'm strongly opposed to ACA 13.

And next is line 186. Please go ahead.

This is Sheila Benko, I'm an LA County tax and California taxpayer and voter, and I strongly oppose ACA 13. Thank you.

Next we'll go to line 251. 251, please go ahead.

Hi, this is Deborah Derocher, I'm a realtor in Sutter County. I oppose ACA 13.

Next is line 252. 252. Please go ahead.

Hi. Mary Davis, California taxpayer and everyman in San Diego County calling in with strong opposition to ACA 13. Thank you.

Next is line 242. 242. Please go ahead.

Hi, this is Chris Mater from Playa Del Rey, California, and I strongly oppose ACA 13.

Next is line 155. Please go ahead.

My name is Mona Burns, San Marcos, California. I'm a taxpayer, and I would like to vote no. I want a no vote on ACA 13.

Next is line 107. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

I'm Judith Hart from Fresno, California, and I strongly oppose ACA 13.

Next is line 175. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Hi. My name is Diane Mater. I'm a taxpayer, and I strongly oppose ACA 13.

Next is line 256. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Yes. Donna Foster, California taxpayer. And I strongly oppose ACA 13.

And I would like to make announcement. If you have made your public comment, please disconnect from the line so the people that are dialing in behind you can make their public comment. Once again, if you've made your comment, please disconnect so we can get others on. Next is line 259. Please go ahead.

My name is Susie Wozniak. I am a retired California taxpayer, and I oppose ACA 13. Thank you.

Next is line 102. Please go ahead.

I'm Raymond Miller. I'm a taxpayer, and I am strongly opposed to ACA 13.

Next is line 244. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

My name is Ludmila Crem. I'm a California taxpayer, and I strongly oppose ACA 13. Thank you.

Next is line 230. 230. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

My name is Robert Marquez from San Bernardino. I'm a taxpayer, and I oppose ACA 13.

Next is line 117. Please go ahead.

My name is Kathy Graves. I'm a taxpayer, and I am strongly opposed to ACA 13.

Next is line 274. Please go ahead.

California voter, taxpayer. I strongly oppose ACA 13.

Next is line 126. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

My name is Wendell Oyen. I'm a taxpayer, and I strongly oppose ACA 13.

Next is line 156. Please go ahead.

Hi, I'm Jean Hagestad, Santa Clara County taxpayer, strongly opposed to ACA 13.

Moderator can I intercept? Moderator just a second. We got 25 more people in the queue. And who's winning the game? Okay, 25 more people in the queue. We're going to take those calls. Anyone else who wants to register their position, we have an email you could send to AELC, as in Cat, .committee@assembly.CA.gov. [AELC.committee@assembly.ca.gov]. So we'll continue through the next 25, and then we're going to bring it back to the committee. Thank you.

Okay, next is line 202. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Yes. Sandra Lamro, California taxpayer, strongly opposing ACA 13. Thank you.

Next is line 224. Please go ahead.

My name is Arnold Ing. My organization is Apex Commercial Real Estate. I'm a California taxpayer. I strongly oppose ACA 13. Thank you.

Next is line 164. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Patrick Barry, I'm a taxpayer and voter, and I am strongly against ACA 13. Recommend a no vote.

Next is line 168. Please go ahead.

Yes. My name is Judy Benavides. I represent the Benavides Family. I am a taxpayer, and I post very strongly a no vote on ACA 13. Thank you so much.

Next is line 223. Please go ahead.

Hello. My name is Mark Onifer, taxpayer, Placer County. I strongly oppose ACA 13.

Next is line 207. 207. Please go ahead.

James Richard Novoa, California taxpayer. I strongly oppose ACA.

Next we'll go to line 131. Please go ahead. Your line is open. Line 131. Moving on to the next one. We'll go to line 197. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Michael Dunn, Los Angeles County taxpayer, and I oppose ACA, 13. Thank you.

Next is line 249. Please go ahead.

Ruth Gonzalez. I'm a California taxpayer, and I strongly oppose ACA. 13. Thank you.

Next is line 191. Please go ahead.

Yeah, this is Charles Johnson, Society of Industrial and Office Realtors and DAUM Commercial Real Estate services and taxpayer. Strong opposition of ACA 13.

Next is line 284. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Good afternoon. This is Marilyn Baker Venturini. I'm strongly against ACA 13. And I'm a San Mateo County taxpayer. Thank you.

Next is line 237. Please go ahead.

Hi. My name is Josephine Lijek. I'm a retired taxpayer in Inyo County, and I'm strongly opposed to ACA 13. Thank you.

Next is line 114. Please go ahead.

My name is Shirley Skyles. I'm strongly opposed to ACA 13, and I am a taxpayer and resident of California long time.

And next we're going to go to line 127. Please go ahead.

My name is Peter Heidos, San Pedro, California, taxpayer in California. I'm strongly opposed to ACA 13.

Next is line 301. Please go ahead.

This is Gary Morrison representing Olivenhain, California, taxpayer, strongly oppose ACA 13.

Next is line 280. Please go ahead.

My name is Deborah Tobar, I'm from Cameron Park, California, and we're also home suppliers, and we are opposed to ACA 13. We're taxpayers.

And next we're going to go to line 125. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon, this is Gary Martinez, commercial real estate broker with Asheville Associates, and I strongly oppose ACA 113.

Next is line 296. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Sam Wilkinson with GRACE End Child Poverty in California in support of ACA 13. Thank you.

Next is line 330. Please go ahead.

Name is Joyce Fornell. I'm a taxpayer and I'm strongly opposed ACA 13. Thank you.

Next is line 295. Please go ahead.

Yes. My name is Eli Lipman. Sorry. I am strongly in support of ACA 13. I'm a taxpayer in Los Angeles and I'm with Move LA. Thank you.

Next is line 352. Please go ahead.

Yes. My name is Terry calling in California. Strongly opposed this bill.

Next is line 286. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Andrea Hedstrom, and my affiliation is one of millions of disgruntled Californians, and my position on ACA 13 is that if you keep forcing this kind of stuff on Californians-

Just your position, please. Thank you. Moderator next caller.

We're going to go to the line of 176. Line 176, please go ahead.

Hi, this is Wendy McGorra, California taxpayer, strongly opposed to ACA 13.

Our next is line 159. Please go ahead.

My name is Don Battles, California taxpayer. And I strongly oppose ACA 13.

Okay, so that concludes our phone testimony. If anyone was not able to get through on the phone again, please email us at AELC [as in Cat] .committee@assembly.ca. gov. Or you can go to the Assembly Elections Committee website. We're now going to bring it back to our committee members and see if you have any questions.

Well, to me, this appears to be another urban muscle flex. While I find it regrettable that we're reaching disagreement, I'll always speak in opposition to bills that dilute the voice of rural communities. The taxpayer protections within Proposition 13 are a primary reason many Californians remain here. In my district, the weather is not altogether that different than Arizona, and the geography is not far from Nevada.

If we eliminate the limited incentives offered within California, there will be little to no reason for residents to remain here in our great state, especially as the economy becomes more conducive for remote work. It's important that we turn back the clock before we had these important protections. Senior citizens were losing their homes after living in the state their whole lives due to a tax assessment.

We can't go back to the days where you lose your primary investment and become homeless because of the misunderstanding of the value, or worse, malfeasance. I believe the questions proposed to voters in Proposition 13 are at the very foundation of our country. We do not want taxation without representation. It's also important to remind everyone that we recently gutted the agency, the Board of Equalization, which was formed to ensure equitable property tax policy across the state because of the disparities, had become so unequal.

If you vote for this bill, you're setting us on a trajectory to repeat history with limited access to direct democracy and without empowered body of representatives deciding taxation challenges. During my time here, in the Legislature, I've seen protections taxpayers erode. Tax issues are fundamentally important because they directly influence behavior and this will push too many that are close to the edge across the state border. And for that reason I cannot support this measure.

Thank you. Any other comments from committee members? Questions? Yes, Mr. Berman.

Thank you very much and thanks for the opportunity to sit in on the elections committee today. I'm trying to understand the logic of the opposition because it seems like the opposition is saying that we should not raise the voter threshold so that the opposition can raise the voter threshold. Right? We're saying don't raise the voter threshold. Make it easier for us in the future to raise the voter threshold. That's literally what the opposition wants to do.

And it seems from a logical standpoint that if you want to raise a voter threshold in the future, that should be approved by that voter threshold. That just seems like a really logical, sensible, Democratic policy proposal. I could be missing something, but that seems to be at the crux, what we're talking about. And I don't necessarily understand the urban versus rural. Every Californian will get a vote and that vote will be counted equally, whether it's in a rural area or whether it's in an urban area.

And so I want to thank the author for bringing this forward. It seems to really make a lot of sense from a logical standpoint. If you as a business group or you as a labor union or you as an environmental group want to raise a voter threshold and lock that in for the future, it makes sense for that threshold of Californians to support that effort. And that's all this ACA is doing. So I'm proud to support it.

I want to thank the author for bringing it forward. I think it makes a ton of sense and I'll be proud to vote for it today.

Yeah, so that's the question. So what he's saying is you're in opposition because it's raising the voter threshold to raise the, I'm trying to understand the whole thing. So is that true? We're trying to raise the voter threshold so that you can't raise the voter threshold or the other way? Well, there's a couple of questions. So that one, and then you also made a statement earlier that this undermines Prop 13. So how does that undermine Prop. 13 if Prop 13 is already in effect and in my opinion does not affect Prop 13 because nothing on the table is about Prop 13.

I guess I'll take the last one first. There's been a number of court decisions that have undermined key voter provisions in Prop 13, among them Upland. The Upland, I don't know if you know the court case Upland, Upland versus Cannabis Coalition, that basically said that what was constitutional law for 40 years, 45 years now, that there's a two-thirds majority for tax increases for citizen initiatives. It lowered it to 55 percent simple majority? 55? John? Simple majority? 50 simple majority.

And that the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act, which this is very clearly created to thwart, would raise those back and the two-thirds vote for higher, new and higher taxes is central to Proposition Thirteen. It's a requirement of the Constitution.

Okay, you lost me again.

So the courts lowered the voter threshold.

We think that that was an incorrect decision. It was Upland V Cannabis Coalition. It lowered it to simple majority for citizen constitutional amendments. We've seen a lot of abuse of that where government entities will file a citizen...

Right.

I know, but I want to keep it simple because how does this directly affect property?

So this would make it more difficult to pass the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act. That's why this exists. We don't need to kid around. That's why this exists. And that would restore Proposition Thirteen's two-thirds majority for citizens.

But what does 1935 do? The proposition that's proposed in November of 24, which I think it's initiative number 1924.

Referring to the Taxpayer Protection Government Accountability Act. It would raise the two third threshold back to what Prop 13 requires and the courts undid.

But you're stating one case, so what does that case affect? So I'm trying to understand-

Every citizen initiative.

Right. The Upland one. What does that specifically say? That everybody can do 55 percent or 50 plus?

Yes, for special taxes. It lowered the threshold for special taxes for citizen initiatives to a simple majority when Prop 13 clearly states and did for 40 years that it is a two thirds.

Okay, so then-

Taxpayer Protection Act would restore that two-thirds.

Okay, and that's for everything or for just the special taxes?

For citizen special taxes, citizen initiative back special taxes.

Only specifically for the Prop 13 that you're trying to restart? Or does it add any-

There's a two-thirds requirement for government-imposed taxes. Upland specifically lowered it for citizen taxes. TPA would raise it back up to the Prop 13 threshold. That's what this exists to stop.

Okay, and then the question or the comment that my colleague, Assembly Member Berman stated about raising the threshold, it's the same thing. How do you respond to that?

Well I just find it kind of funny that raising the threshold was a problem when Ohio did it for-

No, I'm not talking about Ohio. I'm sitting right here. I know what we're going to say.

Well, you're creating a two-tier system for amending the Constitution, one for things you like and one for things you don't like. And in this case, it's for raising the threshold for new and higher taxes. It's been a majority vote since 1849, and this would change that. We do not believe that there should be a two tier system for changing the Constitution. No, there's not. Not for changing the Constitution; there hasn't been since 1840.

Okay, but there's a two tier system for everything else, right?

If a majority of voters wish to pass a constitutional amendment to raise the voter threshold, they are allowed to do so, just like any other constitution.

Exactly. Well, that's why it's being put on the ballot, so that the voters approve.

And we think it's undemocratic to create a two tiered system to amend the Constitution.

Right, but you just said that you want the citizens to be the ones to decide, right? We're not deciding to change it, we're deciding this measure decides to put it on the ballot so that voters decide if that is the case or not. Is that correct?

This would be a constitutional amendment put to the voters. But we all know what we're doing here. We're attacking TPA.

Right, but you're also telling me that you want voters to decide and this-

I mean, voters have decided. They decided 1970 with Prop 13, they decided in-

Well, yeah, but then there's another constitutional-

They decided Prop 26 in 1986. They decided proposition 218 in 1996. They've decided proposition 26 in 2010. The voters routinely and consistently say they want stronger requirements for higher taxes.

Right, but both initiatives next year, both this ACH 13, if it passes, correct? And 1935, that's the other initiative.

My assumption is you'll put this on the march ballot to thwart TPA, so it's not really an apples to apples comparison.

That is not the question.

Let her finish, please.

That is not the question. Both initiatives are going to be in front of the voters so that the voters decide, because you just stated that the voters should decide this. What's happening here in the Legislature does not decide for the voters. What's happening right here is to put it in front of the voters to vote. I understand what you're saying about them putting it in March, blah, blah, blah. It happens all the time. The gamesmanship happens all the time. That is what government is.

This is gamesmanship.

But what you're stating to me is that you want the voters to decide. I'm just trying to wrap my head around if it is gamesmanship, you're doing the same thing. If you say that this is doing it, you're also doing the same thing because you just stated to me that you want the voters to decide. Putting something in front of the voters, whether it's by us doing it or you doing it, it's still in front of the voters.

So whatever happens today or whatever happens with this ACA is not decided by the Legislature. It's being put in front of the voters so that the voters decide just from the support and the opposition and having conversations with obviously our phones blew up. I've been having meetings like crazy. It's putting it in front of the voters. And I was told a couple of times that 1935, I got the number from the analysis.

Yeah, I know it as the taxpayer protection. Yes, I think you're correct.

So 1935, I was assured that it's passing, therefore, that's why this is being put on. If we are sure that it's passing, then put it in front of the voters like you are and then put this measure on the voters, and if the opposition is that, if you're so sure that 1935 is going to pass, right? Then that in my mind logically means that this one will not pass because the voters are not going to approve something like this.

Well one will require a simple majority and one will require two-thirds. Two tiered system for passing constitutional amendments and seems rather undemocratic to me.

Right, well see you're throwing the buzzwords. I'm trying to have a conversation about facts. I can sit here and do buzzwords all day long, but I'm trying to get to yes or no because that's how I function. I know my colleagues are different. I'm a teacher, I function with facts. If you're going to make that face about this is undemocratic, then we're not having a conversation.

I don't think it's buzzwords. I believe that, I believe that this is undemocratic.

And I believe that the voters can decide. Correct. Look, the point of my conversation is not that I'm supporting or opposing anything. I'm just trying to talk about putting things in front of voters. Right. You stated that you want to put something in front of the voters. We can dispute the threshold, the two tiered system, but what you're saying is that you want everything to be in front of the voters.

So everything is going to be, this one's going to be in front of the voters, the other one's going to be in front of the voters. Now it's like campaigns; I will be in front of the voters and I need to do my work to get support or opposite, whatever it may be. Right. It's the same thing in my opinion for all of us.

Any constitutional amendments, any votes, the votes that we take here, the votes that we take, local government, everything requires work to be able to convince voters that it's support or opposition. Your statement about you want everything in front of the voters kind of it's the same thing. We're putting it in front of the voters. Whatever the threshold is, if there's that much opposition then it's not going to pass. If there is that much, you know, same thing for both 1935 and this one.

So I just am trying to get to a place where I can place my vote and understand what you're saying. I don't want to hear about Ohio, I don't want to hear about any of those things because we're here right now. So again, what Mr. Berman stated was that the voters are going to decide is not the case. So what you're arguing is the same as you have for us, that we're changing kind of the rules.

Well you're changing the rules, but you're putting it in front of the voters. We're changing the rules but we're putting it in front of the voters. So is this I don't understand how this undermines Prop 13. I guess that was your original question. Prop 13, if a court of law decided, then isn't that the fault of, like, I'm not an attorney. I'm not an attorney. And so when we go to court, you allow the citizens if it's a jury trial, right?

You allow the judge to make the decision based on what they know, not on opinions. Right? And so if the judge changed that, then why is that a problem?

Well, the judges didn't really change it. The Supreme Court decision really made no argument for lowering the voter threshold for the citizens. The Upland was really about whether or not a citizen initiative can be put on a special election ballot. That was the argument. The ruling that came out of that has been interpreted by lower courts as allowing for a simple majority for citizen initiatives. The Supreme Court has not weighed in on that question.

We would like them to, but in the meantime, we want to ask the voters what they meant when they passed Proposition thirteen and whether or not they want citizen initiatives to be two-thirds, like we believe they did and the law said they did for 40 years. That's what we're doing here. You're right. We are asking a question. We're asking, did you intend, when you passed Prop 13, to make citizen initiatives two-thirds?

I guess I don't want to use the same words and those sorts of things, but, you know, I think the difference here is that we are following the rules. We, we are, we collected signatures, we put it on the ballot, and then this appears to change it. To change the way we are accustomed to doing things and the way we have done things in the state for constitutional amendment since 1849, since the first state constitution.

Right, but then, okay, we've also done it through Legislation, through Acas, right?

Yeah.

So it's the same thing. Right? You've done it that way, we've done it through signatures, we've done it this way. So that hasn't changed and it's still going to go in front of -again, I'm just trying to understand, it's a very difficult decision for me and so I'm trying to listen to both opinions. I feel like that I'm trying to attack you. I'm not. And I'm trying to understand how this directly affects Prop 13.

And you said that the lawsuit was the one that changed it, but then you just explained that it really didn't.

Well, lower courts have decided that it did, and the Supreme Court hasn't said anything about it. And in the absence of the Supreme Court taking a case, which they have not done and we're going to the voters.

We're going to bring us to another member. Now, I think Berman had another question.

I appreciate your questions. I'm sorry if I-

Yeah, no, like I said, it's a difficult decision.

I think it is.

It affects all of us. And that's why I'm trying to understand.

I think to me, it's just kind of a moral thing, right. I strongly believe this, and obviously you may disagree that I strongly believe that this is just kind of trampling constitutional norms. It's an attack on Proposition 13. I mean, I don't say those things to be buzzwords. I say them because I believe them. That's why I wrote them. And so that's what I see here. And I'm sorry if I got a little emotional about it, but it's just, this is important to us as the Howard Drivers Taxpayer Association.

Thank you. Okay. Senator Marc Berman.

I never get emotional about this, so I don't know what that's like. So appreciate your passion, appreciate your thoughts and what you're trying to accomplish. You said that you think that this creates a two-tiered system and that you, slash the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is opposed to two-tiered systems?

For constitutional amendments, yes.

Just for constitutional amendments?

Well, we think the voters have a right to raise the threshold for higher taxes they want.

So a two-tiered system is okay for the things that you support, but it's not okay for the things that you might not support.

Well, I wouldn't consider what we did a two-tiered system because we won at two-thirds for everything pretty across the board. We think it should be, even for tax increases across the board. That's what Prop 13 originally envisioned, and then it's been lowered by court decisions.

And then you've said that since 1849, the first nine constitutional amendments have been passed by a simple majority. Before 1978, before Prop 13, what were property taxes and what were taxes changed by?

Well, it was market based taxation.

Was it a simple majority vote by taxpayers?

Not necessarily. To raise the threshold for bonds has been two-thirds since 1879.

Okay, but for taxes, what Prop 13-

Bonds are paid for through taxes-

But what Prop 13, which the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association was the leader of- what Howard Jarvis was the leader of-what did Prop 13 do? It changed the voter threshold for taxes to pass. It did several majority to two thirds. And before that, heretofore, until the 1850s, it was a simple majority.

So what you're saying is what Howard Jarvis and what the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association did in 1978 to change what had been the case for a century was okay, but what we're trying to do in 2023 all of a sudden is not okay.

Well, I think the Constitution is kind of a different animal, right?

We put a lot of things in the Constitution.

We do. Which is unfortunate.

Which is unfortunate.

However, I think the Constitution is a different animal, right? Maybe our Constitution isn't as vaunted or sacred as the US Constitution, but I still feel like it's vaunted and sacred and that the rules for changing it should be uniform, I mean-

We're clear on your position, so thank you. And I don't think we're going to change it by any of our comments.

I can't help but feel like there's a little bit of-

I just think raise the threshold for taxes is not changing the Constitution.

What did Prop 13 do?

It raised the threshold for taxes.

Okay.

I hear what you're saying. I think you hear what I'm saying, which I feel like there's not necessarily intellectual consistency in some of these arguments, but obviously I respect-

That is the opinion of some here, yes.

I respect where you're coming from.

Are there any other questions by committee- Assembly Member Low, please.

Thank you very much. Maybe if I could direct the questions for clarification to the author specific about the arguments to undo Proposition Thirteen. Might be, as the author, you might be able to help clarify and address those concerns. There's a fair amount of Californians who desire to protect Proposition Thirteen, rightfully so, but might be you'll be able to address that.

Thank you for the question. And as you can see in the bill, which is actually very straightforward in its language, nothing in the bill is drafted actually affects Prop 13, doesn't change any taxation rates.

All it does is simply puts a question before the voters whether or not in the future elections, because we have seen a pattern right now of continued abuse of the initiative process to be able to try to put higher voter threshold questions to the voters, whether or not the same proportion of voters should agree to that. So there's nothing in the ballot language that will change taxation.

Thank you.

Assembly Member Sanchez, you have a question?

Thank you. Thank you for letting me sit in. And I just want to make this clear for the people at home and our taxpayers at home, to the opposition to Howard Jarvis, will this make it easier to raise our taxes?

Okay, thank you. That's all I need to know. I'll be voting no.

Yes.

Yes, for the record.

Are there any other questions or committee members? Seeing and hearing no further questions or comments, Assembly Member Ward, you may close.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank staff also for their quick work on helping us to analyze this bill. A few points, I appreciate Committee's consideration of this and I think that this could actually be a very important question for the voters to consider and ultimately to provide fairness in how we are treating these kinds of measures going forward. Wanted to really just focus on some of the specific issues that were raised here today.

Again, I'm going to repeat this now and probably as long as this is alive for discussion. There is a very simple proposition in front of us. If there is a question before us that proposes to raise something to a greater than majority vote, shouldn't the same proportion of voters agree with you? And that's important. To my friend from the high desert, we talked about this before about rural and urban, and I try to think very closely about how this affects all of our communities.

And I want to assure you that I think that some of the very same issues that would be affected for local districts, whether it's a special district, like a fire service district, or the city of Victorville. No matter the size of the city, your voters there are going to be impacted by the outcomes and the opportunities for them to decide for themselves future measures that this might affect.

We had talked about Ohio, and I know that's come up a lot this week, but I want to be clear. I'm glad Opposition is raising the issue, but I think that they're absolutely kind of applying it incorrectly here. Ohio was placed on the ballot to be able to raise their constitution, all constitutional questions, their state's guiding document to a clear 60% measure, and that was believed to be in response to something that was going to be coming up in the general election.

Were ACA 13 in effect in the state of Ohio, it would have required that measure to pass by 60%. And that's all we're saying. Get the same proportion of voters to agree with you if you want to see something enshrined in the state constitution. Fortunately, from my opinion, that did not pass even below a simple majority. We have talked about the Legislature exempting itself. We already have a two-thirds threshold here in the Legislature to put something before the ballot as we're discussing through this ACA.

So we're already at that higher bar, had talked about the question about whether or not this is going to affect Prop 13 or Prop 26 or Prop 218. No, it does not. There's nothing in that language that says that we're going to undo Prop 13 or that we're going to raise taxes. This has been accused of being an attack on constitutional norms.

I would flip that in a mirror and really say that what we're seeing right now is a pattern of abuse that is attacking our constitutional norms, that we have a guiding document here that ensures that one person, one vote with a majority vote is how we decide decisions.

And that we have seen in 1990 organization come forward and try to put forward a very similar question that failed, that did not get 50%, but there was an attempt back in your analysis as early as 1990 to raise something to two-thirds. And we all remember those that were here-I was not yet, I was in the city council-an effort in 2018 to be able to do very much the same and that qualified.

But worse, not only was that actually attempting to pervert our constitution, that also was something that many were inferring, was a shady negotiation tactic in the halls of this legislature to actually have that rescinded in exchange for the promise of a ban on soda taxes. So not only did that actually abusively use a mechanism to affect our constitution, the end result was to actually subvert rational, reasonable, deliberative discussion within the Legislature.

And then we saw again another effort to try to do the same in 2022 that did not qualify. It didn't get the necessary signatures. There might be one coming up in the near future and I'm sure given this pattern, we're going to see things go into the future beyond that. So I think the time is right that we put this forward to address the question. This is not without precedent, despite what we heard.

As I mentioned, Oregon has done this in their state constitution being back to 1998. And the city of San Diego, actually where I am from, had this very same issue come up in 2004 where a taxpayer organization wanted to try to raise our general taxes. We know special taxes are two-thirds when put forward before by a governmental body, but our general taxes, they also wanted to see it two-thirds. So there was a very similar countermeasure.

Of course, we're a charter city and we said if you're going to change the city charter, then you have to meet the same proportion of voters, and the voters agreed. And so I think that this is a very important constitutional protection that we deserve to put before California voters in spite of what is potentially coming down the road and give them the chance to be able to weigh in as well. What's fair is fair.

And I'll close by just asking the question again, if a greater than majority, if a supermajority of voters is the threshold that you think you should achieve, why can't you achieve that same threshold? I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Assembly Member Ward. It's very clear to me that this measure requires an initiative constitutional amendment to comply with any increased voter approval threshold that it seeks to impose on future ballot measures. It guarantees in the state constitution the ability of local governments to submit advisory questions to voters, which is absolutely essential. And when California voters adopted the initiative process more than 110 years ago, they were told that the initiative would ascertain the will of the majority of the people.

Unfortunately, since that time, numerous initiatives have sought to weaken voters' power by enacting new supermajority vote requirements for voters to approve ballot measures. A simple majority at one point in time should not be able to strip future supermajorities of voters of their rights to enact policies through ballot measures. So for that reason, I'm recommending a support, a 'do pass' of this measure to appropriations. Do I have a motion? Moved by Assembly Member Berman and seconded by Assembly Member Bennett and we will call the roll. Secretary, please.

The motion is 'be adopted' and re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations. Pellerin?

Aye.

Pellerin, aye? Lackey?

No.

Lackey? No. Bennett? Bennett, Aye. Sanchez?

No.

Sanchez, no. Lee? Low?

Aye.

Low, aye. Blanca Rubio.

Not voting.

Blanca Rubio. Not voting. Berman? Berman, Aye.

What's the vote number? Okay, we're going to put that on call and calling our members into the Assembly Elections Committee. So give us a moment, please. We'll go ahead and open the roll for our member, Assembly Member Lee.

Aye.

Lee?

Lee aye.

That measure passes five to two. Thank you very much. Meeting is adjourned.